Yada Yahowah

Questioning Paul

Volume Three

Devil’s Advocate

Plague of Death

Craig Winn

About the Author…

Twenty years ago, Craig Winn was an entrepreneur. The turbulent story of his last adventure is shared in his first book, In the Company of Good and Evil – From Zero to $3 Billion and Back Again. It is an entertaining read, providing an eyewitness account into the culture of a private and then public company.

After the Islamic suicide bombings of 9.11.2001, Craig met with al Qaeda and wrote Tea with Terrorists to explain – Who they are, Why they kill, and What will stop them. His most widely read book, Prophet of Doom – Islam’s Terrorist Dogma in Muhammad’s Own Words reorders the Qur’an chronologically, setting it into the context of Muhammad’s life using the earliest Hadith, notably Al-Tabari’s Tarikh | History and Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah | Life of the Messenger of Allah. If you are interested in knowing why fundamentalist Muslims commit 90% of the world’s most heinous terrorist acts, this book will answer your questions.

In his quest to resolve a puzzling prophetic anomaly, Craig began translating the text of the Dead Sea Scrolls. That endeavor led to Yada Yahowah, An Introduction to God, Questioning Paul, Observations, and now to Coming Home. Throughout, Mr. Winn has been committed to providing amplified translations, which are not only more accurate and complete, they are readily verified. As a result, he has been afforded hundreds of unique insights into the words Yahowah inspired, many of which are unheralded and profound.

Beyond his books, Craig Winn has been interviewed as an expert on religion, politics, and economics on over 5,000 talk radio programs worldwide and has hosted 5,000 more, leaving a vast quantity of archived shows from Shattering Myths to Yada Yah Radio. He currently produces a live podcast every Friday evening, where he discusses insights gleaned from his translations.

Mr. Winn is not a scholar or theologian, nor is he associated with any religious or political institution. He does not accept donations or receive financial backing from anyone. Everything he has written is shared freely online. Even his printed books are offered without royalty.

Over the past twenty years, Craig Winn has devoted ten hours a day, six days a week, to exploring Yahowah’s revelations. He enjoys God’s company and is enriched by the experience. If you have an open mind, and a genuine desire to learn, you will find his translations and explanations enlightening.

Mr. Winn encourages readers to share his translations and resulting insights with others, albeit with two important caveats: 1) You may not use them to promote any religious, political, or conspiratorial agenda. And 2) You may not use them to incite or engage in any violent act. When it comes to exposing and condemning errant and counterproductive ideas, wield words wisely. Also, it is always appropriate to acknowledge the source when citing someone’s work.

You may contact Craig at YadaYah.com. He enjoys constructive criticism and will engage with readers. But be forewarned: he is immune to religious idiocy and will not respond to threats or taunts. The YadaYah.com site provides links to his other books, to Yada Yah Radio, to many of his audio archives, as well as to friends and forums.

Lastly, Craig has a bias and an agenda. He knows and respects Yahowah, and he has devoted his life to advancing God’s primary objective: which is to call His people home.

Questioning Paul

Devil’s Advocate

…Plague of Death

1

Stoicheion | Mythology

Hard to Believe…

The third chapter of Galatians came to an abysmal conclusion, going well beyond where Satan had dared. Paul’s animosity toward God, His Torah, Covenant, and People knew no bounds. He disavowed his calling and annoyed the Almighty in so many ways it behooves us to provide a brief, albeit cynical, accounting.

Sha’uwl began this rather unappealing chapter by calling his audience, those who had rejected him and his preaching, ignorant, irrational, and unreasonable. He claimed that they were seduced and bewitched, and as a result, they were now slandering him.

The issue was the Towrah. The Galatians recognized that it was vastly more credible than any of Paul’s duplicitous rants. In rebuttal, Paul told them that his religious faith was now the sole means to acquire the spirit. Simultaneously, the Towrah was denigrated in Gnostic fashion and besmirched as “flesh.”

According to the Father of Lies, Yahowah’s Teaching and Guidance was vexing and annoying. His was a chaotic plan, even an unremitting source of suffering. Anyone sufficiently foolish to respond to Yahowah’s Towrah by acting upon God’s instructions was obviously being counterproductive.

The entirety of Yahowah’s witness regarding the formation of the Covenant, its conditions and benefits, was dismissed. That history was replaced with a single word: “Faith.” It became synonymous with Paul’s new religion – about which he rambled incoherently. As a result, rather than Yisra’elites being the sons of Abraham, the torch was passed to Christians. We call this sleight of hand “Replacement Theology.”

Around the 10th verse of the 3rd chapter of Galatians Sha’uwl goes beyond the pale. Yahowah’s Towrah | Teaching is said to curse all who act upon what God has committed to writing on our behalf. Paul had the audacity to claim that, “with the Torah, no one is vindicated or saved.” This is evidently because, if we do one thing God asks, we have to do everything He commands, or we will die. That, of course, would be news to God. Then straining credulity, Paul’s answer is faith in the undisclosed. And to prove it, he misquotes the Torah.

Digging himself into the pit of She’owl | Hell, the Devil’s Advocate would have us believe that Christos “bought us back from the evil and malicious curse of the Towrah.” When all the while we have been led to believe that the Passover Lamb suffered, opening the Door to Life, so that we could live with God. He died to rid us of God’s “evil and hateful influence” in our lives. Somehow, I do not suspect that either Yahowah or Yahowsha’ are going to see the humor in this claim. But alas, Paul once again misappropriated something God said to “validate” his assertion.

While I do not follow the logic, this somehow means that Gentiles are healed, not by the Word of God, but instead by the “beneficial word of Abram” which “becomes in Christo Iesou the promise of the spirit” and is “possessed by faith.” Got it?

The nincompoops Paul claimed were morons are now addressed as “brothers according to man.” I suppose we should turn the other cheek and let bygones be a thing of the past unless we are assailing God’s credibility. Then… “Nonetheless, I say a man having been validated with an agreement, no one accepts added provisions,” which is, of course, what Paul is doing.

This leads to the great “seed” caper. Bypassing the seed being sown, its germination, taking root, and growing, then bearing fruit, we go from faith to faith, tossing out the Towrah which provided the seeds and told us how to plant them. “Nonetheless,” to cite the Father of Lies, thanks to Sha’uwl we can now dispense with all of the prophets from Moseh to Shamuw‘el and from Dowd to Mal’aky, because nothing of merit occurred in the ensuing 2000 years between Abraham and Yahowsha’. Therefore, it goes without saying, we ought to invalidate the 545 years which transpired between Abraham and the liberation of the Children of Yisra’el. And that means we can dispense with the revelation of the Towrah through the introduction of the Miqra’ey – not that they are relevant to Sha’uwl’s story, anyway. This is “because if from the Towrah the inheritance is no longer from a promise, but to Abram by a promise he has favored the God,” or some such nonsense.

Should you wonder why Yahowah bothered with the Towrah, even the liberation of the Children of Yisra’el from slavery, Paul generously provides the answer: “until the seed which might come to whom it has been promised, even commanded by messengers in the hands of the middleman.” Well, that’s perfectly sensible. After all, “but now the middleman, he is not of one, but the God, he is one.” Which is good to know. Otherwise, we may have been confused.

Having arrived at the 21st verse, we are surprised to learn that “indeed, the Torah is against the promises of God. Or, maybe not.” But at least we have the assurance that if the Towrah could vindicate, there would be some who are vindicated.

Fortunately, all that confusing nonsense was now a thing of the past. Paul has cleared it up for us with the “bringing of the Faith.” Based upon his stalwart assurances, he has freed us from those nasty Towrah entanglements, God’s obvious errors, and His mean-spirited restrictions. And the people shouted, “Hallelujah!” Free at last, praise Paul Almighty we are free at last. Free from God, of course, but let’s not sweat the details.

And good thing because, according to the Devil’s Advocate, “the Towrah had become an enslaving pedagogue, pedantic and dogmatic with its strict, old-fashioned methods and overbearing demeanor.” Moses, the Great Liberator, had obviously regressed and had become no better than the cruel taskmaster he had killed for tormenting his people. Nevertheless, the moment Paul revealed his Faith, there would be no return to Torah-induced slavery. The incarcerating and pedantic, overbearing nature of the Towrah had been replaced with “doing nothing” and still “being justified.” Yes, indeed, with a little religion we are now able to kick that unsavory habit of listening to God. We even get to toss out the first statement Yahowah etched in stone, about Him liberating His people, because it does not jibe with Paul’s story.

Best of all, the meaningless promises that the “old” God had made, well they were suddenly valid again, albeit with a caveat. In a senior moment He forgot to whom He had made these promises, so Paul solved that problem by revealing that Gentiles were now the real Jews. They were heirs to the Covenant that, well, no longer existed.

Okay, this catapults us into the 21st century, a time of multiculturalism and gender ambiguity. Freed of all reality, Paul would have us believe that we are all Abraham’s seed. But, how is that possible if there was only one of them. But I digress, let’s not look too closely at the man behind the curtain. It will tarnish the illusion.

With the 3rd chapter of Galatians behind us, nothing changed. Paul remained committed to denouncing the Torah. 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)

Say what? Slaves are owned and thus do not own. And in that slaves are subject to lords, they cannot act as lords. Therefore, we cannot render on as “belonging to” or “being.” And yet as you shall soon discover, most every English bible translation, conflicted over the concept 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 offer: “But I say.” And those who speak for Him don’t suggest that His Torah enslaves, or that God acts like a “lord, controlling everyone.”

Inspiring the political slogan that swept Barack 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 considered, Sha’uwl 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 implying that if believers were to reject the Torah and accept his “Promise” on faith they would be free to grow. And yet since the terms and conditions associated with our growth are delineated in only one place, the Towrah’s depiction of the Covenant remains indispensable to those who want to be with God and indefensible to those who prefer Paul.

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 Towrah as if our lives depended upon it, and Sha’uwl has insisted that we discard it so that we might be free of God’s abuse. 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 denotes 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 Paul’s 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 anything of value which is required to grow, preferring instead to dish out his own personal brand of poison. Truth is upended and inverted. According to Yah, His Towrah’s pivotal story is the liberation of His children from bondage so that those who accept His Covenant might become His heirs.

Paul’s Greek was so lacking that a handful of words had to be added to resolve the grammatical deficiencies in 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 Yahowah’s child, we are not “lord of all.” Moreover, being Yahowah’s “servant” is something to aspire to, not disdain. However, it is evident that Jerome’s 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 Paul’s 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.”

This may have been exactly what Paul intended. If so, it is the antithesis of what we experience as children in Yahowah’s Covenant. Paul’s deception is fostered by the implication that Yahowah acts like a “Lord,” when it is the Adversary who seeks to lord over mankind while God strives to be our Father. It is as if Paul is gazing into a mirror. Everything is backward.

Before we move on to Paul’s next point, there is something curious about kurios. It was translated as “the lord and master” in this passage because that is the word’s 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 are translated using 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 universally ignored their established symbolism and printed “Lord” instead. In the relatively few times in which kurios was written out, as it is here, it is rendered “lord,” with a lowercase “l” 54 times, as “master” 11 times, and as “sir” 6 times by these same religious publications.

Since Sha’uwl’s Greek remains wanting, let’s 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” wasn’t 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 (ΠΡΣ).” (Galatians 4:2)

The intent is now obvious, albeit incredulous. There is only one God, one Author of the Towrah. He cannot be both the foreman and the Father, at one point mean and the other kind.

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 God of the Torah is authoritarian and controlling, and that His approach is burdensome and laborious. These mischaracterizations are designed to make Paul and his Faith appear preferable. The tactic is known as a Straw Man.

Sha’uwl 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 blasphemous to say the least.

Positioning God, who is an advocate of freewill, liberty, and empowerment in this manner, and depicting Him as controlling while stunting the growth of His children, puts Sha’uwl in a demonstrably adversarial position. In his tortured attempt to make the Towrah appear passé, the principal author of the Christian New Testament is steadfastly undermining his dubious 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 a political authority, direct and control common laborers. The second describes property and money managers hired by a homeowner. They are incompatible concepts, and neither is 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 plurals. 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 can’t use this as an excuse because the “foremen” and “managers” are working on behalf of the “Father” at the end of the passage, and religious Jews seldom refer to God as Father.

To their credit, the New American Standard Bible accurately conveyed Paul’s 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, although inaccurate, conclusion is that Paul was saying that God planned for the Torah to be outmoded and superseded. But if that’s 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. Therefore, this statement 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 is 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 ΠΡΣ was meant to be capitalized and represent our Heavenly “Father.”

Moving on, we find Paul’s word choices in this next statement deteriorating appreciably, becoming far more damaging than in the previous ones. Therefore, let’s 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.” As we have seen, while slavishly accurate grammatically, they have taken great liberty in their renderings of the words, themselves. Translating stoicheion (pronounced stoy·khi·on) as “elements,” completely subverts its intent.

To be fair, almost 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 Plato’s writings and is common in the philosophy and cosmology of Greek antiquity, especially among the Stoics. Specifically, stoicheion was used to “differentiate between the various cults associated with the earth, water, air, and fire, as well as the celestial bodies, all of which were worshiped as deities through Hellenistic syncretism.” Stoicheion is, therefore, a pagan religious concept, 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 considerable magnitude because Paul is using it to describe, or more specifically, to mischaracterize Yahowah’s Towrah – a book which universally denounces religion, especially the worship of the physical world and celestial bodies. But now Sha’uwl wants us to believe that God’s Towrah is advocating what it condemns. This is not unlike his claim in Romans 7 that the Towrah was the source of his personal perversions.

In that stoicheion is the most dishonest and disdainful criticism Paul has wielded against God’s Word, and especially His Towrah, since he implied that God’s “Old System” was “malicious” in Galatians 1:4, before we consider an amplified translation of Galatians 4:3, we must come to terms with why this word was selected and what it actually meant. Toward this goal, let’s 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. After conveying the perspective I have already presented, 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.”

That is funny. There is no such thing as a “Judaizer,” and yet nonetheless, rather than hold Paul accountable for saying something that is wildly inappropriate, his mistake is blamed on his imaginary foes. And yet if that were the case, then how does one pretend that the one who is confused is speaking for God?

In that it is uncommonly used, should you be curious, syncretism is defined as the “amalgamation and combination of different forms of belief, intermixing and commingling religious myths.” In this context, it 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 – little more than an amalgamation of prior religious myths.

Although Christianity and Islam run afoul of their monotheistic claims with their Trinity and Satanic Verses, the biggest concern 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 along with their one god.

Also, as I will continue to affirm, “Judaizers” were invented by Paul. They are as mythical as today’s “Palestinians.” There is no mention of them anywhere in history. Apart from the psychotic recesses of this man’s mind, and in the minds of those he beguiled, there has never been a “Judaizer.”

More twisted still, “Judaizing” is a complete misrepresentation of what it means to be Torah observant. We are asked to closely examine and carefully consider the Towrah for our own edification. God’s instructions ought to be reflected in our lives and families. We are not told to share Yahowah’s message nor encouraged to compel anyone to His way of thinking. If someone says something erroneous about God in our presence, we will typically offer a correction. The misguided can accept or reject God’s advice on their own recognizance.

For example, it is not my business to tell you how you respond to this assessment of Paul’s letter. And yet it is appropriate for me to explain my response. You can accept it or reject it. Books are easier to put down than they are to pick up.

My goal remains to help those seeking help. If you have questions, I’m happy to provide Yahowah’s answers. But if you believe that Paul wrote the inerrant word of God and that the Torah was enslaving and has been replaced, then please just go away. While it is unlikely that such an individual actually read Volume 1 of Questioning Paul and is now embarking on Volume 2, if so there is nothing I can or want to do for you.

In reality, Judaizer is a straw man, a debate fallacy whereby the presenter, rather than refuting the merits of his opponent’s 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. Paul has the market cornered on straw men, producing them in rapid fashion.

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, if historians were to define religious Jews with a single word, their designation would be “monotheistic.” The last thing an informed and rational individual would ascribe to Yahuwdym would be the idea of deifying the physical world, the earth, sun, moon, planets, and stars. And yet these Christian scholars are proposing to justify the inappropriate incorporation of stoicheion into Paul’s letter.

To their credit, and to their religion’s 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 Sha’uwl’s 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 “Yahowah’s 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 a nugget of truth. The “teachers” Sha’uwl has been opposing, “understood” that “the Torah” represented the “path to salvation.” The disciples, therefore “advised the Galatians to follow” the Towrah’s teaching and guidance. It is what Yahowah said, it is what Yahowsha’ taught, so we should not be surprised that it is what the disciples Shim’own, Ya’aqob, and Yahowchanan conveyed. Everyone was singing the same song except Sha’uwl. And this means that in Paul’s world, a “false teacher” was anyone who shared God’s Word and therefore undermined His words.

Then affirming that the depravity haunts 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 Paul’s religion. They have ingested the poison and it has rendered these theologians as averse to God as was their mentor.

These same Christian clerics, after admitting that Paul wrote stoicheia to besmirch the Torah, calling it the “essence of pagan religious philosophy,” translate 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 Paul’s 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,” let’s 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)

Sha’uwl unleashed his “children” metaphor way back in Galatians 3:7. He is now exploiting “as a result of the Faith, we can come to exist as Abram’s children.” This was in opposition to becoming Yahowah’s 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: “Indeed, the Torah accordingly is against the promises of the God. Not may it become. For it had been given to the Torah to be the one with the power and ability to impart life, certainly in the Torah would be the righteous and vindicated. (3:21) To the contrary, the writing imposed restrictions, trapping, and enclosing everything under the control of error and evil, missing the way in order that the promise could be from the Faith of Iesou Christou might at some time be passively given to the believers. (3:22) But before this coming to the Faith, under the control of the Towrah we were actually being held in custody as prisoners, confined and strictly controlled, restricted and trapped until the bringing about of the Faith was revealed.” (Galatians 3:23)

It was then that Sha’uwl introduced the first of his four Towrah substitutes, beginning in Galatians 3:24-25: “As a result, therefore, the Towrah had become our disciplinarian and enslaving pedagogue, pedantic and dogmatic with its strict, old-fashioned methods and overbearing demeanor, a taskmaster, 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 forth and arrived the Faith, this belief system and religion, no longer do we exist under the auspices of an old fashioned and strict disciplinarian, this pedagogue who instructs in a particularly pedantic and dogmatic manner using harsh, old-dated methods.” (Galatians 3:25)

This infantile metaphor was augmented by: “So I say, as long as the heir exists as someone who is 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.” (Galatians 4:2)

This 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.” (Galatians 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 Towrah.

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 as “universal system or global dispensation.” Kosmos is from komeo which conveys the idea of “administrative control and the disposition of power” – which speaks to Paul’s 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 one’s own.” So lurking under the surface there are a plethora of Satanic notions associated with kosmos—a word which appeared innocent at first blush.

And as we now know, there is nothing innocent associated with Paul’s use of stoicheion (pronounced stoy·khi·on). No matter how it is translated, it is very, very troubling when associated with Yahowah’s Towrah | Guidance. 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 “Christ” “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 rather obvious that Paul wants the faithful to believe that the Torah is comprised of “demonic religious mythology.”

But that’s not the end of the disparaging associations. Stoicheion also indicates 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 Torah’s 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 travels through the Towrah. It is also at odds with Yirma’yah / Jeremiah 31, whereupon concurrent with His return, Yahowah promises to write a copy of His Towrah inside of us.

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 Yahowah’s depiction of His “mal’ak – spiritual messengers” being “tsaba – organized into 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 choose to engage in a relationship with Yahowah.

However, as a fallen spiritual messenger, stoicheion accurately describes the only condition Satan knows—the one he rebelled against. So now Yahowah’s Adversary is having his messenger ascribe the condition he despised to the Torah, hoping that believers will swallow Sha’uwl’s poison and, like lemmings, plunge to their deaths. 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 one’s own.” Therefore, it is beginning to look like someone has let their guard down, letting us peek behind the veil.

But there are more disparaging connotations. When we investigate stoicheion’s 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 Yaruwshalaim with the Torah in a derogatory fashion, stating that both enslave.

Words which share a common root with stoicheion describe Sha’uwl’s 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 Sha’uwl.

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.

Paul’s 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,” we’d 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 Torah’s “elementary doctrine,” why would such enlightenment be considered as a source of authoritarian control that stunts our growth here in Galatians?

What I don’t understand is how Christians have come to accept Paul’s inverted portrayal of the Torah. God’s Word describes our Heavenly Father’s relationship with us, details the liberation of God’s children, and articulates the path to Yahowah’s Home. So how do they construe this to be about “enslaving” us? As unbelievable, inaccurate and counterintuitive as Sha’uwl’s upside down and revisionist world has become, it’s 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 Paul’s epistles to “Scriptural” status, and as a result, this troubled man’s 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 Paul’s 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 that’s 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 Paul’s 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 Paul’s blasphemy.

However, while the words were grossly mistranslated, especially “and that’s 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 he fathered, the Torah was poorly conceived and it had a negative influence on people’s 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 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 Passover Lamb, why did Yahowsha’ quote it so often and say otherwise? If the Torah’s influence ended with the “birth of ‘Jesus’,” why did he observe it? Was it merely a coincidence that Yahowsha’ played his part in fulfilling the Miqra’ey of Pesach in the precise manner described in the Towrah and on the days established therein? Or if it became obsolete after his sacrifice in 33 CE, why did he tell us that 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 ever contemplated, my words pale in comparison to Yahowsha’s farewell message to his disciples.

“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 God’s message), and the Psalms (psalmois) about (peri – because of, with regard to, on behalf of, and concerning) me.’” (Luke 24:44) Why isn’t anyone 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)

Yahowsha’ opened their minds and pointed them to the Writings – the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms – knowing that this was the only place where Yahowah could become known and what He was offering understood. In context, this confirms something I have long realized and professed: our opportunity to know and understand Yahowah is as good, if not considerably better, as anyone at any time, including the Yisra’elites during the Exodus and Yahowsha’s disciples. Even after having spent three years at his side, they did not understand who he was or what he had done until he opened their minds and directed their attention to Yahowah’s testimony.

And that is likely why only one of the twelve disciples shared anything of Yahowah’s life. They realized that everything we need to know is already available in writing in Yahowah’s Torah, Prophets, and Psalms.

Yahowsha’s statement is reminiscent of his favorite prophet, the Messiah and son of God, Dowd | David. In his Mizmowr / Psalm 19, we read: “Yahowah’s Towrah is complete and entirely perfect, returning and restoring the soul. Yahowah’s 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 (ΧΝ) must undergo and experience suffering (pascho – be afflicted because it is sensible) and rise up amidst (anistemai – to establish by taking stand in one’s 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 role in the fulfillment of the Miqra’ey of Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym – the three most important days in human history. This is the way to God that Sha’uwl 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 the Father on “Bikuwrym – Firstborn Children,” not a bodily resurrection from a corpse. In this light, anistamai speaks of His soul “rising up” from She’owl and “into the midst” of the living.

After telling his disciples that his life and sacrifice could only be understood from the perspective of considering what was written in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms with an open mind, Yahowsha’ 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 Yahowah’s]) 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 one’s inheritance (hamartia – the consequence of being mistaken; from a, not and meros, being assigned an allotment with regard to one’s destiny),’ to all (pas) nations, races, and places (ethnos – ethnicities), commencing and leading (archomai – first beginning) from (apo) Yaruwshalaim (‘Ierousalem – a transliteration of the Hebrew name Yaruwshalaim, the Source of Instruction on Reconciliation).” (Luke 24:47)

“Metanoeo – change your perspective, attitude, and thinking,” a translation of the Hebrew shuwb, is an important concept. Unless and until we are willing to reject religion, and view Yahowsha’ as the Passover Lamb from the perspective of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, thinking differently by making the appropriate connections, there is no way to extend our lives, much less understand the path to God.

Yahowsha’ prepared his disciples to present his life such that it could be understood from the perspective of fulfilling the Torah. The truth would be made available to “pas ethnos – every ethnicity, to every race and nation,” thereby undermining Paul’s principal 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)

The disciples were privy to information and experiences which, when viewed from the Towrah’s perspective, lead to understanding. And since neither Abraham nor faith have been mentioned, but God the Father and His Towrah have, Yahowsha’ is affirming to his disciples that Yahowah’s promises can be found in the place Paul is attempting to demean and discard.

“And behold (kai idou – now pay attention), I, myself, have prepared and sent you off as Apostles to convey the message (ego apostello – I have equipped you to deliver the word, sent forth) of my Father’s (mou ΠΡΣ) 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 Spirit’s 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 Shabuw’ah, when the Set-Apart Spirit descended upon the beneficiaries of Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym in Yaruwshalaim – enriching and empowering them – just as Yahowah promised in Qara’ | Called Out, the central book of His Towrah | Teaching. With its fulfillment, the Covenant’s promises were enabled by God.

Those who answer Yahowah’s Invitation to be Called Out and Meet on “Pesach – Passover” become immortal. The beneficiaries of “Matsah – UnYeasted Bread” are perfected and considered right in our Heavenly Father’s eyes. This leads to “Bikuwrym – Firstborn Children” where God’s 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 “Shabuw’ah – Promise of the Shabat.” This is Yahowah’s message to Yisra’elis and Gowym. It is the reason the Towrah was written.

Since Paul’s position is ludicrous in light of Yahowsha’s testimony, we have but two options relative to 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 God’s Word are diametrically opposed. But if what we are reading has been corrupted in transmission, if every early copy of Paul’s 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.



Questioning Paul

Devil’s Advocate

…Plague of Death

2

Ptochos | Belittling

On the Other Hand…

If we could remove Paul’s next sentence from this man’s appalling dissertation, with four corrections, it would be his first accurate statement. It is somewhat consistent with God’s testimony – which is a refreshing change. Of course, it follows a plethora of lies and will lead to many more, but still, even a glimpse of lucidity in the midst of this insanity is a welcomed relief.

In the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear, we find: “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 the lexicons at our disposal, 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 ΘΣ) sent out (exapostello – out of being set apart and dispatched the messenger with a message on a mission) the (ton) son (ΥΙΝ) 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 translate 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)

While Paul would have us believe that the “pleroma – fullness and complete content” of the Towrah’s time had come to an end – Yahowah’s Towrah | Guidance is everlasting. Even the portion of God’s Towrah | Teaching currently available to us extends 3000 years beyond Paul’s pathetic letter – taking us to year 7000 Yah.

Yahowah’s plans for His creation span seven thousand years – not four thousand and change. God’s story was not nearly complete. The best part was still to come – Kipurym | Reconciliations and Sukah | Camping Out. Promises made will be promises kept.

Beyond not wanting to shortchange His creation, Yahowah’s timing is precise. It is not “chromos – unspecified, occurring on some indefinite occasion.” Abraham and Yitschaq confirmed their Covenant relationship with Yahowah in year 2000 Yah (1968 BCE). In year 3000 Yah, the Messiah and Son of God laid the Cornerstone of Yahowah’s Home. Returning to Mowryah | Moriah in year 4000 Yah (33 CE), Yahowsha’ fulfilled Pesach | Passover, and helped enable the benefits derived from Matsah | UnYeasted Bread and Bikuwrym | Firstborn Children, leading to Shabuw’ah | the Promise of the Shabat – each on the prescribed day. And because God is consistently precise, Yahowah will reconcile His relationship with Yisra’el and Yahuwdah on Yowm Kipurym in year 6000 Yah (October 2nd, 2033 at sunset, 6:22 PM in Yaruwshalaim). Five days later, right on schedule, the Covenant’s Children will Sukah | Camp Out with God, enjoying the restoration of the Kingdom of Dowd | David for one thousand years – taking us to year 7000 Yah. God’s plans are the antithesis of “unspecified and indefinite.”

“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, even sent off as a spiritual messenger,” he was “sent off, prepared and equipped,” to serve us.

However, when “Son of God” is being used as a title, which is the implication here, then it should rightfully be attributed to Dowd | David – the lone individual given this distinction by God. He spoke of his relationship with his Heavenly Father, writing brilliant and inspiring prose in his Mizmowr | Psalms and Mashal | Proverbs, 1000 years prior to Paul’s pathetic attempt to write the actual Messiah out of Yahowah’s story.

It is always appropriate to call a child of the Covenant the son of God because it is consistent with Yahowah’s own nomenclature. However, we have to be careful when addressing Yahowsha’ because he consistently avoided this title, consistently referring to himself as the “Son of Man.” Further, largely because of Paul’s letters and his spellbinding influence over Mark, Luke, and through them, Matthew, the title Yahowah afforded Dowd was misappropriated and bequeathed to the Christian Christ, giving him a divine varnish.

“Ginomai ek – come to exist out of, originating from” a woman is surprisingly accurate. Yahowsha’ was born in the ordinary sense. There was nothing about his physical presence that would have impressed anyone – and that was by design. There was no virgin birth, and he was not born on Christmas Day. These are all Christian embellishments and myths, each designed to distract the world’s attention away from the Passover Lamb while creating the false impression that Yahowsha’ was God.

Should any of this be difficult for you to accept at this point in your study, that is understandable. I am editing this section of Questioning Paul twenty years after I began this voyage of discovery with Yahowah in the fall of 2001. Therefore, I have long since translated and contemplated thousands of Yahowah’s prophetic statements regarding Dowd and have come to appreciate God’s position relative to the Shepherd and Lamb. As you make your way past Questioning Paul and through Observations to Coming Home, you will no doubt concur.

Hypo, translated “under,” could have been rendered “by means of,” thereby making this portion of Paul’s statement accurate as well. Yahowsha’ is a corporeal manifestation of Yahowah’s will and His Towrah’s purpose. He came into our world “hypo – as a result of and because of” the Towrah.

However, he was not “hypo – under” the Towrah in the sense of being subservient or subjugated – no one is. And sadly, based upon what has come before and what follows, this was clearly Paul’s intent. 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. Sandwiched in between them, Galatians 4:3 conveys Paul’s conclusion that the Torah was an inadequate first step and that it momentarily enslaved us. This remains an insurmountable problem for Pauline Doctrine and thus Christian credibility.

Since she will be compared to Hagar, Sarah’s slave momentarily, it is instructive to know that it is not likely that Miryam | Mary was the name of Yahowsha’s mother. Miry means “rebellious” and ‘am means “people.” Further, Miryam | Miriam led a rebellion against her brother, Moseh | Moses, greatly angering God. Therefore, Yahowah would never have chosen a woman by this name to bear the Passover Lamb. Those who rebelled against God, like Paul, likely chose it, with it serving to affirm their disdain for Moseh and the Towrah.

Trying to sweep the mess they have made under a flying carpet, Roman Catholic apologists now claim that hers was an Egyptian name and meant “beautiful lady,” even “well-beloved,” in the language of the land that enslaved the Children of Yisra’el. And speaking of foreign influences, she was not the Mother of God or Queen of Heaven either as these titles came from Babylon.

As we shall soon discover, Paul will try to contrast this mother with Hagar, the slave of Abraham’s 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.

The fourth error in Paul’s best sentence thus far is that Towrah never should have been translated as nomon. It was the title of the best-known and most recognizable book in the land at the time. As a title, Towrah should have been transliterated, just as we are doing now in English. And then if he wanted to translate towrah, he should have chosen any of the many Greek words for “teaching, guidance, instruction, and direction.”

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.”

I had thought that theological animosity for Yahowah’s Towrah was why they rendered hypo as “subject to” as opposed to “because of” or “by the means of” the Towrah. But upon further reflection, the NLT may well have accurately reflected Paul’s intended disdain for the Torah based upon the surrounding context.

While this was Paul’s best effort, it was riddled with deceptions. 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 Satan’s 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, tossing one partly-hewn rock into a pigsty is hardly the standard borne by those who serve Yah. And such thinking fails to appreciate how deceivers operate and how religions achieve their goals. The duplicitous realize their counterfeits must appear credible for them to prosper. And yet, while their bogus bills share many of the same strokes as legitimate ones, they are completely worthless – even illegal.

Along these lines, some Christian apologists posture the notion that it is unfair to label Paul “anti-Torah” because he occasionally 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 Paul’s willingness to negate his own thesis suddenly makes him credible?

Striving to make his delusions believable by associating his conclusions with God’s Word, Sha’uwl continues to lead unwary souls to She’owl. 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 implies that we were all “subject to the law,” which is invalid no matter how Paul’s words are interpreted. The Towrah exists on our behalf, to serve us, not the other way around. It frees us from submission and subjugation.

This also implies that we were redeemed from the Towrah instead of by the Towrah, thereby misrepresenting the entire purpose of God’s Guidance. And if that were not bad enough, the Towrah’s Covenant is the sole means to accommodate our adoption into Yahowah’s family.

Lastly, by saying that we “might be received back,” Paul is protesting that we were once God’s children but somehow became estranged. And that means that God cannot be trusted to protect His family. It suggests that His Covenant isn’t everlasting and that His promises are not enduring.

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 not actually a word, but instead something Paul made up and only he uses. Rendered “adoption” in Christian Bibles, this is the first of three deployments in Paul’s epistles. 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)

Since this all flows out of the same misguided rant, to properly appreciate his ploy, Sha’uwl has now proposed:

“So I say, as long as the heir exists as someone who is 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. (Galatians 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 world, we were subservient slaves. (Galatians 4:3)

But when came the fullness and complete contents of the unspecified time, the Theos sent out the son of Him, having come to exist from a woman, having come being under Towrah (4:4) in order that the ones under Towrah, he might buy back so that to the son’s adoption, we might be received back and obtained.” (Galatians 4:5)

Paul is wrong, 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 Towrah’s Covenant, where Yahowah makes His children immortal, perfect, enriched, and empowered so that we can grow and thrive. No one has ever been adopted by Yahowsha’. That is not the role of the Passover Lamb.

Buried under Paul’s bogus bill is the realization that our adoption into God’s family is facilitated by Bikuwrym | Firstborn Children as a result of Yahowsha’s fulfillment of Pesach | Passover and Yahowah’s contribution to Matsah | UnYeasted Bread. By substituting his lies for God’s gifts, everyone loses.

Yahowsha’ loved Yahowah’s Towrah. He observed the Towrah, taught from the Towrah, answered the Towrah’s Invitations, and embraced the conditions of the Towrah’s Covenant. It was based upon the Towrah that Yahowsha’ was able to serve as the lamb during the Miqra’ of Pesach, allowing Yahowah to fulfill Matsah, so that we could enjoy Bikuwrym and benefit from Shabuw’ah. Therefore, Yahowsha’s response to the Towrah and Sha’uwl’s statements regarding it are polar opposites.

As usual, the New Living Translation is not 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 Yisra’el were freed from slavery. The Towrah did not enslave them. It was His gift to them on Shabuw’ah – celebrating the promise of seven and the Shabat. The Towrah is Yisra’el’s Emancipation Proclamation.

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 that is fortunate for us, because it provides the narrow path to life.

As we approach this next protestation, 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 Paul’s letters. The clause “of the son” does not follow the placeholder for Spirit in the 2nd century codex.

Reprising his selection of exapostello, this time Paul unwittingly associates its meaning with our Spiritual Mother’s 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 ΘΣ), the (to) spirit (ΠΝΑ) 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 one’s father)’ – the (o) Pater | Father (ΠΡ – a placeholder derived from the Greek pater).” (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.”

The Hebrew word for “father” is ‘ab, while ‘abah is a verb and means “to be willing to accept someone or something.” This is especially relevant because “abba” is not a Greek word, and Yahowah’s chosen language is Hebrew. The Set-Apart Spirit would, therefore, never say “abba,” but instead “‘ab.”

This error would not have been worth mentioning had Paul not switched languages to that of the Babylonians and Assyrians, Aramaic, to make his point. By doing so, he has belittled the language of the Torah, and thus its voice. And that was his intent.

Paul, himself, never knew a father’s love nor the pleasure of being a father. He was sent off to rabbinical school as a young boy – never to return home. He never, in all of his long letters, spoke of his mother or father. And Sha’uwl never married, and thus never experienced the joy of being a parent. All of this I think contributed to his less-than-ideal temperament.

Worse, reading between the lines, it is likely Paul was abused growing up. Psychopaths are seldom the product of loving and nurturing homes. There is a high prevalence of childhood neglect and abuse in psychopathy – making this conclusion essentially certain. It was true with Muhammad as well.

This statement also 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 Yahowah’s Word. And as our Spiritual Mother, Her relationship with Yahowah cannot be defined as “father.”

Considering the vitriol Sha’uwl has unleashed against God’s 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 any sleight he has positioned as anything other than his attempt to demean the Torah. In this light, the one who is unnamed “originating from a woman, having come to exist under Towrah” in verse 4:4, will soon be compared with the “slave woman” of Galatians 4:23 who bears children who are enslaved by the Torah. The “adoption” process in 4:5 is being foisted to imply that the “children of promise” in 4:28 can bypass the Torah and still be part of his god’s family.

The awkward and invalid reference to the spirit” in Galatians 4:5 is an attempt to associate our Spiritual Mother with Sarah, just as Sha’uwl will do again in Galatians 4:27-31. And by having the Spirit speak to the Father in Aramaic, Sha’uwl not only dismisses the Hebrew Towrah, 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 realization 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 it is the spirit who allegedly “cries out,” as opposed to “us being prompted to call out.” The KJV wrote: “And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.”

This next thought, in this context, also affirms that Paul had positioned his previous statements to imply that Yahowah’s Torah was something from which we had to be freed in order to be saved. In the Nestle-Aland’s 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 (ΥΙΣ). But now (de) if (ei) a Son (ΥΙΣ) and (kai) an heir by chance (kleronomos – receiver of an inheritance through casting lots) through (dia) a theos (ΘΥ).” (Galatians 4:7)

Kleronomos has ghastly connotations. It is based upon kleros and nomos, with “kleros – the casting or drawing of lots in a game of luck” modifying “nomos – the Towrah’s nurturing allotment which provides an inheritance.” Nothing with God is perchance. That is what makes Him trustworthy. Chance, however, is akin to faith.

Beyond this, we were not slaves to the Torah, making Sha’uwl’s premise preposterous. God’s Word is the means to our liberation. Even the Hebrew word most commonly translated “saves,” yasha’, primarily means “to liberate, free, and deliver from harm’s way.”

In the process of liberating the Children of Yisra’el from human religious, political, economic, and military oppression Yahowah revealed His Towrah. By so doing, He demonstrated His willingness to do the same for all of us, and at any time.

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 coworkers, because it is an honor to work with Yahowah. After all, Yahowsha’ considered himself to be a servant and was predicted in Yasha’yah / Isaiah to be the “rightful coworker who would make many right by bearing their transgressions.”

Continuing to advance Paul’s slavery mantra, the New Living Translation published: “Now you are no longer a slave but God’s 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 Paul’s thesis, which claims that we must be “freed from the Torah’s 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 and persevere with all that is written in the scroll of the Torah, doing it.’ (Galatians 3:10)

So with that Torah, absolutely no one is vindicated or saved alongside God. It becomes evident: ‘Those who are justified and righteous, out of faith will live.’ (Galatians 3:11)

But the Towrah exists not out of faith. Instead to the contrary, ‘The one having done and performed them must live by them.’ (Galatians 3:12)

Christos bought us back from the evil and hateful curse and malicious influence of the Towrah, having become for our sake a repugnant and maligning curse, because it has been written: ‘A vengeful curse based upon divine slander on all those having hung on wood.’ (Galatians 3:13)

Then Sha’uwl claims that the Towrah is an instrument of death, saying that there is no life in it or inheritance from it.

“Indeed, the Torah accordingly is against the promises of the God. Not may it become. For if had been given to the Torah to be the one with the power and ability to impart life, certainly in the Torah would be the righteous and vindicated. (Galatians 3:21)

To the contrary, the writing imposed restrictions, trapping, and enclosing everything under the control of error and evil, missing the way in order that the promise could be from the Faith of Iesou Christou might at some time be passively given to the believers. (Galatians 3:22)

Sha’uwl goes on to associate the Towrah with enslavement, and Christon with freedom, as if the Towrah and Yahowsha’ were not only unrelated, but actually opposites.

“But before this coming to the Faith, under the control of the Towrah we were actually being held in custody as prisoners, confined and strictly controlled, restricted and trapped until the bringing about of the Faith was revealed. (Galatians 3:23)

As a result, therefore, the Towrah had become our disciplinarian and enslaving pedagogue, pedantic and dogmatic with its strict, old-fashioned methods and overbearing demeanor, a taskmaster, extending until Christon in order that, by means of the Faith we might, at some point in time, while doing nothing ourselves, be justified. (Galatians 3:24)

But now having come forth and arrived the Faith, this belief system and religion, no longer do we exist under the auspices of an old fashioned and strict disciplinarian, this pedagogue who instructs in a particularly pedantic and dogmatic manner using harsh, outdated methods.” (Galatians 3:25)

According to Paul, adoption and inheritance required being freed from the enslavement of the Towrah.

“So I say, as long as the heir exists as someone who is 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. (Galatians 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 world, we were subservient slaves.” (Galatians 4:3)

Reinforcing the foundation he had laid, Paul restates that abandoning the Torah is a precondition for adoption.

“But when came the fullness and complete contents of the unspecified time, the Theos sent out the son of Him, having come to exist from a woman, having come being under Towrah (4:4) in order that the ones under Towrah, he might buy back so that to the son’s adoption, we might be received back and obtained. (Galatians 4:5)

But because you are sons sent out by the god, the spirit into the hearts of us shouts, ‘Abba’ – the Pater | 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.” (Galatians 4:7)

Based upon these statements, it would be a fool’s folly to assume that Paul was lampooning the Talmud, Rabbinical or Roman Law as opposed to Yahowah’s Towrah. Moreover, since it is universally accepted that the Galatians were overwhelmingly Gentiles, the fact that they were never “under or subject to” Rabbinical Law is proof in itself that Sha’uwl wasn’t condemning his people’s religious traditions or Oral Law. So, it is bone-chilling to recognize that Sha’uwl – Christianity’s founding father – has condemned his soul to She’owl | Hell by composing the most appalling diatribe in human history. This is particularly distressing considering how many souls he has taken with him.

Sha’uwl told his audience that all they needed to be saved was to believe him, doing so while lying through his teeth. With every intoxicating thought and sickening word, the plague of death spread throughout the world. For something this poorly written, Paul’s faith would be surprisingly contagious. Not only would billions die estranged from God, the faith Sha’uwl | Paul promoted would become the Chosen People’s most menacing adversary.



Now that Paul has laid the foundation of his thesis – “the Towrah 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 Paul’s belittlement of the Torah, and in the midst of his crusade against God’s Word, we are compelled to accept the realization that Paul is continuing to associate some very unsavory things with Yahowah’s foundational testimony.

The next three pronouncements advance a singular thought. Here is the first of them through the eyes of the Nestle-Aland’s 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) theos (ΘΝ), 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)

God did not design us to be slaves, ergo, we were not begotten as slaves to nature. In fact, in the Towrah, nature is subservient to man.

Not knowing God does not enslave us. And freedom, while advantageous, does not turn us into gods. Yet, this was what Paul wrote. Theois is the plural of theos | god.

My former business partner, speaking of someone like Paul, said: “You can fix a lot of things, but you cannot fix stupid.” I only wish that was what we were dealing with here. This is entirely too sinister to call mistaken.

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. Too bad more modern audiences are not similarly offended.

Speaking of being irritating, remember that Sha’uwl 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 (ΘΝ), 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 (ΘΥ), 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), even (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 – you are desiring and taking pleasure in, wanting) to be controlled as a slave (douleuein)...” (Galatians 4:9)

Yahowah does not present Satan as deplorably as Sha’uwl describes God and His Word. I am flabbergasted, bewildered and disgusted, even suffering from an inability to properly project my revulsion.

Just a moment ago, Paul was telling believers that they had become gods, but now they are incompetent and worthless. Nevertheless, by slandering the Galatians for the third time, we can be assured that Paul’s preaching was no better than his writing. Those who knew Paul best, those who suffered through his verbal diatribes against the very God he claimed inspired him, rejected him – all of them. What is wrong with the rest of humanity?

So that you don’t think that I’m 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 people’s written expressions convey vastly more information than their verbal proclamations, and recognizing that Sha’uwl 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. Therefore, Paul had this wrong.

Beyond this, “mallon – more” is inappropriate in the context of the Covenant. Once we know Yahowah through His Towrah, after coming to understand what He is offering and asking in return, we are in a position to 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 what God said about Himself, the more we will come to love and respect Him. However, the same is not true for us. The entire purpose of the Set-Apart Spirit’s Garment of Light is to replace the darkness in our souls with His Light so that, as our Father, He sees Himself in us. Therefore, 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 is given the opportunity to ignore, reject, or accept the Covenant, should we embrace its terms and conditions, we are Yahowah’s sons and daughters forever. That is His promise, a vow memorialized among the Covenant’s benefits. When it comes to the revolving door to heaven, Paul had this wrong as well.

Paul is suggesting that, when he thought 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 as “have you returned, changing your beliefs,” is a compound of “epi – upon or against” and “strepho – to turn on one’s self, no longer caring for oneself by changing one’s mind.” It is defined by various lexicons as “to change faith or religious beliefs toward true worship and obedience.” Since God is opposed to religion, since God does not want to be worshiped, 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, but he also 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 as someone who is 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. (Galatians 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 world, we were subservient slaves. (Galatians 4:3)

But when came the fullness and complete contents of the unspecified time, the Theos sent out the son of Him, having come to exist from a woman, having come being under Towrah (4:4) in order that the ones under Towrah, he might buy back so that to the son’s adoption, we might be received back and obtained. (Galatians 4:5)

But because you are sons sent out by the god, the spirit into the hearts of us shouts, ‘Abba’ – the Pater | 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. (Galatians 4:7)

Certainly, by way of contrast, on the other hand then not having known, perceived, or acknowledged theos, you were enslaved to nature not existing as gods. (Galatians 4:8)

But now having known theos, but more and by contrast, having been known under theos | god, how have you returned, changing your beliefs back upon the incapacitating and incompetent, also infirmed, even worthless, belittling, and terrifying, submitting before dying in the elementary teachings and rudimentary principles of religious mythology which, reverting back again and again, you are choosing to be controlled as a slave...” (Galatians 4:9)

May I issue this warning? One’s sanity may be tested by such absurdity. The realization that 2.5 billion people today are under the spell of this schizophrenic psychopath and demonic charlatan is exasperating.

After all of these derogatory comments, and after proposing a ludicrous affinity between “stoicheion – religious mythology” and the “nomos – Towrah,” Paul calls Yahowah’s Testimony “asthenes – incapacitating and incompetent, even sickening” as well as “ptochos – worthless, belittling, and terrifying, as well as deadly.” There is nothing Paul could have written that could 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” God’s “elementary teachings,” they were “deciding to be controlled as a slave...” The opposite is true. Yahowah and His Towrah exist to liberate us from men such as these.

A man on a mission, the Devil’s Advocate, ripped the heart and life out of the Towrah, rejecting the Shabat, the Miqra’ey, and the Yowbel: “Days you keep watch and months and seasons and years.”

The Father of Lies is repudiating Yahowah’s instructions to celebrate the Shabat, the seventh day, so that it is special. By denouncing the central elements of God’s plan and promise, man’s opportunity to know Him and enjoy His company was obscured. And that was the intent of these words. Paul was denouncing Yahowah’s Miqra’ey | Invitations to be Called Out and Meet at the time designated in the spring, summer, and fall seasons, meeting with God in the first, third, and seventh months of the year. By so doing, there would be no hope of salvation for those who foolishly believed the Son of Evil.

Even the reference to years was designed to negate the observance of the Yowbel, designating the time when debts are forgiven and slaves are freed. As a result, Paul’s devotees remain clueless regarding the Towrah’s purpose and the date of God’s imminent return. For Christendom, Paul’s statement was devastating and irrecoverable. All Christians would die. Sha’uwl had foreclosed Heaven, eternal life, and salvation.

Those reading along in an English bible, or even keeping tabs with the Nestle-Aland Greek rendition of Paul’s epistle, may have noticed that the ninth verse appears to conclude with a question mark, leaving us to believe that the tenth verse is independent of the ninth’s 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, Sha’uwl’s statement goes from bad to worse because he is saying that we choose to be controlled and enslaved by Yahowah’s Towrah by observing and attending the Shabat, the Miqra’ey, 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 Yahowah’s “days,” His “months and seasons,” and His “years,” and therefore by accepting Yahowah’s 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 Sha’uwl’s diabolical thesis. Having separated Yahowsha’ from the Torah, he is now separating mankind from Yahowah.

More deceitful, deadly, destructive, and damning than any words ever written, those Paul scribed nearly 2000 years ago have precluded billions of souls from knowing God. Christians do not celebrate the Shabat, attend the Miqra’ey, or understand the Yowbel – and thus cannot engage in a relationship with Yahowah. They do not know what these days, months, seasons, and years represent. Most find them despicable.

Paul’s 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 Protestant Authorized 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 NLT’s liberal interpretation is more in keeping with Christianity’s antagonism for the Torah, and especially Yahowah’s 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 Sha’uwl’s intended message. He is demeaning the heart of the Torah: Yahowah’s Shabat (where we celebrate our relationship with God), 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 Years (where souls are freed and debts are forgiven). The wannabe Apostle has renounced the essence of God’s 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 connection between these spurious notions. And at that time, I was predisposed to render each of Paul’s statements as consistent with Yahowah’s overall message as the words themselves would allow. At the time, 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 worshiped 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’s letter. 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.”

As an affirmation of this abomination, Paul first introduced the concept of our “inheritance,” in Galatians 3:18, whereby he disassociated the Torah from God’s “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 Messenger’s arrival.”

Then in the second half of the 21st verse, the man with the audacity to contradict God’s 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 man’s enslavement on worldly schemes. The Towrah 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 figures – themselves apparently representing the Torah’s tendency to enslave.

So it was in the midst of this that we were confronted with Galatians 3:25, “But now having come to 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, the oppressive “lord and master” in Sha’uwl’s view 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 God, contradicting Yahowsha’, and twisting Yahowah’s testimony, to establish himself and his doctrine. It is Paul versus God and all of His witnesses and prophets. Therefore, Paul has not become the Adversary, but 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 Torah’s promises and thereby provide liberty for humankind.

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 them – all of which he has mangled. 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 Towrah, results in God coming to know us. Yahowah does not, however, know those who don’t know Him. Respecting Yahowah and His revelation results in being valued sufficiently by God to be adopted into His family. But those who do not revere God sufficiently to study His Word (a.k.a., the Towrah) are excluded from His family.

Those who do not know and understand the Towrah remain susceptible to Paul’s doctrinal delusions. And that poses a particularly difficult problem for Christians because they have been conditioned by Paul to ignore the Towrah. Therefore, they do not 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 averse to Yahowah and His plan of salvation. And yet, the most effective way to encourage Christians to reject Paul is to compare this man’s letters with God’s 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 God’s 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 Paul’s pleading to have any merit, so would hell.

But this egomaniac’s 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 Yahowah’s teachings. And by calling God’s plan a “worthless and incompetent initial step,” he is suggesting that only a fool would choose to trust God’s 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. Rather than freeing His children from bondage in Egypt, Paul would have you believe that Yahowah’s 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 let’s pretend for a moment that Sha’uwl’s 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 Sha’uwl speaking on behalf of? Was Sha’uwl 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 Sha’uwl repeatedly demeaned?

If you have not studied, and thus do not intimately understand, the Spirit behind Yahowah’s special day, the Shabat (where we learn to celebrate our relationship and calibrate time), the purpose of Yahowah’s seven annual meetings, or Invitations (wherein God delineates the path to eternal life, perfection, adoption, enrichment, and empowerment), or Yahowah’s Yowbel years (wherein all debts are forgiven and all people are freed), then please invest the time to read the first six volumes of Yada Yahowah.

Rather than facilitating our freedom from man’s works-based religious schemes, rather than providing the means to our salvation, rather than enabling our adoption into our Heavenly Father’s family by way of His Covenant, Sha’uwl 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 Yahowah’s plan of adoption are delineated thereby. The very days, months, seasons, and years Yahowsha’ observed and attended have been recast as God’s means to control and enslave His creation. When it comes to twisting, even inverting, Yahowah’s Word, and revising, even contradicting, His plan, this is as bad as it 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 Paul’s hatred of the Torah, and specifically his antagonism toward “observing and attending” Yahowah’s set-apart times for us to meet each week and year. This passage cannot be seen as anything other than an assault on the Shabat, Passover, UnYeasted Bread, Firstborn Children, the Promise of Seven, Trumpets, Reconciliations, Shelters, and the Yowbel years, whereby the self-proclaimed “Apostle” would have those who believe him reject the core aspects of God’s plan. And that is in spite of the fact that each element was described as an “eternal and everlasting prescription” in the Towrah.

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 God. 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 god’s supposed apostle.

I’ve always wondered how Christians reconcile the realization that Yahowsha’ observed the Shabat, the seven Miqra’ey, and the Yowbel, and that he endured Passover to give us renewed life. Yet in complete conflict with his example, Christians justify Sunday worship, Lent, Easter, Halloween, and Christmas, all based upon Paul’s senseless claims.

A rational review of this irrational diatribe leaves no other option than to realize that Paul, not “Jesus Christ,” is responsible for the faith of Christianity and serves as its founder. Without his 14 epistles and influence over Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts, there is nothing left of the religion.

Paul was telling the Galatians not to observe any aspect of Yahowah’s plan of reconciliation. As a result, the Galatians, as Celtic Gauls who were heavily influenced by the Druid religion as well as the Babylonian belief system through the Persians, even Greek mythology, would have continued to celebrate the pagan holidays which were incorporated into the Christian religion.

By this time, the Galatians were also Romans – and thus compelled to honor the Roman pantheon – which 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, and it is not, 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 say: to denounce the assimilation of Roman, Greek, and Babylonian mythological holidays. Having not done so, Christians would incorporate many of them into their amalgamated religion.

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, UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children, with Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday (“institution of Communion”), Good Friday (“death and burial of ‘Jesus’”), Holy Saturday (where “‘Jesus’ slept in the grave”), and Easter Sunday (the ‘resurrection’ of ‘Jesus’) 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, it’s worth noting that, had Paul not been so fixated on demeaning God’s Word, there were aspects of the Babylonian religion which were incorporated into rabbinical Judaism which were deserving of criticism.



Questioning Paul

Devil’s Advocate

…Plague of Death

3

Echthros | Despised

Without Reason…

Finally, Paul changes gears. We find him momentarily tabling his animosity against the Torah in favor of promoting himself while demeaning his audience. While these verses have no value spiritually, they are revealing, in that they paint a troubling picture of a tormented and psychotic individual.

The Nestle-Aland’s 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)

The Galatians had rejected him, so Paul was desperate to reassert his control. They were his initial audience, his first “converts,” and he would not let go of his prize. He was trying to manipulate them back into the fold. He wanted them to believe that only he could save them and that they were on the verge of being disenfranchised.

Paul had become god, savior, and saint. In his dysregulated mind, there would be hell to pay if they did not capitulate. And now he was lambasting them for the fourth time. He had called them traitors, idiots, slaves, and nincompoops, lashing out against them in bouts of psychotic rage. He had also placed a little honey in the trap in an effort to endear them to him. It was “You know I love you, but I have every reason to hate you! Please don’t leave me, because if you dare reject me, I’ll make you pay, crushing and condemning you!”

Having victimized the Galatians with his delusional claims regarding himself and God, Paul was now playing the victim, pretending that those he had and was abusing were somehow taking advantage of him. Since Paul viewed himself as perfect, they had to be wrong. He had become a crazymaker with his toxicity. Those who have had the great displeasure of enduring a Cluster B personality disorder up close and personal understand what I am sharing.

Even if we were to ignore the obvious signs of mental illness, as is the case with most annoying habits, Sha’uwl has misspoken once again. Those who faithfully present Yahowah’s message never labor in vain. Even when God’s Word is rejected, our witness serves a purpose – even if it just leaves people without excuse.

And there is nothing to fear. Souls who ignore or reject God’s invitation to participate in His Covenant are not punished as Christian mythology portends. 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 Yahowah’s Word so that we can accurately convey His message. How God’s testimony is received is not our responsibility. Therefore, Sha’uwl’s lament is inappropriate and self-centered. He is once again wrong.

The KJV’s 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 it is 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 is not accurate, it’s less inaccurate: “I fear for you. Perhaps all my hard work with you was for nothing.” That is a bingo. They got it right. Paul’s accusation was a covert threat.

In the words which follow, Paul issues a command which would not have been appropriate even if he were God. Every statement he has made thus far has been inaccurate and injurious, and some the delusional product of a dysregulated mind. As a result of doing so while claiming to speak for God, Paul has burst through the normal confines of a narcissist and has become a psychopath – something Yahowah will confirm through Chabaquwq | Habakkuk.

While history is littered with their carnage, Sha’uwl | Paul became the first psychopath to assail God. He was not fighting to plunder the world, but instead, to rise above the God he had demeaned.

No matter how you may choose to evaluate this psychotic soul, there is no longer any question that his demands have become counterproductive to the point of being suicidal. And this is not the worst of it. After protesting that he cannot lie, he will compound his megalomania with a claim of perfection.

Through his own words, by reading his perceptions of himself, those with whom he interacted, his mischaracterization of Yahowsha’ | “Jesus,” and assault against the Almighty, we are witnessing a personal tragedy of universal proportions. Never has one man done so much to harm so many.

We have watched – actually witnessed – Sha’uwl | Paul transform before our eyes from the pathetic scumbag bludgeoning Yahowsha’s followers to a monstrous beast beyond Satan’s control. I say this because, in the Garden, Yahowah revealed that the Adversary was exceptionally subtle and clever, and what we are reading here is belligerent and crude. (See Bare’syth / Genesis 3:1)

Paul’s Machiavellian vendetta against Yahowah, His Towrah, His Beryth, His Miqra’ey, and all Yisra’el has reached epic proportions. And as a consequence, he would fundamentally change the course of human history.

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 Sha’uwl.

This command and this assessment are so outrageous, let’s be especially deliberate in our analysis and consider and convey the implications of every tense, mood, voice, case, and particle. More 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 his 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)) me (ego – myself (the nominative singular tells the readers 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 actually commanded, to exist like me. Then I as an emphatic priority and as a result, like you, all become brothers and fellow believers. This 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)

A psychopath, lost in his own delusions, views himself as more evolved, more enlightened, than everyone else. In his mind, Paul was doing them a favor. He was offering to control those he believed were incapable of managing themselves.

For outward appearances, Paul is their protector, their savior, the one who could do them no wrong, the perfect man and role model. Inwardly, he was enraged, having lost control of himself and everyone around him. He was afraid that the mask had fallen off and that he was about to be discovered for who he really was: a pathetic little man propped up by a hideous demon. And so this was Sha’uwl’s smokescreen, his new and improved costume. The beast was now wearing a more perfectly suited pelt, having become the wolf in sheep’s clothing.

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. They are born of the same spirit that possessed Paul.

Not only would the choice to be like Paul be destructive, deadly, and damning, the edict makes Paul, not Yahowsha’, the example to be followed and emulated. It was scribed in the imperative mood, making it a command. In the second person plural, it is for “you all” and thus for everyone. The middle voice signifies that the subject, who in this case would be the reader, is being affected, influencing himself, by his 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 suggest that he is an agent of God.

Very few people are 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 God.

Even Yahowsha’s life is not something we should model ours after. He was the Passover Lamb. We should seek life, not a sacrificial death.

As an interesting aside, based upon some of the emails I have received, those who tell me to “behave more like Jesus” and be more accepting have no concept of what Yahowsha’ was like. For example, those doing so would have to be Towrah observant to follow his example – something I relish but they would disdain. Further, he, like Yahowah, was decidedly intolerant. He was the one who told us about Sha’uwl’s | Paul’s costume, denouncing him as the wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Paul’s emphatic priority is to win back the souls who have rejected him. They had become an affront to his credibility, a kink in his fanciful armor. He needs them to become his “brothers” in the sense of “fellow believers.” As the founder and sole advocate of the Faith, this would give Paul absolute control over them.

By writing “deomai umon – the means I desire to compel, possess, and control you all,” Sha’uwl 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.

Should you think that admitting his desire to restrict and control these people is too bold, even for a psychopath, then perhaps you have not experienced the less severe forms of this psychopathy. While I am happy for you, the inability to see what is really going on behind these words has cost billions their souls. To be impartial would be immoral. Paul’s plague was insane.

As a consequence of his delusional thinking, Sha’uwl 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.

In actuality, the Plague of Death was trying to convince those he had infected with the most viral pandemic in human history, one far more lethal than the Black Death, that he was there to cure them of the curse of God’s Torah. He would have them believe that his fraudulent rhetoric was the remedy, the antivenom, for his own toxicity. Having infected them, Sha’uwl was offering the Galatians another dose, a second injection of the disease, rather than a vaccine.

Even setting his treacherous betrayal of Yahowsha’ | “Jesus” aside, with the previous two statements, the wannabe Apostle is sounding ever more like a wannabe god. He felt no compunction telling his readers that his faith was superior to Yahowah’s plan. While not as subtle or clever, Sha’uwl is continuing to mimic Satan’s desires.

It should also be noted that in between these egotistical pontifications, Sha’uwl’s positioning is duplicitous. As a chameleon, he was always willing to change his colors based upon what he thought would win the favor of his audience. He had a mask for every ethnicity and culture. If these folks were Gentiles, as is suspected, then apart from his new religion, he was lying with “we will all become brothers,” but if they were Jews, who were Paul’s 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)

The King James’ take on Paul’s retort may also be accurate. Paul may have been so intoxicated with his own delusions that he was writing off the Galatians – telling them that their rebuke would do nothing to tarnish the stellar reputation he was burnishing for himself.

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 Gentiles—free from those laws. You did not mistreat me when I first preached to you.” There is almost no correlation between Paul’s Greek and the words found in the NLT. That said, team NLT correctly assessed the bane of Paul’s existence: that pesky Towrah whose words were like fingernails scraped across a blackboard.

The more challenging Sha’uwl’s 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 is not 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 Sha’uwl, 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 profitable 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 Sha’uwl 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) superiority of the hyperbole in these extraordinary (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 me (kolaphizo).

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 insolent or audacious (me hyperairomai).” (2 Corinthians 12:6-7)

Can you even imagine Sha’uwl’s hyperbole should he not have been restrained by the maestro of subtle, shrewd, and crafty? That notwithstanding, Paul’s statement is troubling, especially in this context.

If we can get beyond the issues associated with demon possession, his letter continues to be more about Paul and his vendetta against Yahowah than the nature of the Faith he was advocating. We get it already. Repeat the chorus: “Paul is perfect, God was menacing, we are nincompoops, Faith prevails, and the Towrah sucks.” But what is one to believe, other than repeat the chorus?

Other than to demean and dismiss his enemies – Yahowah’s prophets, Yahowsha’s disciples, and the entirety of Galatia, Paul’s epistles are focused on Paul’s delusional claims regarding his superiority and invincibility. Yahowsha’s message and Yahowah’s testimony are of no value or interest to the Devil’s Advocate.

Thus far, Paul has not accurately quoted a single statement from the Towrah or Prophets, nor has he conveyed anything which would help anyone understand Yahowah’s plan or Yahowsha’s purpose. The few mostly accurate statements he has pilfered and misappropriated have contributed nothing to advance anyone’s understanding. And the preponderance of what he has written has been deplorably inaccurate and incomprehensible.

No matter which standard you deploy, whether it is Yahowah’s Deuteronomy 13 or 18 tests or just the overall inconsistency with God’s Word, whether it is the writing quality, the plethora of internal contradictions, or the onslaught of logical fallacies, a person would have to be as Paul describes the Galatians to consider this epistle “Scripture,” as in the sense of being “inspired by God.”

But worse, even as one man’s opinion, Galatians is a one-way ticket to She’owl | Hell. This letter has been overwhelmingly counterproductive. Its only value has been to wrongly present Paul as God’s Apostle. 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 Protestant Authorized 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 Sha’uwl’s last visit with these people, nor do we know what has transpired since. So as hard as this letter is to translate, it is even harder to interpret.

Also relevant, 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, preferring the majority rendering instead. They published: “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 project his delusions, according to the oldest extant codex, Sha’uwl 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 one’s 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 (ΘΥ), you received and believed (dechomai – you welcomed, entertained, and accepted) me (me) as (os – one who is like) Christon ‘Iesoun (ΧΝ ΙΝ – divine placeholders used by early Christian scribes for Christon | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement and Iesoun – a corruption of Yahowsha’, however it’s misleading to connect that which Paul has severed).” (Galatians 4:14)

There are a plethora of problems with this statement, yet everything which he said contributes to our understanding of the man named after the place he has led billions of souls. First, it ought not to be our integrity which matters, but instead Yahowah’s veracity. There is no reason for us to present ourselves as virtuous or honest because it is God’s virtue and honesty that matter. Our words cannot save, but Yahowah’s can and do. Therefore, our mission should be to present God’s words as accurately and completely as possible.

Second, Sha’uwl 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 one’s own temptations, especially when they reveal demon possession, insanity, violent hostility, and sexual decadence. But I suppose that it is Paul’s way of saying that his suffering was more important than Yahowsha’s.

In this regard, peirasmos is yet another in a long list of terms indicting Sha’uwl and his Christian audience. As is often the case with Satan’s messengers, they are so enamored with their perceived superiority and so dismissive of humanity’s 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 veracity 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 nor disdaining” him. Considering his propensity for ad hominem attacks on his opponents, that is almost funny.

Third, 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 Gabry’el | Gabriel when the spiritual envoy allegedly visited with “Miryam | Mary.” It was used in Mark 1:2 to speak of the “divine and prophetic” witness of Yahowchanan | John “the Baptist.” And it was used in Matthew 25:41 in the context of the judgment awaiting those estranged from God along with the other “spiritual messengers – aggelos” who were in league with Satan during the Time of Ya’aqob’s Troubles (which Christians call the Tribulation).

Fourth, as we have just reminded ourselves, in a direct reference to Satan’s “aggelos – spiritual messengers and representatives,” Sha’uwl explained 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 Satan’s “aggelos – demons.” And in actuality, the evidence Sha’uwl personally provides in his letters confirms that he was Satan’s implement, not Yahowah’s. So, the Galatians should have been repulsed by this, and as a result, they should have rejected Sha’uwl. Fortunately, most did.

And fifth, Sha’uwl’s 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 ος (spelled omicron sigma) is based upon “ως” (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 is not 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 Sha’uwl said that the temptation was his trial, not a test for the Galatians.

The best face we can 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 remains as deficient as the writing. But do not take my word for it, consider the NAMI’s: “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 Sha’uwl’s 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...

“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 firsthand 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, slaves and traitors, 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 one’s 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 Paul’s words without grimacing. But we are committed to seeing this through, right to the bitter end. With our goal in sight, the next step into the valley of death is presented in the NAMI as: “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 reads like the Qur’an, both in tone and style. The Meccan surahs include a never-ending argument between Muhammad and his neighbors, with Allah’s 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 Qur’an’s rants are easier to read because, in Muhammad’s recital, the arguments on both sides are presented. With Paul, all we have is his response. But like the Qur’an, Paul’s letters are peppered with the names of Hebrew personages for credibility’s 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?”

Yes, Paul was their adversary. His lies were satanic. There is no likelihood that his preaching would have been materially different from the delusional drivel we have been reading.

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. Therefore, beyond acknowledging that Paul was paranoid and delusional, it is almost certain that his opponents were Yahowah’s proponents – those who loved Yahowah’s name and His Towrah.

Since this was poorly written, even by Paul’s deplorable standards, let’s 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.”

While it requires altering the order of the words, this appears to be what Sha’uwl 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 the ad hominem fallacy because the foe is not identified. Unaware of what has transpired, or who has done what to whom, it is impossible to objectively ascribe meaning to this criticism. As such, none of this has any value outside of a context which is absent – meaning that at the very least, this should have been stricken from his retort before pretending that the rest of his letter held merit.

Moreover, since Paul’s opponents were promoting the Torah, they would have been trying to unify their audience with Yahowah, not separate them. Therefore, it was Paul’s domineering nature which is being exposed. He was afraid that he was losing his control over these people. And he was perplexed: should he browbeat them into submission or disenfranchise and belittle them?

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, Jerome’s Latin Vulgate is as incomprehensible as Paul’s 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 does not make them zealous nor does it cause them to be “affected.”

Putting kosher makeup on this mythical 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 Paul’s desperate attempt to retain his influence over the rebellious 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 death. If Paul was trying to garner a following, he should not 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, what is bad for them is good for you. It is little wonder virtually everyone who knew him 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, that’s all right; but let them do it all the time, not just when I’m with you.”

If Paul’s message had been about coming to know Yahowah, instead of following Paul, then his continued presence would have been unnecessary. It is the influence of Yahowah’s Word which should have motivated the Galatians to be passionate, not the cult of personality. But Sha’uwl 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 Father’s sons and daughters. Even his mention of his Christos caricature in this context is misleading because it circumvents the role of the Set-Apart Spirit.

But alas, there is another benefit for those who are paying attention. I promise to share it with you momentarily so that we might all benefit from Yahowah’s advice regarding Sha’uwl.

“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 (ΧΡΣ – Divine Placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Christos | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement to usurp the Septuagint’s credibility and imply Divinity) in (en) you all (umin).” (Galatians 4:19)

And now for that insight. Yahowah predicted: “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 clichés, along with derisive words arrogantly conveyed. There are hard and perplexing questions that 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 applies 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 Sha’uwl is claiming to have suffered birth pangs as a woman, conceiving children of his own, men do not bear children, not even homosexuals like Paul. Those who have been adopted into our Heavenly Father’s 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. We receive the Covenant’s blessings through the annual Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God. There are few aspects of Yahowah’s Towrah Teaching more important than this.

In Yahowah’s family, there is no pain associated with childbirth. And yet the anguish and sorrow of being estranged from God will be all that Paul’s children, known as Christians, will ultimately experience.

By claiming to have “suffered birth pangs” for “my children” Sha’uwl has once again portrayed himself as a twisted surrogate for God. He has established himself as the mother of his Faith. It was so progressive and gender-neutral of him.

Nonetheless, 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 Yahowsha’ 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, Catholicism’s 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 Sha’uwl write something this divergent from God’s symbolism and from human nature? Did he suffer from gender identity issues as the evidence suggests and Yahowah’s 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 Timothy – a man he personally circumcised even though he was belligerently opposed to circumcision? Even celibacy, which Paul promoted, is a perversion of Yahowah’s marriage and parental symbolism.

Apart from his animosity toward God’s symbols of the Covenant, which are marriage and family, and the specific roles God assigned to the Spirit and Son, Paul’s sexual orientation is irrelevant, with a couple of caveats. According to Daniel’s prophecy, Satan’s Messenger will be a homosexual and Yahowah told us that Sha’uwl would be fascinated by male genitalia. (Chabaquwq / Habakkuk 2:15: “Woe to the one who causes his companions and countrymen to become intoxicated, thereby associating them with this antagonizing venom, but also for the purpose of inebriation to look at the male genitalia.”)

Swallowing Paul’s repositioning, and regurgitating his delusion, the New Living Translation affirms that he was the “mother of the faithful,” compounding the author’s vanity, and affirming that this man gave birth to the religion of Christianity. “Oh, my dear children! I feel as if I’m going through labor pains for you again, and they will continue until Christ is fully developed in your lives.” This is the essence of Pauline Doctrine.

A mother yearns to be with her children, to comfort and nurture them, just as a father longs to support them, but these are our Spiritual Mother’s and Heavenly Father’s roles in our lives, not Paul’s. And just a moment ago, Sha’uwl 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 don’t know what to do, even disturbed) in (en) you (umin).” (Galatians 4:20)

Paul would indeed change his tone, and he would 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 Sha’uwl’s 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,” is not going to burst onto the scene by announcing that he is Satan’s envoy, but instead will endear himself by pretending to be the world’s savior. Even in the end, when the charade is no longer necessary, Satan’s ambassador is going to present the fallen spirit who inspires him as “God,” rather than the “Adversary.” We are witnessing similar duplicity in Sha’uwl’s testimony. In fact, the “Antichrist” will be a modern adaptation of Paul, with a little Muhammad tossed in for spice.

Paul doesn’t 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 God 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 than just being befuddled. Silently, he is distraught and embarrassed. He knows that he has ruined their lives, and worse, Yahowsha’s disciples exposed him for the fraud that he had become. It is why Paul would die alone, without a single supporter. And yet, the only Christian resurrection that actually matters is Paul’s. Dead, buried, and discredited, he rose like a phoenix out of the ashes of his own self-immolation.

One of the many problems associated with “faith” is that it blossoms 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-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear translation attests that Paul’s 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.”

Paul’s 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 become discouraged, struggling to demonstrate additional effort toward you. (Galatians 4:11)

You all must become like me because I am actually commanding it. Then I, as an emphatic priority as a result, like you, we all become brothers and fellow believers. This is 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. (Galatians 4:12)

But you realize that because of an incapacity and limitation in the flesh, I announced this profitable messenger and good message to you all previously. (Galatians 4:13)

My temptation to prove my integrity and my submission to another, my true nature, 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. (Galatians 4:14)

Consequently then, the declaration of blessedness and the pronouncement of happiness is yours. I witnessed and testified because of you that, if possible and competent, your eyes having gouged and plucked out, you gave them to me. (Galatians 4:15)

So as a result, a hostile and despised adversary of yours I have become by telling the truth to you. (Galatians 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. (Galatians 4:17)

But it is good and right to be jealous while good and right at all times. And not only alone in my presence with you. (Galatians 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. (Galatians 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, and I don’t know what to do with you.” (Galatians 4:20)

If you believe God inspired these words, your god is less capable than a deranged and psychotic man.



Questioning Paul

Devil’s Advocate

…Plague of Death

4

Allegoreo | Allegorically

Return to Submission…

Public Enemy Number One! Is it Yahowah’s Towrah or Sha’uwl’s letter to the Galatians? I suppose it depends upon whom you ask.

This extraordinarily strange man is within four verses of his crescendo – the ultimate objective of his life’s work. We are on the cusp of witnessing the most vulgar message ever spoken in the name of God.

But before we consider Paul’s crowning, albeit indicting, achievement, since it is based upon the myth that there are two covenants, with the Devil’s Advocate having established the second through faith, let’s consider the truth in this regard. According to Yahowah, His one and only Covenant has not yet been renewed. And when He, Himself, restores it, His affirmation will be predicated upon the integration of His Towrah in our lives – not its repudiation.

Since there is nothing more foundational to knowing God than understanding His Covenant and the role His Towrah plays in our lives, let’s 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, and if its renewal and reaffirmation is predicated upon our acceptance of His Towrah, we are precluded from accepting the myth of a “New Testament.” And should that be the case, we can toss Paul’s letters, and the entire New Testament, to the wind.

Yahowah, speaking for Himself, said...

“‘Behold (hineh – look up, take this all in and pay especially close attention to the details), a time is coming (yowmym bow’ – days are approaching and will arrive (qal participle plural – literally and actually, dramatically and emphatically, for the benefit of the relationship)),’ Yahowah (Yahowah – God’s one and only name transliterated as guided by His towrah – instructions on His hayah – existence and His role in our shalowm – reconciliation as ‘elowah – Almighty God) reveals, well in advance of it occurring (na’um – prophetically declares), ‘when I will enter into and cut with (wa karat ‘eth – when I will establish through separation a set-apart agreement on behalf of) the Family of Yisra’el (Beyth Yisra’el – the Home and Household of those who Engage and Endure with God, Israel) and with (wa ‘eth – also together with and through) the Family of Yahuwdah (Beyth Yahuwdah – the Household and Home of those Beloved by Yah and Related to Yah, Jews) a restored and renewed (chadash – a repaired and reaffirmed; from chadash – to renew and repair, to restore and reaffirm) Covenant (Beryth – Family-Oriented Relationship).’” (Yirma’yah / I Rise Up and Live in Yah’s Shelter / Jeremiah 31:31)

The part of this astounding prophetic declaration from God which Christians, desperate to justify their “New Testament,” miss is that the renewal and restoration of the “Beryth – Covenant” is not with Gentiles, and thus cannot be with their Church. It is, instead, with Yahuwdah and Yisra’el | Jews and Israel. This promise, therefore, cannot apply to Christianity. Replacement Theology is torn asunder. It is game over. Paul was wrong – dead wrong!

And further aggravating the devastating 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 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 Yisra’el and Yahuwdah, or is He going to scrap the Towrah’s 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 a further affirmation of “renewed and restored” being the most appropriate translation of chadash in this context, we find that within the prophetic writings of Yirma’yah / Jerimiah and Yasha’yah / Isaiah, 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.” Further, chadash’s primary meaning is derived from its use as “month,” where it is the renewing of reflected light on the moon’s surface which denotes its beginning.

These things known, the next statement in Yahowah’s end-days prophecy seems to suggest that there will be a different Covenant – distinct from 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 differ somewhat from (lo’ ka – it won’t be exactly like) the Covenant (ha Beryth – the Family-Oriented Relationship Agreement) which, to reveal the way to the benefits of the relationship (‘asher – which provides directions showing the steps to walk which are correct and yet restrictive and give meaning to life, providing encouragement and joy to those who are properly led and guided that (qal perfect)), I entered into (karat – I established by setting apart when I cut) with their fathers (‘eth ‘ab hem) on the day (ba yowm – during the time) I firmly took them by the hand, and with inspiring intent, overpowered the situation (chazaq ‘any ba yad – I showed an intense resolve and was inflexible in My influence over them, even overpowering them due to the urgent need for them to prevail (hifil infinitive construct – I caused this to occur with them, influencing them such that they would be active participants associated with Me)) to bring them out (la yatsa’ min hem – to draw them away from and bring them close, descending and extending Myself to serve by removing them from (hifil infinitive construct)) of the realm of the Crucibles of Oppression in Egypt (‘erets Mitsraym – the place of subjugation associated with religious coercion and political tyranny, the land of military domination and economic cruelty; from a compound of my – to question and tsarym – troubling, confining, and adversarial situations).

Relationally, they broke (‘asher hem parar ‘eth – they sought to nullify that relationship by thwarting its intent and by disassociating from the correct path, thereby revoking the benefits by splitting into two parts (read: creating the Talmud to nullify the Towrah or a New Testament to contradict and revoke God’s testimony) (hifil perfect)) My Covenant (‘eth beryth ‘any – My Family-Oriented Relationship Agreement) although for a time I acted as a husband with them (wa ‘anoky ba’al ba hem – even though I acted as a husband, even a leader in a position of authority (qal perfect – genuinely only for a limited duration)),’ Yahowah (Yahowah – God’s name transliterated as directed by His towrah – instructions on His hayah – existence and His role in our shalowm – reconciliation) reveals through this prophet (na’um – prophetically declares).” (Yirma’yah / I Rise Up and Live in Yah’s Shelter / Jeremiah 31:32)

The key to appreciating the difference between what occurred 3400 years ago during the process of leaving Egypt and what will transpire 13 years from now in Yaruwshalaim, Yahuwdah, Yisra’el (on Yowm Kipurym | the Day of Reconciliation, October 2nd, 2033, which is year 6000 Yah) can be found in the verbal clause: “chazaq ‘any ba yad – I took them firmly by the hand with overwhelming intent, and overpowering the situation, I showed such an intense resolve, becoming inflexible in My influence due to the urgent need to prevail.” At that moment in time, to save the Children of Yisra’el from being annihilated by the Egyptians, there was the urgency to liberate a reluctant and ignorant audience who were enslaved, people who knew little of Yahowah and nothing of His Towrah or Covenant. They had only just then been introduced to Pesach and Matsah and were unaware of anything beyond. It would be seven weeks before they would be given access to Yahowah’s Towrah Guidance and, with it, an explanation of the Conditions of the Covenant.

To get their attention and bring them home Yahowah had to overpower the situation and intervene with overwhelming conviction. Without having done so, He would not have been able to achieve what He knew was needed to honor the promises He had made to ‘Abraham, Yitschaq, and Ya’aqob regarding this very same Covenant. His people had to be freed from human oppression after 400 years of slavery (40 years for each of the 10 brothers who sold Joseph into slavery), they had to receive the Towrah fifty days after their liberation, they had to be herded into the Promised Land forty years thereafter, and they had to survive there another 400 years such that Dowd could be anointed, unify them, and establish the Kingdom of Yisra’el.

Thereafter, they would breach the Covenant, be estranged from God, be ravaged by invaders, be dispersed throughout the world, and suffer systematic religious and political abuse as a quid pro quo. But the stage would be set for this day in 2033, which by contrast, the Israelites and Jews experiencing the renewal and restoration of their relationship with God will all know Yahowah because they will have chosen to be Towrah observant, because they will have decided to accept the conditions of the Covenant and attend the Miqra’ey. They will not come kicking and screaming this time, but of their own freewill. They will have made an informed and rational decision to be part of Yahowah’s Family.

The next interesting verb is parar, revealing that the Chosen People have broken their vows. Yisra’el first, then Yahuwdah, sought to nullify the Covenant relationship in preference for their religious and political agendas. They would create the competition – their own convoluted and contradictory texts which would be known over time as the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmud, the Mishneh and Zohar. But never lose sight of the fact that Jews have long been their own worst enemy. Sha’uwl / Saul / Paul, a failed rabbi, would inspire most of the Christian New Testament. Muhammad, a wannabe Jewish Messiah, bastardized the Babylonian Talmud to satiate his lust for sex, power, and money – creating the Qur’an in the process. With both religions, Jews would not only parar the Covenant, they conceived demonic cults bent upon destroying everything God holds dear.

The “beryth – covenant” presented in this declaration is a “family relationship” whereby something is required of every member. Yahowah promises to save us from ourselves, from all forms of human oppression. To benefit, however, we must honor our side of the bargain and observe God’s instructions, distance ourselves from human institutions, and respect Yahowah’s ability to lead us home.

The question then becomes: how is God going to renew and reaffirm His Covenant without contradicting Himself? The answer to that question is a solution which is not only marvelous in its implications, but also one which completely destroys the Christian religion generally and Paul’s testimony specifically. Yahowah said:

“‘Accordingly and as a consequence (ky – because of this, yes, indeed, truthfully, and instead by contrast), this is (zo’th – specifically) the Covenant (ha beryth – the Family-Oriented Relationship Agreement) which, to enjoy the benefits of the relationship (‘asher – to lead to the correct path to walk to get the most out of life), I will cut (karat – I will create through separation, making and establishing (qal imperfect – with ongoing benefits over time)) with (‘eth – alongside and on behalf of) the House of Yisra’el (Beyth Yisra’el – the Home of those who Engage and Endure with God) much later after those days (‘achar ha yowm hem ha hem – during a subsequent period and in a different time, specifically in the latter days),’ prophetically declares (na’um – announces in advance of it occurring) Yahowah (Yahowah – God’s personal name pronounced as guided by His towrah – instructions on His hayah – existence for our shalowm – reconciliation as our ‘elowah – God):

‘I will provide, placing (nathan – I will literally give and actually ascribe, producing, offering, and bestowing at this moment in time (qal perfect)), accordingly (‘eth – the mark and message of our association), My towrah | guidance (towrah ‘any – My teaching, instruction, and directions) within them (ba qereb hem – inside of them, in their core being such that it is part of their inner person, part of their thought process and psychology, influencing their conscience and animating their lives).

And integrated into their inclinations and ability to exercise good judgment (wa ‘al leb hem – then upon their preferences and disposition, their character and thinking, their hearts and minds), I will write it (kathab hy’ – I will inscribe and engrave it (qal imperfect energic nun – literally and emphatically with ongoing implications throughout time)).

Then, I will (wa hayah – and I shall (qal perfect)) approach them as their God (la hem la ‘elohym – I will draw near as a Ram shepherding His sheep). And they shall be My Family (wa hem hayah la ‘any la ‘am – and they will exist near Me as My People (qal imperfect)).’” (Yirma’yah / I Rise Up and Live in Yah’s Shelter / Jeremiah 31:33)

With this statement, the basis of Christianity and the fulcrum of Paul’s 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.

This is among the most profoundly exciting announcements in the whole of the prophets. It destroys the credibility of the “Abrahamic” religions because the only actual and proven God is not only returning to His people, Yisra’el | Israel, and therefore not to Roman Catholics, Arab Muslims, American Mormons, or a Gentile Church, He is inscribing His towrah | guidance inside of the Covenant’s participants. Since the Towrah is the ultimate answer, the means to restore the relationship, then the notion it was superseded by a Talmud, New Testament, or Qur’an becomes ludicrous.

Second, God’s proclamation explains how the Covenant’s children will live in the hereafter. Having had the opportunity to observe the Towrah or be oblivious to it, having lived our lives under the auspices of freewill so as to be given the opportunity to accept or reject Yahowah and His Covenant, having been in the position where we have to work for understanding if we want to know God, a time will come when that will change. While we will retain freewill, having chosen to be with Yahowah and to be part of His Covenant Family, our Heavenly Father will be in a position to give us the guidance we will need to operate safely in four, five, six, and seven dimensions and throughout the cosmos. And that is why I have written towrah | guidance in lowercase, suggesting that this will comprise God’s teaching for living among the stars.

While this may be hard to fathom at this point, especially if you have not yet read Yada Yahowah, Observations, or Coming Home, there are dimensions beyond the three to which we are accustomed, and it is Yahowah’s intent to enable us to experience them all.

And when it comes to understanding how to get the most out of living in six and seven dimensions, we will not have to translate Yahowah’s future instructions, search for the most accurate text, or seek to interpret the message, because His words will be integrated into the fabric of our lives. This is something God cannot do at this time because mankind must retain the ability, no matter how foolish, to disregard the Towrah. And that becomes impossible when it is written inside of us. But in eternity, to keep us safe, it will be essential for us to have the Creator’s guidance on how to engage and what to avoid, especially when it comes to the magnitude of the forces at play throughout the universe.

While I would like the towrah integrated into my life now rather than later, it would not be appropriate, even with Covenant members. Yah is not going to supplant our freewill by imposing Himself on us. This is our time to choose, when we have the opportunity to respond to Yahowah’s calling. We can spend as much or as little time with God as we would like.

We live in an era of discovery where we can capitalize upon what we have been given to embark on the adventure of a lifetime. Today we have the opportunity to work with God to do something that will endure time. We can encourage others to closely examine and carefully consider Yahowah’s Towrah such that they receive the Covenant’s benefits. We can contribute to the size of God’s Family while Yahowah enhances our lives.

On this day in early 2021, as has been the case for nearly 20 years, we have done our utmost to encourage all who are interested, especially Yisra’el and Yahuwdah, to “Yada’ Yahowah – to choose of their own accord to become familiar with, come to know, and understand Yahowah.” It has been and continues to be a labor of love, and the most rewarding and enjoyable opportunity of our lives. We have done so by translating Yahowah’s Towrah | Instructions while contemplating the implications of His Guidance.

God could have avoided religious competition long ago, and mankind’s 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 hasn’t 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 man’s 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 Yahowah’s Towrah Teachings have been inseparable, it remains possible for us to separate ourselves from them.

This option, which is the choice to reject Yahowah’s 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 Yahowah’s 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 God’s 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, Yirma’yah / Jeremiah 31 explains what will occur upon Yahowah’s return during “Yowm Kipurym – the Day of Reconciliations” at the end of the Time of Ya’aqob’s Troubles. It illustrates how God will fulfill His Towrah promise to reconcile His relationship with Yisra’el 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 in harmony with God’s previous testimony.

This prophetic announcement also affirms the role of the Towrah in our choice to spend eternity with God. It unifies the Towrah and Covenant as the most essential elements of us being included in God’s family. And reading between the lines, it reveals how Yahowah’s Towrah will continue to guide us during the Millennial Shabat and beyond into eternity. It even explains that the purpose of the Covenant is to establish God’s 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 Paul’s proclamation of a “new covenant,” one based upon faith, one unrelated to the Towrah 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 Towrah our undisputed and unrivaled instruction manual:

“‘No longer shall anyone impart information or teach (wa lo’ lamad ‘owd – no one will continue to instruct or learn from, nor will anyone encourage the acceptance of (piel imperfect – the recipients of this instruction will never be exposed to)) other individuals in association with an evil and outspoken world (‘ysh ‘eth rea’ huw’ – their immoral companions, friends, and errant countrymen among humankind, each of his troublesome neighbors or his loudmouthed associates in an attempt to reason with them) or (wa) even those with familial affinity (‘ysh ‘eth ‘ach huw’ – with regard to blood relatives and closely associated individuals such as family members, and in this context: Yisra’el and Yahuwdah) so as to say (la ‘amar – approaching to declare),

“Choose of your own accord to know Yahowah (yada’ Yahowah – decide to recognize and acknowledge Yah, and show some desire to become familiar with and understand Yahowah (qal imperative))!” because (ky – truthfully and by contrast, at this time) everyone will know Me (kol hem yada’ eth ‘any – all of them, without exception, will actually be aware of and genuinely acknowledge Me, and they will continually recognize and literally understand Me (qal imperfect)), from the youngest (la min qatan hem – regarding the approach of the most recent arrival among them) and up to the enduring witness of most important and oldest (wa ‘ad gadowl hem – including those of the longest duration, the earliest arrivals whose eternal testimony remains the most significant, those who arrived a time long ago),’ prophetically reveals (na’um – announces in advance of it occurring) Yahowah (Yahowah – God’s personal name pronounced as guided by His towrah – instructions on His hayah – existence for our shalowm – reconciliation as our ‘elowah – God).” (Yirma’yah / I Rise Up and Live in Yah’s Shelter / Jeremiah 31:34)

Yada’ Yahowah. It is the most empowering declaration in the universe, the most enlightening, liberating, and enriching. It has served as the title of this series of books since the first word was written twenty years ago. Today, it highlights the entire collection of amplified translations, insights, and commentary on the Word of God.

Written in the qal imperative, Yada’ Yahowah encourages you to “choose of your own initiative to come to actually know Yahowah, to recognize and acknowledge God as He has revealed Himself, and to genuinely understand Yahowah, such that you develop an unencumbered relationship with Him.” This remains the sole intent of Yada’ Yahowah.

Yes, a day will come when every living soul will know Yahowah. It is poetic in a special way. The words which inspired the five million which would follow throughout Yada Yahowah render every word written obsolete. There will no longer be a need for my translations or insights because they will be vastly inferior to what Yahowah will supply. Perhaps you will be among those at my retirement party.

Before we return to Paul’s twisted repudiation of Yahowah’s Covenant, all so that he can create a second covenant of his own, let’s see if we can learn something additional about Yahowah’s most important title by observing it in the language of revelation using the ancient Hebrew pictographic depictions. 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 house with a single entrance from above.

The second letter, Rosh , was drawn to reveal the head of an individual. As is the case with the word re’sh today, the ancient 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 , today’s Yowd, pictured by way of an arm reaching down and out to us with an open hand. It conveyed the idea of engaging productively to accomplish something worthwhile. As the first letter in Yah’s 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 being surrounded and enclosed, and thus valued and protected, 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 inscription on His signed invitation.



Cognizant of Yahowah’s thoughts and promises regarding His Towrah and its centerpiece, the Covenant, we are better prepared to consider Paul’s 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 translate 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)

That was gibberish, so before I rearrange the order of the words in the opening clause so that they read more as Sha’uwl intended, let’s 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). In conjunction with ouk, which is both a negative particle, annulling the action, and an interrogative, raising a question, the concluding phrase might read: “can’t you hear the Towrah?” or “the Towrah cannot hear you.”

As for the opening clause, it seems to flow better with the words reordered to read: “Speak to me those proposing and deciding to exist under the control of Towrah,...” If that is correct, it is being used to taunt Paul’s adversaries. After all, Paul has never demonstrated the inclination to listen to anyone, much less his foes – not even to God. Therefore, Paul is either questioning the Towrah observant, suggesting that they do not listen to the Towrah, thereby suggesting that his knowledge is superior to theirs, or he is saying that the Towrah is unable to hear, thereby indicating that, since he has that capacity, he is again superior to God’s Word. And even though both approaches are invalid, that is the best I can do with this.

If Paul were writing for God, which he obviously was not, he would not have said “speak to me.” Nor would he have begun by suggesting that the Towrah observant are “hypo – controlled and submissive.” 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.

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 apostle’s 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 KJV’s 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 don’t know what the Torah says. Therefore, they don’t understand God’s Word, they don’t understand Yahowsha’s sacrifice, and they don’t understand that Paul despised and tried to discredit both.

Not long 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 are good, beneficial, and helpful. For this reason, I have given you My Towrah. You should not forsake it, neglect it, or reject it.... Closely examine and carefully consider (shamar – focus upon and thoroughly evaluate) My terms and conditions and live, being restored to life.” (Mashal / Word Pictures / Proverbs 4:1-2, 4)

Further assailing Paul’s credibility, Dowd | David announced on behalf of Yahowah: “The one who turns away his ear from hearing (suwr ‘owzen 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 (tow’ebah – will be seen as a disgusting abomination).” (Mashal / Word Pictures / Proverbs 28:9)

Now that Paul has taken yet another lame swipe at Yahowah’s Towrah, he is ready to commence his most diabolical attack – demeaning the Covenant. He begins with a half-truth, with a citation which is somewhat accurate. But by framing his assault using a corruption of the Towrah, Paul has again affirmed that the text which he claims “cannot hear,” and to which the Galatians were “enslaved” was Yahowah’s Towrah | Teaching. Listen to one of the most successful schemers of all time twist the truth: “It has been written for 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 Yahowah’s perspective Abraham only had one son. That is why God asked Abraham in Bare’syth / 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 Sha’uwl had been illustrating these facts – which 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 Sha’uwl doesn’t even bother to mention them by name. Moreover, Sarah’s status as an “eleutheros – independent and freeborn individual” was extraneous to her role in the Covenant. She mattered because she was Abraham’s wife and Yitschaq’s 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 Yahowah said, God joined in, telling Sarah to name her son Laughter, which is Yitschaq in Hebrew.

Sarah’s relevance goes well beyond this. Just look at Yahowah’s name written using the ancient Hebrew pictographic letters and reading from right to left –  – whereby the final three letters following Yahowah’s 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. Yahowah’s favorite place on Earth, Yisra’el, is based upon Sarah’s 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 let’s remember, Paul’s affections were never directed at women. He would not know or 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 aren’t, which is why Paul did not cite any portion of the story which begins in Bare’syth / Genesis 17 and is advanced through the 21st chapter. And because God did not say what Paul wanted, he made something up and tried to pass it off as if it were a citation from the Towrah.

This was not the only time he would foist this fable. He parades it out again in Romans 9, where he boasted “I am not lying,” there are multiple “covenants,” with one yielding “children of the flesh,” while the other begets “children according to the promise.”

The reason for Paul’s duplicity in Galatians, as well as in Romans, is that Pauline Doctrine is built upon the following 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 God’s children by way of the verbal promise, not through the Covenant or the Towrah. And 7) Believing the promise necessitates rejecting the Torah.

Sha’uwl’s entire argument is erroneous and preposterous, but yet it serves as the foundation of Christianity – a 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 Abraham’s morality. The reason they are assisting in this way is that Pauline Doctrine is based upon Abram, at the expense, and thus exclusion, of the Torah. It is like Islam in this way.

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.”

Paul’s 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 Towrah’s commemoration of it, creating a contrived distinction between the promises God announced and God asking that they 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 Yahowah’s Towrah, Paul’s new covenant would be predicated upon another false premise. So while I recognize that this statement lacks fluidity, it isn’t my fault. Paul was evidently learning to write while learning to lie. Consider the Nestle-Aland’s 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, Sha’uwl 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. Although to be fair, it took a miracle for Sarah to conceive and bear a healthy child at 90 years of age. It is even true that both boys were circumcised (albeit only Yitschaq experienced it in accordance with the Torah’s instructions).

None of that mattered to Paul because his goal was to demonstrate that if you were Torah observant, then you were a slave. Whereas if you believe Paul, you are instantly saved.

It is instructive to know that, while most lexicons include “promise” among epanggelia’s definitions, the word’s etymology suggests that this rendering is a legacy of Paul’s 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, Paul’s 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,” Sha’uwl 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 Paul’s 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 give Paul’s ploy a veneer of credibility, making the ruse sufficiently beguiling to conceive a new religion. Sarah’s solution to God’s announcement was to use a surrogate mother (“of the flesh”). But since Yahowah’s Covenant is based upon the importance of conceiving a loving family, the human remedy (which was to use a slave as a surrogate) was not acceptable. The Covenant (which is a mutual vow) would therefore be consistent with God’s plan, not with man’s modality.

Paul’s Christian troubadours scribed the following in support of the false prophet’s 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 Protestant Authorized 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 NLT’s recasting of Paul’s statement is inaccurate with regard to the Torah (Hagar was not Abraham’s 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 God’s promise. But the son of the freeborn wife was born as God’s 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 Towrah – which is the foundation of God’s Word. And even today, it serves as Yahowah’s invitation 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 Sha’uwl has laid the cornerstone of 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 I am very uncomfortable with (read revolted by) Paul’s next statement, let’s approach the edifice of his religion by way of the Nestle-Aland’s scholastic rendering of the text through 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, I’d like you to contemplate the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Evangelical portraits of Christianity’s straw man. Jerome’s 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 Bacon’s 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, in keeping with 2 Timothy 4:3, authored the following to tickle the ears of their target market: “These two women serve as an illustration of God’s 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 Sha’uwl’s 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 settle affairs and facilitate 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 Synay) 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 Sha’uwl scribed:

“Speak to me those proposing to exist under the control of Towrah: can’t you hear the Towrah? (Galatians 4:21)

For indeed because it has been written that Abram had two sons, one from the slave girl and one from the free and unbound. (Galatians 4:22)

Certainly, from the slave girl according to flesh has been born, while from the free by way of a promise. (Galatians 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.” (Galatians 4:24)

As I read these words, my hands are paralyzed above the keyboard. I am saddened and revolted. My stomach churns, my heart breaks, and my head is bowed in shame. How is it possible that the world’s largest religion was erected upon something so obviously false? Why wasn’t 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 lie – the 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 has been as demonic or 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 Ya’aqob 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 Yisra’el. It led to the liberation of the Chosen People during the Exodus. Yahowah’s one and only Covenant was memorialized in the Towrah on Mount Sinai and serves as the foundation of God’s Word.

According to Yahowsha’, the Torah’s 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 Yahowsha’s life and the nature of his sacrifice.

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 grotesque corruption of the truth, making it particularly insidious. And in so doing, he established the model Muhammad, Satan’s second most effective messenger, would follow. Both religions were founded upon tormented caricatures of Abraham, at the exclusion of the Torah, Yahowah, and the truth.

Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Mormonism have been construed 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. That is what has occurred here. Shards of this are true, albeit horribly misshapen to suit Satan’s agenda.

The Towrah and Prophets have 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 expressly excluded from it, Islam, the Arabic word for “submission,” did emerge from them, leading billions into subservience, slavery, and bondage. In their rage, today’s Muslims have become the embodiment of Yahowah’s prediction when He said about Ishmael’s descendants: “He shall consistently be (wa huw’ hayah) a wild ass (pere’) of a man (‘adam). His hand (yad huw’) will be against everyone (ba ha kol) and everyone’s hand (wa yad kol) against him (ba huw’). Even in opposition to the presence (wa ‘al paneh) of all of his brothers (kol ‘ach huw’) he will live and remain (shakan).” (Bare’syth / Genesis 16:12)

Unfortunately for billions of souls, the Christian religion was established upon Sha’uwl’s allegory, whereby their “‘Lord Jesus Christ’ died for them on a cross.” It did not matter that the Lord was the Adversary, that this was not his name or title, or that God cannot die, because the Torah was now dead and the truth slaughtered, having been replaced by Paul’s illusions. Thereby, the purpose and benefits of Yahowsha’s 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? After all, it is preposterous to correlate the Covenant promises memorialized on Mount Sinai with Hagar, or to suggest that God’s Word enslaves. The Towrah’s codification of the Covenant celebrated Yahowah’s ability to lead His children – all of us – away from religious and political oppression, and to freedom.

Before we wrestle with the devastating blunders in Paul’s artifice, some words about the words. Allegoreo didn’t 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.” An allegory is “another way of communicating with people through a story or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning – typically a religious or political one.”

Nonetheless, Paul is saying that no matter what the allegory or word picture God was painting in the Torah’s 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, Sha’uwl is saying: “Regardless of the intent of Yahowah’s story, my interpretation is all that matters.” Never mind that the Covenant codified with Moseh was written during the Exodus, when Yahowah was leading the Children of Yisra’el, the descendants of Yitschaq, out of the house of slavery.

If you believe Paul, when you die, your soul will cease to exist – the consequence of being beguiled by a pathetic lie. If you trust Yahowah and rely upon His promises, you become God’s 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 reject Paul.

The next interesting word is diatheke. In addition to meaning “covenant,” it describes “a testament or will used to transfer property to one’s heirs.” It is from the verb, diatithemai: “to arrange one’s affairs in such a way that by entering into an agreement a person is assured of inheriting something valuable.” The verb is a compound of dia, “by way of,” and tithemi “that which is set aside and set in place.”

Thithemi 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 word. The problem is that Paul rendered it in the plural and then he built the deadliest of all straw men upon it.

Should you want to exonerate Paul by suggesting there may have been some confusion between the Sinai desert and Mount Sinai, every lexicon at our disposal links the Sinai with Mount Sinai, which is also known as Choreb | Horeb. It is the place Yahowah conveyed His Towrah 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 aren’t 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 Yisra’el crossed this wilderness en route to Mount Sinai, which is on the other side of the Gulf of Aqaba in today’s Saudi Arabia. Hagar, however, was never in one or on the other.

Mount Sinai was the place Yahowah introduced Himself to Moseh, and where He subsequently revealed the Towrah to him following the Exodus. However, Hagar wandered aimlessly toward Shur before Ishmael was born. Shur, we learn from Bare’syth / Genesis 16:7, 20:1, 25:18, and Shemowth / Exodus 15:22, was within walking distance of what is today’s southeastern border of Israel. That places Shur east of Egypt, east of the Sinai, and east of the Gulf of Aqaba. Then after Ishmael was born, Hagar and her son were banished into the desert of Paran, which is similarly located.

Rather than associating the wilderness of Sin (a.k.a. the Sinai Peninsula) with Paul’s four references to Sina (two in Galatians and two in Acts), Strong’s 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 Saudi 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 Paul’s 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 did not need the help of the scholastic tomes to condemn Paul. He hung himself. In his very next statement he acknowledges that the Sina he is referencing to falsely associate a covenant with Hagar is “Sinai mountain existing in Arabia.” And that is Mount Choreb | Horeb upon which Yahowah revealed His Towrah | Teaching to Moseh.

There is yet another interesting insight into Sinai. Spelled Syny in Hebrew, in the ancient pictographic alphabet, it would have been written – . Syny | Sinai would have conveyed: “the sign of the open and receptive hand of God reaching down and out to us to conceive children who grow by going to where God’s hand leads.”

Also interesting considering Hebrew grammar, the Yowd  at the conclusion of Syny would read as “My” or “I.” Therefore, Syny |  means: Sign I Handed to My Children.

There is no doubt Paul proposed two covenants and God has said there is only 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. Therefore, since there is an irreconcilable divide between Paul and Yahowah, one of the two must be wrong.

Beyond the stark contrast between God and this man, ponder the preposterous notion of using the Towrah’s central story to advance a doctrine designed to destroy the credibility of that same Towrah. And yet, since the Towrah is the only place that Abraham, Sarah, and the Covenant are known, that is exactly what Paul has done.

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, let’s consider Yahowah’s side of this story. He was opposed to establishing a Covenant relationship with Hagar’s son: “Then Abraham said to God, ‘What about Ishmael? Could he exist in your presence?” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:18) “God said, ‘Absolutely not.’” (Bare’syth / Genesis 17:19) There would be no covenant of any kind with “the son of the slave woman.” Sorry, Paul. To quote Yahowah, “Absolutely not.”

The Covenant is singular and eternal. It was affirmed 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 him as an eternal and everlasting family relationship with his offspring after him.” (Bare’syth / Genesis 17:19) Yahowah’s Word and Paul’s letter are irreconcilable, as are those who place their faith in Paul’s lies.

In direct opposition to Paul’s 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 statement, also from the Towrah, obliterates the notion that Paul had poetic license to delete portions of Yahowah’s Guidance he did not like, or add his own commandments: “With all the words (dabar – communications and statements) which, for the benefit of the relationship, I provide as Instructions for you (tsawah ‘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 them (gara’ – subtract from them).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 12:32)

As for Paul’s assertion that the Torah had a limited shelf life, Yahowah inspired Yasha’yah / 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).” (Yasha’yah / Salvation is from Yah / Isaiah 40:8)

The unchanging nature of God and His Covenant promises will be honored (which is to say they have been and will continue to be fulfilled, even in our future): “Because I, Yahowah, have not changed, you, the children of Ya’aqob | Yisra’el, will not perish or be destroyed.” (Mal’aky / Messenger / Malachi 3:6)

Why do Christians believe Paul’s anti-Torah rhetoric when his statements are diametrically opposed to Yahowsha’s? The Passover Lamb is translated saying:

“You should not think or assume (me nomizomai – you do 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, 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 God’s 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). (Matthew 5:17)

For this reason (gar – because 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 Yahowah’s name and the smallest character in the Hebrew alphabet) nor (e) a single stroke of the pen (mia keraia – one of the smallest lines 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). (Matthew 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), or (kai) he may espouse and indoctrinate (didasko – he might teach, delivering moralizing discourses while conceiving and instilling doctrine, expounding or explaining so as to enjoin) mankind (anthropos – humanity) in this manner (houto – thusly and likewise), he will be afforded the name and will be judicially 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 – Paulos in Latin, meaning: small and inadequate, insignificant and insufficient, irrelevant and unimportant, immaterial and inconsequential (Paulos, the Latin name Sha’uwl 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 (addressing the Towrah) (poieomai – may engage through the Towrah, 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 the Towrah’s instructions, expounding upon its guidance), this (houtos – these things) will properly be referred to and called (kaleo – it will be judiciously and appropriately 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).” (Matthew 5:19) Yahowsha’s statement regarding the Towrah is the antithesis of what Paul wrote throughout his letter to the Galatians.

Yahowsha’ would conclude his Instruction on the Mount with this announcement regarding the connection between the Towrah 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), 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 assign these things with regard to you (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) presently is (estin – exists as) the Towrah (o nomos – Torah teaching, guidance, direction, and instruction, becoming 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; translated using 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 known requirements which is restrictive, the passageway which is unpopular and seldom walked, an infrequently-trodden gateway (note: stenos is based upon histemi which provides the concluding insights)) because (hoti – for the reason that namely) broad, manmade, 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 one’s 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 appropriate doorway has specific 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 goes against the crowd to the point of being exceedingly unpopular (kai thlibomai – it is so totally shunned to the point of being rebuked (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).” (Matthew 7:11-14)

According to Yahowsha’, the Passover Lamb, the Towrah provides a seldom-tread doorway to life while man’s popular ways lead to death.

Yahowsha’s 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 completely fulfill everything that is written in the Towrah of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms about me.’

Then he opened their minds so that they would be intelligent and have the capacity to understand what had been written.

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 on the third day.

And it should be announced publicly in Yahowah’s 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 from Yaruwshalaim. You are witnesses to this.

And behold, I have prepared and sent you off as Apostles to convey the message of My Father’s announced and promised agreement.

But now, you remain in the city until you are clothed in power and ability from above.’” (Luke 24:44-49)

Yahowah, Yahowsha’, the written Towrah, the Covenant, and our Heavenly Father’s promises are inseparable. One flows out of the other.

In direct opposition to Paul, Dowd (who most know as David) wrote the following lyrics for a Song to proclaim the value of the Towrah:

“Day unto day pours out answers, and night unto night reveals knowledge which leads to understanding.

Nothing exists without the Word. There is nothing of value when and where the spoken and written message of the voice which calls out is corrupted or negated, becoming unimportant and not heard.” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:2-3)

“Yahowah’s Towrah is wholly complete and entirely perfect, returning, restoring, and transforming the soul.

Yahowah’s eternal witness and restoring testimony is trustworthy and reliable, making understanding and obtaining wisdom simple for the receptive.” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:7)

This is the antithesis of everything Paul has written. If only Christians would compare this passage to Paul’s epistles, they would reject everything he wrote in favor of what God revealed.

But Dowd | David was not finished affirming what Paul attempted to belittle…

“Yahowah’s directions for living are right, causing the heart to rejoice.

Yahowah’s terms and conditions are morally pure, shining a light toward understanding.” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:8)

Dowd did not find the Towrah to be an unbearable burden as Paul has alleged. Since Dowd is right (tsadaq – correct according to Yahowah), the basis of Paul’s manifesto is wrong.

This speaks of God’s purpose, which is to form a relationship with us, and of His promise, which is to make such a thing possible and enduring. To accomplish this, God must make us acceptable.

“Revering and respecting Yahowah is cleansing and restoring, sustaining and establishing forever.

The just means to execute good judgment and resolve disputes of Yahowah are trustworthy and reliable, enduring and dependable. They are wholly vindicating, making the recipient right.” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:9)

So much for Paul’s notion that God’s Towrah never justifies and always enslaves. Dowd | David is the central figure in God’s story, the Messiah, Son of God, King, and Shepherd, while Sha’uwl | Paul is the Father of Lies, Plague of Death, and Son of Evil. This is not a difficult choice.

The man Yahowah announced was “tsadaq – correct” wrote…

“Moreover, your coworker 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 Towrah. It’s our Maker’s Operating Manual, telling us through words 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.

This, the most debilitating sin, became Sha’uwl’s Achilles heel…

“Also, keep your coworker 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 Towrah is the source of wisdom, renewal, joy, enlightenment, being eternally established in Yahowah’s presence, being considered right and vindicated, in addition to providing a great reward. While we should be exceedingly grateful, exuberant in our enthusiasm, and confident in our disposition, there is no reason for arrogance because we are reliant on Yahowah, not ourselves. If we are self-directed or self-important, then we are not in a position to rely upon Yahowah’s provision and are in no position to speak for Him. 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.

Dowd’s closing line is particularly inspiring...

“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 means to this wonderous outcome is by observing the Towrah | Guidance of Yahowah – the very thing Paul told his believers to avoid like the plague.

Since Sha’uwl’s | Paul’s message and Dowd’s | David’s 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’s veracity because he claimed to speak for the God he contradicted.

This is the end of the line for Sha’uwl | Paul. The Father of Deception has proven beyond any doubt that he was the Devil’s Advocate. There is not a snowflake’s chance in She’owl that Sha’uwl spoke for God. His epistle was not inspired and thus is not “Scripture.” The Son of Evil was a complete and utter fraud.

Had Paul not repeatedly made the presumptuous 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 the faithful were his children and should follow his example, then his errant statements would have been no different than thousands of other misguided religious advocates. But he made these claims, and as a result, Paul’s lifeless deceptions were placed in the heart of the book canonized by the faith he conceived. The consequence of his arrogance has been catastrophic.

When considering this comparison, it should be noted that Yahowah used precisely fulfilled prophecy, brilliantly conceived imagery, a masterfully designed plan and 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 and His universe. So why is it then that nearly two billion Christians believe Paul over Yahowah?

Christians have been deceived by a psychotic man. They are, however, responsible for their own predicament. A person must be tragically ignorant and hopelessly irrational to believe anything Paul has written. He is the scum of the earth. And yet it is likely Paul’s faith that has incapacitated believers, such that they no longer think that the truth matters.

Whatever the cause, the Christian condition cannot be resolved until an individual is willing to change his attitude and approach, his perspective and thinking, such that he is taught and guided by Yahowah’s Towrah. To accomplish this, Christians have to drain the religious swamp of Paul’s delusions; otherwise, the seeds of truth will not take root and grow.



Questioning Paul

Devil’s Advocate

…Plague of Death

5

Eremos | Forsaken

Birth Pangs…

We will continue to plod our way through Paul’s letter, recognizing that he was a fallible individual suffering severe psychosis writing on his own recognizance. There will be no pretense of Galatians representing the inspired word of God or of Paul telling the truth. We will credit God when Paul affirms something which is accurate, should that ever occur, and will continue to expose and condemn Paul when he errs, recognizing that the cost of his delusions can be counted in the billions of human souls.

Sha’uwl’s next lie 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 flow).

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 this cavalcade of blasphemy. There appear to be no depths beyond which Paul will not plunge.

The straw man “Hagar exists as Mount Sinai” is invalid. She was never associated with Sinai, the formation of the Covenant, or the revelation of the Towrah. She was banished from the Promised Land and her son was excluded from the Covenant. By the time the Towrah was inscribed, she had been dead for over five hundred years. This is pure fantasy, not unlike Muhammad saying that David was a Muslim and Allah’s prophet. If there were a deceit scale, this would be off the charts.

Not only is there is no correlation between Hagar and Sinai, neither correspond with Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem – past or present. There is no similarity in geography nor community. Hagar had been dead for 900 years and Yahowah’s meeting with His people on Sinai occurred 400 years before the city was founded by Dowd. One remains isolated and uninhabited and the other is the most contested city on earth. They are as different as Arabia and Israel. He may as well have said that Rome was the new Jerusalem.

Further, at the time of Paul’s writing, Jerusalem was not enslaved. The city was under Roman control, not Hagar’s descendants through Ishmael. And it would be another 600 years before his ultimate descendants, Muslims, would raid the world, claiming Jerusalem as their prize. There was, therefore, no correlation between Hagar’s children and Yaruwshalaim, much less enslavement.

Paul hated Jerusalem for all of the reasons Yahowah loves it. It was the home of God’s favorite son, the site of His Temple, the capital of His people, and the place where the Beryth was confirmed and the Miqra’ey fulfilled. Paul despised one and all. And in addition, Jerusalem was where he had been rebuked by Yahowsha’s disciples.

The name Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem means “Source from which Teaching and Guidance Regarding Reconciliation Flow.” It is the city of God – His Home on Earth. Outside of what occurred in Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem during Passover, UnYeasted Bread, Firstborn Children, and the Promise of Seven, there is no means to eternal life, to being perfected by God, to becoming part of Yah’s Covenant family, or to being enriched and empowered by the Covenant relationship. Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem is the antithesis of what Paul writes of her.

While Hagar was one of many slaves belonging to Abraham and Sarah, she was set free at Sarah’s direction, with Abraham’s support, with Yahowah’s encouragement, and a mal’ak | spiritual messenger providing lifesaving direction along the way. While she plays no role in the formation of the Covenant, her life’s trajectory was from slavery to freedom, not the other way around.

Based upon what the Towrah reveals of Hagar, she had only one son, not children. And her son, Yshma’‘el | Ishmael was excluded from the Covenant.

Paul’s progression goes from bad to worse. What a surprise it is going to be for all of those who have led Bible Studies over the ages to see their favorite saint sentenced to an eternity in She’owl | Hell.

He writes…

“Speak to me those proposing to exist under the control of the Towrah: can’t you hear what the Towrah is saying? (Galatians 4:21)

For it has been written that Abram had two sons, one from the slave girl and one from the free. (Galatians 4:22)

Certainly, from the slave girl have been born those according to flesh. From the free, by way of a promise. (Galatians 4:23)

Whatever is being spoken of allegorically, these then exist as two covenants – two testaments – one from Mount Sinai into subservience, slavery, and bondage, giving birth to whoever exists as Hagar. (Galatians 4:24)

Accordingly, now Hagar exists as Mount Sinai in Arabia, therefore corresponding to the present Yaruwshalaim. She is enslaved because of being associated with her children.” (Galatians 4:25)

One thing is now certain. Paul is deliberately trying to mislead believers and antagonize God. He could not have gotten so many things wrong by just being stupid.

Sha’uwl has perverted the concept of “observing the Towrah,” which is to closely examine and carefully consider its Teaching and Guidance.” He is attempting to rob God’s word of its authority to enlighten, enrich, empower, and emancipate. He is attacking the most brilliantly worded book ever written with the dumbest letters ever penned.

In pathetic fashion, Paul is propping up the flimsiest of straw men. His first is the result of contriving an artificial distinction between the birth of Ishmael “being of the flesh” and causing others to be “enslaved.” Yitschaq was the child of “promise,” but not Paul’s promise. His birth was a result of Yahowah performing a miracle.

Paul is then errantly associating the Towrah’s Covenant with Mount Sinai. Abraham never went near the place. In fact, associating the events which led to the Covenant with Mount Sinai is like saying that Noah sailed around the mountain in Arabia because that is where his story was first told.

The Devil’s Advocate was as desperate, as are Christians, to propose two covenants. Without this myth, there is no New Testament, no place for Paul, no hope for Christians.

And yet this moronic diatribe is the only “justification.” Even the place favored by Christians, Yirma’yah / Jeremiah 31 works against the religion as does Yahowsha’s Instruction on the Mount – even the entirety of Yahowah’s Word from Bare’syth to Mal’aky.

That is why Paul went out on this broken branch. He knew that there was no truth to what he was claiming – but without it, his every word was a lie.

Paul’s animosity toward Yahowah had reached such epic proportions, he would have the faithful believe that everything associated with Yahowah – His Towrah, His Covenant, His Mountain, His City, even His Children were enslaving. The Great Liberator was now an enduring oppressor. It is upon these lies that the Christian religion was conceived and endures. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

Paul has taken believers back to the dark and desolate wilderness of lifelessness and ignorance.

Sustoicheo is the most intriguing word in this rant. Translated “corresponding to,” it is from sun, meaning “with and together,” and stoicheo, “proceeding to march like soldiers in a row, to walk, and to direct one’s 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 Sha’uwl was opposed “to the present Yaruwshalaim” is obvious: he was rebuked there for his opposition to circumcision.

I would be remiss if I did not remind you that sustoicheo is related to stoicheion, which Sha’uwl 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 statements 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. (Galatians 4:8)

But now having known god, but what’s 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 the first step which is backward again and again. You are choosing to be controlled as a slave (4:9) by observing and attending to days, and months, and seasons, and years.” (Galatians 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 “something’s 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.

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 banished from the Promised Land. And the only reason this Covenant is known to us is that it was announced and memorialized in the Towrah which was handed down and recited on Mount Sinai / Choreb.

The Covenant commemorated the emancipation of the Yisra’elites from religious, political, military, and economic oppression, and it provides the means to our entry into God’s Family. Each of the Covenant’s promises was enabled by Yahowah when He fulfilled the first four Miqra’ey in Yaruwshalaim – a name which means “the source of teaching and guidance regarding reconciliation.” Curiously, Jerusalem was neither enslaved at the time, nor was it occupied by Hagar’s descendants. Not only was she and her son freed from slavery, the city was not even Towrah observant at the time of Paul’s writing or since, causing him to be wrong on all accounts.

The details, which actually correspond between the Covenant forged with Abraham and memorialized on Mount Sinai with Moseh are that all who rely on Yahowah’s Word are liberated from man’s 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 Yaruwshalaim is no different than Sinai in this regard. Rather than standing for the “Source of Salvation,” in Paul’s twisted mind, Yaruwshalaim is now a coconspirator in the enslavement of humankind. After having pierced Yahowah in the heart, Paul has now poked his finger in God’s eye.

Before we move on, I would like you to consider the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear and other renditions of Paul’s 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 Paul’s 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 forever be like Hagar and Ishmael – estranged from the Covenant and banished from the Promised Land.

Paul’s next statement is inaccurate but not as reprehensible. Having nullified the Covenant’s benefits by negating everything Yahowah, Yahowsha’, and the Set-Apart Spirit accomplished in Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem in 33 CE by fulfilling Pesach | Passover, Matsah | UnYeasted Bread, Bikuwrym | Firstborn Children, and Shabuw’ah | Sevens, the Plague of Death invented a pretend Jerusalem to go along with his imaginary covenant...

“But (de) the (e) Yaruwshalaim (Ierousalem) above instead (ano – upward 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)

I wonder if Sha’uwl had one too many hallucinogenic mushrooms and then borrowed Muhammad’s Burāq | Winged Ass to fly up to and check out the mother ship? Just speculation on my part, but how else is one to explain such delirium?

All we know for sure is that Yaruwshalaim was too real for Sha’uwl. It did not fit into his story. So he had to replace it along with Yahowah, Yitschaq and the Covenant, Moseh and the Towrah, Dowd and the Mizmowr and Mashal, Yahowsha’ and Pesach, and the disciples and what actually occurred.

Without the Miqra’ey, which were fulfilled in Yaruwshalaim, there is no way to engage the Set-Apart Spirit in our lives, and thus no access to our Spiritual Mother. But no matter. Paul had a replacement for everything. After suffering the birth pangs, he would serve as the Mother of the Faithful. His nest in the “free and independent Jerusalem” would rise above the one Yahowah cherished.

And the duplicity here is not 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 deceptions, it would be unreasonable to attempt an interpretation which would make sense of this.

Sha’uwl, 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 “free and independent” of Yahowah. There is such a place, and it was named after Sha’uwl: She’owl | Hell. Paul will be the Resident Advisor, and he will have his heart’s desire – no God.

To add insult to injury, Paul’s coconspirators at the New Living Translation HQ decided to take their Apostle’s mythical metaphor to the next level. Consider the NLT: “But the other woman, Sarah, represents the heavenly Jerusalem. She is the free woman, and she is our mother.” Why not? In the process of inventing a new god, a New Testament, a new covenant, a new religion, and a new flying city, why not resurrect and repurpose Sarah. After delivering Yitschaq | Isaac when she was 90, I’m sure she wouldn’t mind having a few billion more children. If she laughed at God, what might her response be to this?

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.” Silly me, all this time I thought I was born in Pasadena.

One day, likely around year 7000 Yah, about a thousand years from now, there will be a New Jerusalem. It is presented in Zechariah and elaborated upon again in Isaiah. Only one problem for Paul and the Christian faithful: Dowd will be King, it is filled with those pesky Jews, and it will be designed for the 12 tribes of Yisra’el. And of course, there is another problem – that old, enslaving God will be there too.

Nearly 3000 years after Galatians was written, the creation of Heavenly Jerusalem remains in our future. It will be constructed by Yahowah as part of His creation of a new heaven and earth at the end of the millennial celebration of Sukah and the Shabat.

And just when we thought it could not get any worse, Paul’s Greek deteriorates to the point where we once again need to use the Nestle-Aland Interlinear as a compass to navigate Paul’s 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 you think you heard what you believe I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”

Perhaps an even more literal and complete rendering of Paul’s word salad will help solve the 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 that is not entirely decipherable, or even discernible, without a dose of secret mythos and religious jargon, or, failing that, a decoder ring, the citation is allegedly from Yasha’yah / Isaiah 54:1. It may be of assistance.

Cognizant of that prophecy and the wannabe apostle’s tactics, it becomes obvious that Sha’uwl is trying to fool his audience into believing that Yahowah’s prophecy regarding the Set-Apart Spirit’s role in our lives on Shabuw’ah, following the fulfillment of Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym, was actually about a new replacement covenant. I’m sure that will come as a surprise to Isaiah.

Nonetheless, in our quest for verification, we’ll have to go back in time and consider what God revealed through a prophet named “Freedom and Salvation are from Yahowah” to see if we can affirm that Yasha’yah 54 was actually about our Spiritual Mother’s involvement on Shabuw’ah | Seven Shabats in Yaruwshalaim to enable the final benefits of the Covenant. Then, we will strive to understand how and why Paul twisted the prophecy to serve his ill-conceived thesis.

In that context is always an essential component of understanding, the cited passage follows one of the most vivid portrayals of Yahowsha’s redeeming sacrifice as the Passover Lamb found anywhere in the Towrah or Prophets. Incompatible with Paul’s disdain for the Towrah, that portion of the prophecy would have to be omitted for Sha’uwl to promote his new theory.

The last statement of the 53rd chapter speaks of what Yahowah did for us on Pesach and Matsah: “Yet He, Himself, bore the sin of many, and He interceded for the transgressors.” Pesach and Matsah work in harmony to immortalize and perfect the Covenant Family.

“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, crying out for having overcome (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).

And (wa – in addition [from 1QIsa and 4QIsa (not in the MT)]) She, who has not yet borne many children (lo’ yalad – she who has not during this confined period of time brought forth, beget, and delivered (the qal perfect conveys an actual relationship with a completed timeframe, and thus not ongoing, condition)), will be genuinely serene as She begins (patsach – be at peace, without negative concerns nor distress, sparkling and happy, gleaming, bright, and cheerful, as She starts (qal imperative)) to openly communicate, expressing Her joyful message (rinah – to convey Her requests in song, happily proclaiming and entreating; from ranan – to overcome).

Then (wa) She will be brilliant in Her verbal communication, electing to shine (tsahal – She will convey a radiant message and appearance, light beaming and while She shouts (qal imperative)), not waiting any longer (lo’ yachal – not delaying any more past this moment in time (qal perfect)).

For then indeed (wa ky), greater and more abundant will be the children (rab beny – more numerous and abounding in influence, is the offspring) of the appalled and dismayed (shamem – the devastated and deserted, abandoned and ravaged) than the children (min beny – compared to the offspring) controlled by the Lord Ba’al (Ba’al – of those who were betrothed to the Adversary, possessed and ruled by Satan, lorded over and owned by the master (in the qal passive participle this is literally done to them)),’ says (‘amar – answers and promises) Yahowah ( – a transliteration of YaHoWaH as instructed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence).” (Yasha’yah / Salvation is from Yahowah / Isaiah 54:1)

The prophetic text of Yasha’yah 53 presents the fulfillment of Passover and UnYeasted Bread 700 years prior to their realization in 33 CE, which was the year 4000 Yah. Then in the transition from the 53rd to the 54th chapter of Isaiah we are exposed to the fulfillment of Firstborn Children, which occurred the following day. At that moment, our Spiritual Mother, the Maternal aspect of the Set-Apart Spirit, was finally able to accomplish her mission, that of adopting the Covenant’s Children. This is a celebration of that occasion.

We also see the Spirit in Her element, doing what She does best, which is to communicate with Her children. Her message is as uplifting and enlightening as Yahowah’s Word. Father and Spirit are singing the lyrics of the same song.

It is also interesting to note that She will be serene, providing quiet confidence to those She is inspiring, making their lives exciting and worth living, even at the culmination of the Time of Ya’aqob’s Troubles.

The most encouraging aspect of this prophecy is its conclusion. We discover that the Spirit’s children will finally outnumber and outshine those Paul and company have caused to worship the Lord Ba’al, a.k.a. Satan. Having been rightfully appalled and dismayed by what Christians have said and done, especially in the name of their “Holy Ghost,” She will finally have the last word.

Sometimes God’s testimony conveys more than what we see at first blush. For example, the primary meaning of the verb ranan is predicated on the idea of “expressing joy for having overcome a formidable obstacle,” thereby “announcing and celebrating having finally accomplished” what the Spirit “has striven to achieve.”

Along these lines, while ‘aqar can mean “infertile, sterile, and barren,” it also speaks of “offspring in successive generations.” What is fascinating is that ‘aqar is the verbal root. It would normally define the noun, especially when it is spelled identically. And yet ‘aqar speaks of “uprooting something, plucking it out and cutting it down.” The root speaks of “uprooting that which will be abandoned for having become ruined, completely eliminating an entire population with a focus on their destruction.” Therefore, those who have been harmful “will be hamstrung and crippled, negating their ability to press on.” These renderings seem to suggest that the Set-Apart Spirit is going to be celebrating the incapacitation and removal of something which has hindered the growth of Her family: Pauline Christianity, perhaps?

We will compare Yahowah’s prophecy to Sha’uwl’s misappropriation of it in a moment. But first, let’s consider what Yahowah predicted would happen as a result of Bikuwrym | Firstborn Children following the fulfillment of Passover and UnYeasted Bread. In anticipation of Reconciliations and Camping Out, the final two Miqra’ey, the Set-Apart Spirit is asked to enlarge God’s brilliantly illuminated home such that it will accommodate His entire family. Then we discover Her making the arrangements for the celebration of Sukah | Tabernacles using metaphors harmonious with Camping Out in an expansive and protected fashion.

“Enlarge (rachab – make expansive and roomy, choosing to joyfully take advantage of the opportunity to expand the special dimensions (in the hifil imperative, the subject, who is the Set-Apart Spirit, enables the object, those about to camp out with God, to participate in the action, which is to be made greater, expanding dimensionally)) the shining and sheltered place (maqowm – the protected dwelling conducive to life, the location to take a stand and abode; from ma – to consider the implications of and quwm – rising up, standing up, confirming, and establishing) of Your home and brilliantly illuminated dwelling (‘ohel ‘atah – of Your dazzling encampment and illuminating tent for camping out within Your enlightened residence).

And (wa) the shelter (yarya’ah – the protective curtain and interwoven fabric) of Your tabernacle (mishkan ‘atah – of Your dwelling to abide and reside; from my – to consider the implications of shakan – settling down, residing, and living) continuously spread for them under the auspices of freewill (natsah – outstretched and extended on an ongoing basis so that they can choose to be raised up and increased (the hifil stem, imperfect conjugation and jussive mood show the Set-Apart Spirit constantly facilitating this result on behalf of those who elect to participate)).

Do not withhold (lo’ chasak – do not hold back (qal imperfect jussive)) dimensionally increasing (‘arak – lengthening in time and space) Your cords for those who remain (mythar ‘atah – the tent strings which hold up, enlarge, and secure Your dwelling for the remnant; from my – to question seeking answers regarding yathar – those who remain).

Then (wa) strengthen, restoring and renewing (chazaq – intensify the learning experience and potential to respond, being resolute and firm, empowering and encouraging by firmly establishing (piel imperative – of Your own volition choose to restore)) Your tent pegs (yathed ‘atah – Your stakes which provide added safety and security). (Yasha’yah 54:2)

Indeed (ky), to the right and on the left (yamyn wa simo’wl – right and left hand; speaking of Yisra’elites and Gowym) You will speak to, encourage, and spread out the increase of those born to You (parats – You will communicate with and inspire, reassuring the proliferation of many from Your womb).

Then Your seed, and thus descendants (wa zera’ ‘atah – Your seed, offspring, and children) will inherit and take possession of (yarash – they will displace and acquire (qal imperfect plural – the “seed” are many and they will genuinely and on an ongoing basis come to own and occupy)) the gentile nations (gowym – the places and countries which had been occupied by people estranged from and in opposition to Yisra’el) and (wa) will inhabit (yashab – will settle and dwell within, living, staying, and remaining in (hifil imperfect – indefinitely making them their own)) the desolated and deserted cities (‘iyr shamem – depopulated and abandoned urban areas).” (Yasha’yah / Freedom and Salvation are from Yahowah / Isaiah 54:3)

Now we know the answer to the question I posed earlier, wondering if ‘aqar was being used to suggest that the Set-Apart Spirit would be celebrating the removal of the Pauline Christians who had hampered the growth of Her family. They are not only gone, those born into Yahowah’s Spiritual Family will inherit their nations and live in their depopulated cities.

This is stunning in a way. Just as Paul cited a passage from the prophet who called him the “Plague of Death,” he is now drawing upon a prophecy which reveals that those who believe him will lose everything, including their lives. The beneficiaries of Pesach, Matsah, Bikuwrym, and Shabuw’ah, leading to Taruw’ah, Kipurym, and Sukah, will prevail. Born into Yahowah’s Spiritual Family, they will Camp Out with their Heavenly Father and Spiritual Mother without ever having to be annoyed by the likes of Paul again. Gone and good riddance.

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. They perceive themselves as the “children who would be greater in number and status.”

That, however, is not what this prophecy was predicting. Sarah’s infertility was resolved 1300 years before Yasha’yah penned these words (which would have made him a prophet predicting the past). Moreover, Sarah’s son, Yitschaq, fathered Ya’aqob, who became Yisra’el – not a goyish church – negating the Christian claim.

Further, once upon a time prior to Christianity, there were no chapter or verse designations in Yahowah’s revelations. What is now designated Isaiah 54:1-2 was and remains part of the same story revealed in the preceding “chapter.” And what is now labeled Isaiah 53 speaks not of Abraham, Sarah, and Yitschaq but of the fulfillment of Passover, Unyeasted Bread, Firstborn Children in year 4000 Yah (33 CE) in Yaruwshalaim! It is then the continuing story of how the Promise of Seven enables the Covenant’s growth, which in turn makes Reconciliations and Shelters possible.

By misappropriating and misquoting a prophetic revelation, and taking it out of context, Paul hoodwinked unthinking Christians into believing that this was about Sarah and Yitschaq rather than the Ruwach and the Miqra’ey. Rather than celebrate the prophecy that explained the reason Yahowsha’, as the Passover Lamb, would fulfill Pesach, and how that would lead to the enablement of the Covenant’s promises, the Devil’s Advocate beguiled billions into believing that this was God’s promise to the people He would ultimately eliminate.

Stupid is as stupid says and believes. The birth of Yitschaq | Isaac was now ancient history. Sarah had but one child, and he was the father of the patriarch of the Yisra’elites. And they would become the heirs to the Covenant Paul had condemned. And in the end, when the last Miqra’ is fulfilled, the Children of the Covenant will inherit depopulated gentile nations and cities.

Yisra’el has not been replaced – but Christians will be. So much for the theory of Replacement Theology.

If we distance ourselves from Paul’s polluted mantra, it becomes obvious that the “Mother” being described in Yasha’yah 54 is someone very special. This prophecy is telling us that our Spiritual Mother will give birth to the Covenant’s children in concert with Bikuwrym | Firstborn Children, enriching and empowering God’s Family on Shabuw’ah | the Promise of Seven Shabats. This would lead to Kipurym | Reconciliations and to Sukah | Camping Out with God.

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 Covenant’s children to “rinah – sing out the lyrics” of Yahowah’s message, singing from Dowd’s Mizmowr | Songs. The Spirit is the power behind Yowm Taruw’ah, where we are called to “joyously proclaim the Good News” of Yahowah’s Way, while also “shouting out a warning” to those headed in the wrong direction. Reinforcing this, on Shabuw’ah, Taruw’ah, Kipurym, and twice on Sukah, we are expressly asked to approach the Maternal aspect of God’s Light so that we can enjoy all of the rights and privileges of being part of our Heavenly Father’s Covenant Family.

As an interesting aside, once we understand the promise and purpose of Yahowah’s Invitations to be Called Out and Meet, we recognize that each resolves an aspect of our current nature, preparing us for adoption into Yahowah’s family and for camping out with our Heavenly Father. Therefore, those who answer God’s engraved Invitations, and those who observe the seven Miqra’ey in accordance with Yahowah’s Towrah | Instructions, receive the promised benefits.

‘Ohel, meaning “covered shelter,” describes “pitching a tent to camp out.” It is indistinguishable in the text from ‘ahal, “to shine a pure and clear light.” 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.” Yahowsha’, as the Passover Lamb, is the living embodiment of quwm. And of course, “maqowm – the standing place” would be Yaruwshalaim – Paul’s coconspirator along with Sinai in our supposed enslavement.

Fortunately, there is a bright side to all of this. One of the benefits of having Paul routinely misappropriate and 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.

There is a provocative insight, one which was included to negate Sha’uwl’s bombastic misrepresentations. Remember back in Galatians 3:16 when Paul began his entire diatribe on the moronic notion that since “zera’ – seed” was singular, we could dispense with the Towrah. Then in Galatians 3:29, he capitalized upon this straw man by claiming that those who believed him were “Abraham’s seed,” thereby replacing Yisra’el with his gentile believers, planting the seed that would grow into Replacement Theology. Well, in Yasha’yah / Isaiah 54:3, the Great Isaiah Scroll, the only completely intact book found in Qumran, specifically reveals that the “descendants” who would be greater and more numerous, were our Spiritual Mother’s zera’ | seed. And while the “more numerous” depiction ought to have been enough for even the religious to recognize that zera’ implied more than “one,” the 1QIsa (a.k.a., the Great Isaiah Scroll) presents yarash, the verb translated “will inherit and take possession” in the plural. It therefore reveals that “‘they’ will acquire and possess,” not “he” or “it” will inherit. There would be many, not one, seed. Sorry, Paul.

I am particularly fond of the 4th and 5th prophetic declarations of the 54th chapter of Yasha’yah / Isaiah. I thought you might enjoy them too.

Yahowah is speaking to the Children of the Beryth, who will be overwhelmingly Yisra’elite. They are beneficiaries of the Miqra’ey and will be celebrating Yahowah’s return with Dowd – honoring His promises. After removing the abusive religious believers, mostly Christians but also religious Jews, Muslims, and Socialist Secularists, the prophet, speaking for God, reveals how different things will be for Yahuwdym | Jews now that they are no longer being humiliated and mistreated by gentiles…

“Fear not (‘al yare’), because you will not be humiliated or distressed again (ky lo’ bowsh – for you will never be disapproved nor shamed (qal imperfect)). Nor will you be mistreated (wa ‘al kalam – you will not be deprived, especially of what is needed to live and prosper (nifal imperfect jussive – by choice you will be given what you want and need to achieve your rightful place)).

By contrast (ky), you will not be dismayed or confused (lo’ chaphar – you will not be dishonored or have your rightful status diminished or confiscated (hifil imperfect jussive)).

Indeed (ky), you will forget (shakach – you will no longer be mindful of (qal imperfect)) being disappointed and shamed (bosheth – the disconcerting and ignominious experiences) when you were younger (‘aluwmym ‘atah – of your youth).

And then (wa) the contemptible and dishonorable condition (cherphah – the lowly status, reproach, and insults) of being widowed and forsaken (‘almanuwth ‘atah – of being bereaved by the loss of your spouse) you will no longer remember (lo’ zakar – you will no longer recall (qal imperfect)) ever again (‘owd – forevermore).

Because then (ky) your husband (ba’al ‘atah – you will be married to and you will rule alongside with) will be the One who engaged and acted on your behalf (‘asah ‘atah – will be your Maker who fashioned and formed you).

Yahowah ( – the pronunciation of YaHoWaH as guided by His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence) of hosts (tsaba’ – of the vast array of spiritual implements) is His name (shem huw’ – is His proper designation and renown), your Redeemer and Liberator (wa ga’al ‘atah – the One who removed you from harm’s way, freeing you, providing emancipation and liberty as your kin), the Set-Apart One (qodesh) of Yisra’el (Yisra’el – Individuals who Engage and Endure with God).

Almighty God (‘elohym) of the entire material realm (kol ha ‘erets – the entire earth) He will be invited as, summoned and proclaimed (qara’ – He is called, read and recited aloud as, met with, known as and encountered).” (Yasha’yah / Freedom and Salvation are from Yahowah / Isaiah 54:4-5)

I love Yahowah and enjoy His prophets, so this is music to my ears.

Leaving our respite in Heaven for another round in Hell, we find that Sha’uwl | Paul not only misquoted Yasha’yah | Isaiah, he improperly associated Sarah with a prophecy depicting our Spiritual Mother’s fulfillment of the Invitations to Meet with God. In this light, please consider how different Paul’s Greek is from Yasha’yah’s Hebrew:

Sha’uwl: “For indeed, it has been written, ‘Be glad infertile one, the one not giving birth, violently throwing an angry fit while viciously ripping things to pieces, cry aloud for not suffering the birth pains because many are the children of the desolate, more than of the man possessing.’” (Galatians 4:27)

Yahowah: “‘Sing for joy, conveying the lyrics of an uplifting song, woman who has not yet given birth. And She, who has not yet borne many children, will be genuinely serene and at peace, gleaming brightly as She openly conveys Her joyful message.

She will be brilliant in audible communication, no longer hesitating to sing. For then indeed, greater and more abundant will be the children of the appalled and dismayed than the offspring controlled by the Lord Ba’al, says Yahowah.” (Yasha’yah 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 Sha’uwl once again misquoted, twisted, and misapplied Yahowah’s Word to imply that he had Divine authority for his blasphemous position, let’s 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 Paul’s 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, I will share the Christian interpretation of Paul’s 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.” It is hard to explain Paul’s point when his words don’t 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, Ishmael’s 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 had not mangled and denounced the Towrah’s Covenant, this wouldn’t 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 children – twins as it turns out, not hundreds, thousands, millions, or billions of children. One of his two sons, his firstborn, Esau, Yahowah despised – so that’s not an appealing option. Although in this regard, Sha’uwl and Esau share the distinction of being the only two individuals Yahowah calls out by name to demean.

Yitschaq’s second son, Ya’aqob, became Yisra’el, and thus he represents the nation and the race Sha’uwl has been denouncing. Ya’aqob was the father of the twelve tribes known collectively as “Yisra’el.” And yet Galatians has established, and Thessalonians will affirm, that Jews and Israel were Paul’s mortal enemy, so Ya’aqob is not a viable option either. Therefore, even the details which comprise Paul’s attempted recasting of Yahowah’s 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 Yahowah’s family are not Yitschaq’s 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 Yahowah’s Covenant, the one memorialized in the Torah, something Paul rejected as have Christians after him. And thus, Sha’uwl’s statement is wholly fraudulent.

Simply stated, the opposite of what Paul is claiming is true. A faith based upon Paul’s words is worthless.

We find the following in Jerome’s 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 Paul’s inaccurate and uninspired drivel.

Since nothing more needs to be said with regard to exposing Christians to the fact that Paul should not be trusted, let’s 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 we were insane like Paul, or demon-possessed, this might make so much sense it would appear inspired. But since we are 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 (ΠΝΑ) and so it continues (kai houto – also likewise it follows) even now (nyn – at the present time).” (Galatians 4:29)

Let’s be honest in our appraisal. This “sentence” is incomprehensible. So rather than attempt to comment on what Paul actually wrote, let’s 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 would not know where to begin if asked to “translate” this.

The King James appears to be taking a racist approach, suggesting that Yahowah’s Jews were persecuting Paul’s 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 cannot quarrel with the realization that this may well encapsulate Paul’s intent, it isn’t 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.” Yitschaq was not “born by the power of the Spirit.” While Ishmael is said to have teased Yitschaq, that’s a world away from “dioko – persecution.” Moreover, since dioko means “to persecute by hastily pursuing someone, to oppress and harass him, and thereby cause the victim to flee and ultimately be expelled,” it is the wrong verb to apply to the intermittent taunts Ishmael launched in Yitschaq’s direction, especially since it led to Ishmael’s, not Yitschaq’s, expulsion from the Promised Land. Therefore, no matter how Paul’s message is interpreted, it is consistently wrong. And one thousand lies do not make a religious text credible.

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, Paul’s 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, let’s 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.”

Jerome’s 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 confirming that Paul was attempting to quote the Torah, the NLT’s 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 woman’s son.’”

The Torah passage Sha’uwl cited begins similarly but ends differently. Most importantly, it is in Sarah’s voice, not God’s:

“Sarah (Sarah – to struggle and strive or to engage and endure) saw (ra’ah – perceived and envisioned) the son (‘eth ben) of Hagar (Hagar – to devise a sorrowful plot and commit it to writing; from hagyg and hegeh – lamentable words which tell a woeful tale), the Mitsry (Mitsry – from the guarded crucible of chronic oppression and serious impairment, anguish, and distress, the Egyptian), who had relations with (‘asher) ‘Abraham (‘Abraham – father who raises and lifts up those who stand up and reach up, father of the abundantly enriched, merciful father, or father of multitudes who are confused and troublesome), bearing a child (yalad), laughing (tsachaq – laughing and playing around).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:9)

We are left to wonder if Hagar and Ishmael were laughing at Sarah trying to deal with Yitschaq at ninety years of age, or if the joking around included ‘Abraham. But either way, Sarah was not amused.

Hagar’s name could be based upon hagyg or hegeh, which would be “to devise a sorrowful plot and commit it to writing,” or “lamentable words which tell a woeful tale.” Either sounds a lot like the Qur’an – a sorrowful tale originally recited by Muhammad, who claimed to be a descendant of Ishmael.

Also interesting, hagah means “to be removed and expelled, driven out.” That would be consistent with what follows, and of Muhammad’s plight in Mecca. Muhammad even used Hagar’s name to describe his mythical flight on the winged ass from Mecca to Jerusalem, calling the high-flying affair “the Hegira.” Islam has long represented a return to slavery.

“So (wa) she said (‘amar) to ‘Abraham (‘Abraham), cast out and banish (garash – remove, expel, divorce, and drive away (piel imperative – of your own volition cause them to be expelled, sending away)) this slave woman (ha ‘amah ha zo’th – the female servant, this piece of property and lowlife of a woman) along with her son (wa ‘eth ben hy’), because (ky) the son of this piece of property and lowlife of a woman (ha ben ha ‘amah ha zo’th – the child of the female servant and slave) shall not share in an inheritance (lo’ yarash – shall not be an heir) with my son (‘im ben ‘any), Yitschaq | Laughter (Yitschaq – I thought it was funny and laughed).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:10)

Sarah was jealous, but so is God. Not everyone shares in the inheritance. Sarah was now a mother and she was protective.

It is also likely that her relationship with Hagar and with Ishmael changed appreciably. Hagar had served at her bequest as a surrogate mother and bore her husband’s child. Her status would have risen. However, now Yitschaq was the star of the show. Uncomfortable with the turn of fortune, Hagar evidently copped an attitude that was unbecoming.

Nonetheless, ‘Abraham had divided loyalties…

“But (wa) this statement (ha dabar – these words and manner of speaking) was exceedingly (ma’od – tremendously and utterly, highly and greatly) distressing and inappropriate (ra’a’ – troubling and hurtful, displeasing and sad, disturbing and harmful) in the sight of (ba ‘ayn – from the perspective of) ‘Abraham (‘Abraham – father who raises and lifts up those who stand up and reach up, father of the abundantly enriched, merciful father, or father of multitudes who are confused and troublesome) on account of (al ‘owdowth – because of) his son (ben ‘any).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:11)

Yahowah’s loyalties were not divided. Ishmael had been Sarah’s idea and ‘Abraham’s mistake. Yahowah had made it possible for them to conceive Yitschaq, and he would be their heir.

“God (wa ‘elohym – the Mighty Ones) said (‘amar – explained) to (‘el) ‘Abraham (‘Abraham), ‘You should not perceive this in a negative way (‘al ra’a ba ‘ayn ‘atah – you should not see this as hurtful nor harmful, avoid viewing this as wrong, and do not be seen appearing anxious) before (‘al – or against) the boy (ha na’ar – the teenager; from na’ar – to be shaken over the emptiness and lack of adherence and to shake off and free) or because of (wa ‘al) your female servant (‘amah ‘atah).

Whatever (kol – everything) for the benefit of the relationship (‘asher – which, to show the way to get the greatest joy out of life) Sarah (Sarah – to struggle and strive or to engage and endure) says to you (‘amar ‘el ‘atah), listen (shama’) to the sound of her voice (ba qowl hy’) because, indeed (ky – for the reason that surely by contrast), with Yitschaq | Isaac (Yitschaq) your offspring (la ‘atah zera’) shall be called out and summoned (qara’ – invited and welcomed, designated and known).’” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:12)

It was a short meeting with a simple and clear intent. Listen to your wife when she addresses the benefits associated with your relationship. What she is saying is in your interests. It was now time to “garash – cast out and remove” his possessions, freeing the boy and her mother in the process. Those in and out of the Covenant would not live together. Turf wars and feuding over misperceptions would lead to conflict and bloodletting.

Therefore, let’s review what the Towrah says and juxtapose it next to Paul’s citation.

The Towrah says: “So she said to ‘Abraham, cast out and banish this slave woman along with her son, because the son of this piece of property and inferior woman shall not share in an inheritance with my son, Yitschaq | Laughter.” (Bare’syth 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.”

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. 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.

More importantly, why did Paul corrupt the ending of the sentence, changing what Sarah said: “because the son of this piece of property and inferior woman shall not share in an inheritance with my son, Yitschaq | Laughter” to: “for will not receive by lots the son of the slave girl with the son of the free.”

Beyond the fact that it is poor form for the creation to misquote the Creator, it is obvious that Sha’uwl misrepresented God’s statement because he wanted the passage to support his ploy. So when Sarah didn’t differentiate between “the son of the slave girl and the son of the free,” Sha’uwl changed the text to create the illusion that he had a Divine sanction for his faith.

What is so deeply troubling about all of this is that Sha’uwl 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 Yisra’el. Thus the basis for Sha’uwl’s adversarial covenant, the one allegedly memorialized on Mount Sinai with Hagar, which enslaves us, is torn asunder by the very Towrah he cited.

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.

Perhaps this explains one of the reasons Sha’uwl spurned Jews. They knew the Towrah and would have held him accountable for twisting it. Recognizing that his ploy would not prevail before an informed audience, Paul marketed his ideas exclusively to Gentiles who didn’t know any better. It is one of the reasons there are so few Jewish Christians today.

Also, since I have made the comparison, Satan’s other messenger, Muhammad, turned against Jews for exactly the same reasons. He had purchased Talmud readings from them, which he twisted into Qur’an surahs. And since the Jews knew where he had gotten his “inspiration,” they had to be eliminated before exposing Muhammad as a fraud.

Before we move on, I would like you to consider something. If we were to put aside the big picture for a moment, where Paul’s message has been the antithesis of Yahowah’s, how can anyone believe that this poorly written and illogical letter is “Scripture,” as in the inspired and inerrant Word of God? All one has to do is compare Paul’s 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 precept 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 wasn’t inspired by the Spirit who revealed the Towrah, but that means Paul didn’t speak for God, and was thus a liar.

You can also blame scribes, thereby, claiming that they changed Paul’s 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 2nd century. So if scribal error significantly changed the text of Galatians over this short period of time, 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. And yet how is that possible since Yahowsha’ affirmed every aspect of Yahowah’s Word and plan? How is it possible since today’s newspapers read like Yahowah’s prophetic promises?

And that notwithstanding, Paul has alleged that his message is the same as Yahowsha’s and that it was inspired by the God from whom he came. 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, it is 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 almost anything, Paul’s thesis is not the least bit credible.

By the way, even Paul’s insistence on Hagar and Ishmael remaining enslaved is torn asunder by the Towrah.

“Beside (wa gam – also as an alternative) the son of the slave woman (ha ben ha ‘amah) I will move into and put in a different place (sym la – I will relocate and set in another location) as a confluence of ethnicities and cultures (la gowy – becoming a people from different races and places, albeit the walking dead who are heathens estranged from Yisra’el).

Indeed he (huw’ ky – surely, making a contrast with him), he is your offspring (zera’ ‘atah huw’ – he is the seed you have sown).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:13)

The realization that Ishmael was the seed Abraham had sown is why Abraham’s name carries such positive and negative connotations: ‘Abraham – the father who raises and lifts up those who stand up and reach up for mercy and the father of multitudes who are confused and troublesome.

This known, sym does not imply that Yahowah was nation-building with Gentiles – as is conveyed in English Bibles. It means “to put or set something in a different place.” He relocated Yshma’‘el | Ishmael toward what would become the Muslim Middle East.

God’s statement carries overtones of His desire to walk Abraham off the cliff of feeling rather than thinking. Abraham doted over Ishmael, largely because the two men enjoyed similar passions. And that was a problem. So Yahowah not only needed to separate them for the Covenant to prevail, He had to do so in such a way that Abraham would continue to listen to Him – to trust Him. God would put Ishmael in his place to get Abraham’s mind in the right place.

Hagar and Ishmael were freed. They were sent away with provisions. It is how I would deal with the errantly named and misinformed “Palestinian” Muslims in Israel, today. However, based upon the propensity for terror and targeting Jews, Yahowah will not be as kind.

“‘Abraham (‘Abraham – the father who raises and lifts up those who stand up and reach up, father of the abundantly enriched, merciful father, or father of multitudes who are confused and troublesome) arose early in the morning (shakam ba ha boqer – started the day at dawn and) grasped hold of (laqach – obtained) a loaf of bread (lechem) and a skin of water (wa chemeth maym) and gave them (wa nathan – he offered them) to (‘el) Hagar (Hagar – to devise a sorrowful plot and commit it to writing; from hagyg and hegeh – lamentable words which tell a woeful tale), placing them (sym – setting and putting them) on (‘al) her shoulder (shakem hy’ – her upper back), along with the child (‘eth ha yeled). And then he sent her away (wa shalach hy’ – he dispatched her, directing her to leave).

So she began walking (wa halak – walked away), and wandered around aimlessly in error (wa ta’ah – she went astray intoxicated, staggering around without understanding, traveling place to place without purpose) into (ba) lifelessness, the desolation devoid of the word (ba midbar – desert wasteland, the wilderness, a place of illiteracy where the word is questioned; a compound of my – to question and dabar – the word) of Ba’er Sheba’ (Ba’er Sheba’– the pit of swearing).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:14)

Directly contradicting Sha’uwl’s testimony, Hagar and Ishmael were freed. They were no longer slaves and therefore could not represent bondage. Furthermore, they were sent away many centuries before Yahowah dictated His Towrah | Teaching on Mount Sinai, having long ago disassociated them from the Covenant He codified thereupon.

Excluding both mother and son from the Covenant’s promise of eternal life in God’s family was one thing, but robbing him of his earthly life would have violated the oath Yahowah made to his father.

“When the water from the skin (wa ha maym min ha chemeth) was gone (kalah – was finished), she threw (shalak – she hurled and flung, casting down and rejecting) the young man (ha yeled – the boy and adolescent child) beneath (tachath – under) one (‘echad) of the bushes (ha syach – shrubs; from syach – complaint and expression of discontent).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:15)

There is a violent tone to the Hebrew word shalak with nothing maternal or loving about it. She threw the young man down, hurling him to the ground. Syach is also an intriguing word in that it is “a place of anguish and discontent where one contemplates foolishness while expressing anxiety.”

“And she took a walk (wa halak), settling down (yashab – remaining in place for an indefinite period) such that she went well beyond (la hy’ min neged), far enough away to avoid any association (rachaq – a great distance, to be aloof, severing the relationship), similar to a bowshot (ka tachah qeshet – about as far as an arrow can be hurled). And she said (wa ‘amar), ‘I do not want to witness (‘al ra’ah) the death (ba maweth – the process of dying associated with the plague) of the teenage boy (ha yeled – of the young man).’ And as she settled down (yashab – remaining in place for an indefinite period) opposite and beyond (min neged), she raised her voice (wa nasa’ ‘eth kol hy’) and wept (wa bakah – wailed, sobbed, cried, and mourned).” (Bare’syth / 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, Yahowah said this of Ishmael’s descendants: “He shall consistently be (wa huw’ hayah) a wild ass (pere’) of a man (‘adam). His hand (yad huw’) will be against everyone (ba ha kol) and everyone’s hand (wa yad kol) against him (ba huw’). Even in opposition to the presence (wa ‘al paneh) of all of his brothers (kol ‘ach huw’) he will live and remain (shakan).” (Bare’syth / Genesis 16:12) Therefore, Islam’s every flaw was being manifest before our eyes. But nonetheless, adjacent to a spring, yesterday’s troubadours of today’s trouble gave up.

Aware of the boy’s plight, God did not send him back to Abraham or Yisra’el. He simply did as Abraham had done – He had an envoy provide for him. This messenger offered some encouragement and then sent mother and son on their way.

“And God (wa ‘elohym) heard (shama’) the sounds (‘eth qowl – the noise and voice) of the teenage boy (ha na’ar – the young man and former servant, even the lost sheep who had strayed away and into harm’s way). So a messenger (wa mal’ak – a spiritual implement and heavenly envoy) of God (‘elohym) summoned (qara’ – called out to) Hagar (Hagar – to devise a sorrowful plot and commit it to writing; from hagyg and hegeh – lamentable words which tell a woeful tale) from the heavens (min ha shamaym – out of the spiritual realms).

And he asked regarding her (wa ‘amar la hy’ – so concerning her he said), ‘What is your objective (mah la ‘atah – What is your purpose and why are you concerned), Hagar (Hagar – one devising this sorrowful plot with all the lamentable words telling a woeful tale)? Have you no respect (‘al yare’ – have you no regard, esteem, admiration, or reverence)? In actuality (ky – by contrast), God (‘elohym) has heard (shama’) the intent (‘el – the goal) of the young man’s (ha na’ar – the teenager’s) sounds (qowl – noises and audible cries) in relation to where he is over there (ba ‘asher huw’ sham).’” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:17)

Such a simple, and yet probing, question: “What is your objective, and why are you concerned, Hagar?” She was the problem. She had no respect or regard for Yahowah. And so, by contrast, it was Yahowah who was concerned about the young man’s life. She had, after all, walked away.

Unlike His encounters with Abraham and Sarah, Yahowah did not 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.

“‘Stand up (quwm – get up), pick up (nasa’ – lift up) the young man (‘eth ha na’ar) and hold him firmly (wa chazaq ba huw’ – grasp him strongly and resolutely, even harshly and with a degree of intensity) with your hand (‘eth yad ‘atah – under your influence). Indeed (ky – surely), I will move him into a different place in another location (sym – I will relocate him, setting him elsewhere) as a substantial confluence of ethnicities and cultures (gowy gadowl – to become multitudes of strange and estranged people from different races and places, many akin to the walking dead, a sizable animalistic and Godless community of non-Yahuwdym, representing a different nation).’” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:18)

“Then (wa) God (‘elohym) had her ability to be perceptive enhanced (paqach ‘eth ‘ayn hy’) and she saw (wa ra’ah) a pit (be’er – well or shaft) of water (maym). So she walked over (wa halak) and filled up (wa male’) the skin (‘eth ha chemeth) with water (maym) and gave a drink (shaqah) to the young man (‘eth ha na’ar – to the teenage boy).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:19)

She had been so caught up in her own miserable existence, after disowning the boy, she did not even bother to look for water. The well had been right there, beside her, all of the time. And yet to honor His promise, He had to work around humankind’s ineptitude. And apparently, a sip of water was all it took for Hagar and Yshma’‘el to be on their way.

“So God (wa ‘elohym) remained (hayah – continued to be) opposed to (‘eth – against) the young man (ha na’ar – was a lost sheep). He would become exalted (wa gadal – he would garner status and acclaim and be honored and glorified) living (yashab – dwelling and remaining) in the desert (ba ha midbar – in the wilderness where the word is questioned). And he came to be (wa hayah) great at shooting arrows from a bow (rabah qashath – a formidable and superior archer and hunter).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:20)

In other words, apart from being acclaimed as the forefather of Muhammad and Islam, he was a formidable killing machine. His mother should be so proud.

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, it was at Abraham’s burial. Then we learn that Esau earned Yahowah’s wrath for having married one of Ishmael’s daughters. From that point, the bastard child fades into oblivion, only to be resurrected by Muhammad to serve Allah and Islam.

Paul knew that there was no covenant established with Hagar or her son. He knew that Hagar was not 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 Paul’s 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 words – one 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 Translation’s rendition of this passage, a more comprehensive view seems appropriate. Interpreting and trumpeting Paul’s 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 God’s promise. But the son of the freeborn wife was born as God’s own fulfillment of his promise.

These two women serve as an illustration of God’s 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 Paul’s fictitious improvisation regarding a second covenant, with his view that the one formalized on Mount Sinai was associated with Hagar, as opposed to Ya’aqob and Yisra’el, 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 Paul’s willingness to demean the Towrah 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 Paul’s mythical second covenant.

Before we delve into Christian apologetics, so that Paul’s thesis is fresh in our minds, here is a recap of his position:

“Speak to me those proposing to exist under the control of the Towrah: can’t you hear what the Towrah is saying? (Galatians 4:21)

For it has been written that Abram had two sons, one from the slave girl and one from the free. (Galatians 4:22)

Certainly, from the slave girl have been born those according to flesh. From the free, by way of a promise. (Galatians 4:23)

Whatever is being spoken of allegorically, these then exist as two covenants – two testaments – one from Mount Sinai into subservience, slavery, and bondage, giving birth to whoever exists as Hagar. (Galatians 4:24)

Accordingly, now Hagar exists as Mount Sinai in Arabia, therefore corresponding to the present Yaruwshalaim. She is enslaved because of being associated with her children. (Galatians 4:25)

But the Yaruwshalaim above is in opposition, free and independent is who is our mother. (Galatians 4:26)

For indeed, it has been written, ‘Be glad infertile one, the one not giving birth, violently throwing an angry fit while viciously ripping things to pieces, cry aloud for not suffering the birth pains because many are the children of the desolate, more than of the man possessing.’ (Galatians 4:27)

But you are brothers according to Yitschaq. You are of promised children. (Galatians 4:28)

Otherwise just as at that time accordingly, flesh having given birth pursued and persecuted this according to the spirit and so it continues even now. (Galatians 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.’ (Galatians 4:30)

Therefore, brothers, we are not children of slave girl, to the contrary, the free.” (Galatians 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, the Towrah clearly states that, at Yahowah’s 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, Paul’s hypothesis contradicts every aspect of the Towrah’s presentation of Hagar, Ishmael, the Covenant, as well as what occurred on Mount Sinai. His “illustration” thus represents a complete “denial of the actual historical narrative.”

They wrote: “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 Isaac’s 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 Yisra’el and Yahuwdym – His Chosen People. And it is a plot whose mythological origins are rooted in Paul’s 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.”

However, Paul’s story isn’t “from” the account of Yitschaq and Yshma’‘el, but is instead the antithesis of it. Moreover, there is no comparison between the banishment of Hagar and the Covenant memorialized in the Torah. Further, Yahowsha’ consistently told those interested in knowing him and understanding what he came to accomplish that they must ground their perspective in the Towrah.

This 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 Towrah is the truth.

“These things Paul said are an allegory, besides being literal and historical.” It is hard to believe that the proponents of this plot are so stupid that they don’t recognize that Paul wasn’t calling his version “allegorical,” but instead Yahowah’s, and that Paul’s thesis was neither literal nor historical. Religion does crazy things to people’s minds.

“Hagar represents the Mosaic Law, slavery.” This is only true in Paul’s 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 Jews…who 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 redemption. The Towrah’s Covenant promises were honored on Passover, UnYeasted Bread, Firstborn Children, and the Promise of the Shabat in Yaruwshalaim – the Source of Teaching and Guidance Regarding 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 true. Abraham, and through him, Yitschaq and Ya’aqob (who became Yisra’el), 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 Towrah on Mount Sinai. Further, the “law that the Jews pride themselves on keeping” isn’t the Towrah, which means “Teaching,” but instead, Jewish Oral Law codified in their Talmud.

Bereft of the notion that “proof” requires “evidence,” McGarvey and Pendleton’s 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 misquoting and contradicting God. Equally uninformed, McGarvey and Pendleton as anti-Semites want Christians to believe that the Shabat, Passover, UnYeasted Bread, Firstborn Children, the Promise of Seven, Trumpets, Reconciliations, and Shelters are the customs of “Judaizers” rather than being Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God.

And by the way, if we were to believe the myth that Christians became part of the family as a result of Sarah, or as a result of Christo, or as a result of Paul, then can someone explain the reason for Yowm Kipurym | the Day of Reconciliations. With whom is Yahowah restoring His relationship, unless with Yisra’el and Yahuwdah.

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 sought Paul’s 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. And yet by saying this, these Christians have demonstrated their disdain for God in deference to Paul.

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 did not say that the two covenants were allegorical, but instead said “these then exist as two covenants.” And again, 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: “Paul’s 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 “Paul’s thesis.” And therein lies the problem. Paul’s thesis and Yahowah’s 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.

Since these alleged “Judaizers” were such a legendary foe, I wonder why no one has actually named one. Why hasn’t anyone been able to identify their leadership, determine what they believed, uncover a text written by them, found where they met, or provide any evidence that such people even existed. Unlike early Christians, rabbis documented everything from friend or foe – and there is no mention of a Judaizer in any rabbinical text.

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 seldom, if ever, attempt to convert anyone and in fact, make conversion difficult] 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 misconstrues the symbolism of circumcision and it confuses “observance” with “obedience.” Being aware leads to knowing. Obedience leads to submission. Further, the “Law of Moses” is akin to calling the prophecies Yahowah revealed to Yasha’yah the “Edicts of Isaiah.” Moseh was simply the scribe who wrote Yahowah’s teaching and guidance on a scroll. It is a wonder these theologians do not attribute 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 Yahowsha’s position on the Towrah. Therefore, since Yahowsha’ said that he did not bring an end to the Towrah, 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 Paul’s 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 Yahowah’s. They are 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 its commandments.” If the Towrah isn’t guidance for liberation, then Yahowah is a liar and Yahowsha’ fulfilled Passover and UnYeasted 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 Paul’s polluted rhetoric. Yahowah’s message to His creation begins with the “Towrah,” and it concludes with the “Prophets.” And because Paul misquoted and misapplied Yahowah’s testimony, he 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,” only mal’ak | messengers, and the Towrah was not “mediated through Moses.” To mediate is “to intervene.” Yahowah spoke for Himself and 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 Yisra’el from the crucible of human religious and political oppression and bondage in Egypt, leading them to a life of freedom in the Promised Land. Yahowah’s seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet delineate this same path for the rest of us.

“Paul’s gospel is not related to Hagar, the Judaizers are.” Paul can be blamed for many things, but “gospel” is not among them. He used euangelion, meaning “profitable 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 God’s Torah instructions and man’s 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.

Presbyterian Christians have separated themselves from Yahowah, from His Torah, from God’s Path home, from Yaruwshalaim 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 Christian’s 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 it is hard not to envision Yahowah’s 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 Satan’s shadows, his counterfeits. “Amen,” indeed.

For Paul’s 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, would have to have concluded that He was wrong and that He was incapable of resolving man’s condition. As a result, He would have had to recognize that Paul was superior in intellect and ability to Himself. Then, God would have had to have asked Paul to correct Him, and to solve these problems a different way – all while twisting and demeaning everything He had previously revealed. If you believe that is what occurred, that Paul had the authority and ability to correct God, congratulations, you are a Christian.



Questioning Paul

Devil’s Advocate

…Plague of Death

6

Pharmakeia | Poisoned

Toxic Tale…

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. And yet, 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, calling it a source of slavery, rather than liberation.

Sha’uwl has condemned himself to She’owl with his own words. If that was all there was to this investigation, so be it. But unfortunately, Paul’s noose was woven into a net which has ensnared billions of souls and turned Gentiles against Jews. For those reasons, we will press on, unraveling his trap.

As we turn the page and open the fifth chapter of Galatians, Sha’uwl remains fixated on the distinction between the liberty he claims he possesses and the servitude he has associated with observing the Towrah. In the process of having made Yahowah’s Covenant man’s mortal enemy, the concluding clause is exceptionally demeaning, even for Sha’uwl.

“This (te) freedom (eleuthera – liberty) of ours (ego) is in becoming Christos (ΧΡΣ – Divine Placeholder used by early scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement to usurp the Septuagint’s credibility and infer Divinity) it freed and unrestrained (eleutheroo – it liberated, exempted, and released). 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.” It renames 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 and unrestrained,” 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.” Such a directive is contradictory. How is someone who has been freed now subject to a command?

What Paul is attempting to say is that Christians will be freed from the Towrah so long as they obey his command. This, of course, requires the recasting of Yahowsha’ who was devoted to the Towrah.

Because the rest of Sha’uwl’s statement is equally deplorable, let’s 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.” 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.”

Let’s not forget, Sha’uwl has relentlessly sought to identify this “yoke of slavery” which “ensnares, burdens, and controls” its victims as being Yahowah’s 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 Sha’uwl inappropriately associated its perverse connotations with Yahowah, and His influence over humankind from this preposterous Pauline perspective, we can turn to the most respected lexicons. They 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, Sha’uwl is saying that our forced submission is the intended result of God’s announced declaration.

Therefore, the opening stanza of the fifth chapter of Galatians actually conveys:

“This freedom and liberty of ours by becoming Christos, it freed and released. So you all are directed to stand firm.

Therefore, also, never again associate with the yoke of subservience and slavery. You were 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.” (Galatians 5:1)

That was hard to write, much less read. It is hard to imagine Paul hating God to this degree.

Based upon Paul’s attitude, and the nature of his delusional and inverted thesis, it wasn’t 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 don’t get tied up again in slavery to the law.” Paul’s intent is obvious. Therefore, as a thought for thought paraphrase, the NLT nailed it.

Unfortunately, what Paul thought and wrote was not true. Yahowsha’s sacrifice as the Passover Lamb resolved our sins, not God’s.

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. Having attempted to censure God, the Devil’s Advocate unleashed his first official “I Paul say….” He would have the faithful believe that he was more credible and important than God. Sha’uwl was a blithering idiot. What you are about to read is yet another lie – this one deadly...

“You pay attention (ide – you look right now, listen and see, noticing this), I (ego), Paulos (Paulos – transliterated Paul, whom Strong’s 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 (ΧΡΣ – being the Ma’aseyah (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 Paul’s word, you must reject God’s Word. Yahowah said the opposite. An uncircumcised man is prohibited from participating in Pesach – foreclosing the only means to eternal life. Moreover, God explicitly states that the soul of an uncircumcised man is barred entry to Heaven.

Beyond robbing every Christian man of the opportunity for eternal life, Paul has done something far worse. The man who had the audacity to claim that he alone was inspired by God, and had met with Yahowsha’ | “Jesus,” just negated the merit of his sacrifice as the Passover Lamb.

Distilled to its essence, the Plague of Death wrote…

“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.”

This is blasphemous in the extreme, with Paulos saying, “if you follow Yahowah’s guidance in the Towrah, you cannot be saved by Yahowsha’.” This time, the writing quality is sufficiently clear – it is the message which is at fault.

The depravity of Paul’s message is exemplified by the words he chose to convey it. The first one, “lego – I say,” pits Paul against Yahowsha’: “the ‘logos – word’ made flesh.” It is also a substitute for the “dabar – word” of God. Logos was written in the first person singular, present active indicative. Even though the pronoun “I” or “myself” was designated in the verb, Sha’uwl added “ego – I” separately, in addition to his chosen name, “Paulos,” to emphasize that he 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 Sha’uwl 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 any possibility that he was speaking for Yahowsha’. Worse, Paulos, in saying such a thing, is annulling the purpose of Yahowsha’s 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 Sha’uwl 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’ because it negates everything Yahowsha’ said and did, making him a “nobody” and his sacrifice for “nothing.” And yet that is what happens when Yahowah’s Towrah instructions regarding His Covenant and Miqra’ey generally, and circumcision, specifically, are ignored or, worse, rejected.

Similarly, oudeis conveys the idea that a noun, in this case a misnomer, “Christos,” is “in no respect valid, totally worthless, of no account whatsoever, and completely meaningless.” All of this is true when “Christos” is disassociated from God’s Word as Sha’uwl 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 Sha’uwl’s 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 statement’s summation.

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 understood here that as a Yisra’elite, and as the son of a Pharisee, Sha’uwl would have been circumcised eight days after he was born. So by writing this sentence, Paul was either saying that his rules don’t apply to him (as was the case with Muhammad, most politicians, and religious leaders), or he was publicly announcing that Yahowsha’s life and Yahowah’s Towrah are of no value to his Faith. I will let you ponder whether one or both realities is actually true.

Before we consider Yahowah’s 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 isn’t beneficial when it comes to salvation.

Since I am bereft of words when it comes to Pauline commentary, let’s ponder Yahowah’s position on circumcision as it was articulated in the Towrah. God’s message is so unambiguous and unwavering, there is no reason to interrupt Him with my commentary. He said...

“I will take a stand to establish and confirm (wa quwm – so I will validate and honor, setting up, constructing and building, fulfilling and accomplishing, carrying out and restoring, encouraging others to take a successful stand to raise up and keep (hifil perfect)), therefore (‘eth – in accordance with this association and through this relationship), My Covenant Family (beryth ‘any – My Family-Oriented Relationship Agreement, Vow of Marriage, My Home and Household Promise, My Pledge and Contractual Arrangement, My Binding Oath Regarding a Treaty Between Two Parties, from beyth – family and home).

For the purpose of encouraging understanding, achieved through making connections between Me and you, it will promote an association with (bayn ‘any wa ‘atah wa byn – to provide insights which facilitate a relationship between Me and you so that you and I can be discerning based upon closely examining and carefully considering teaching and instruction, using good judgment to respond properly throughout the long interval of time, so as to increase the comprehension of) your offspring (zera’ ‘atah – your seed, those conceived as posterity, your children, the harvest that is the result of what you have planted) after you (‘achar ‘atah – afterward and subsequent to you) for their generations to approach (la dowrym hem – for their people living at different times and in various places, their family line and lineage dwelling in a home and camping out throughout time) by way of (la – for the purpose of) an everlasting (‘owlam – an eternal, never-ending, always continuing) Family Covenant Relationship (beryth – Family-Oriented Agreement regarding the terms and conditions of living in a home as part of a household).

I will exist as (la hayah – for the purpose of being) your God (la ‘atah la ‘elohym – and for you to approach the Almighty) as well as (wa) for your offspring (la zera’ ‘atah – for your posterity and children to move toward the goal) after you (‘achar ‘atah – afterward and subsequent to you).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:7)

“So then (wa) God said (‘amar ‘elohym – the Almighty affirmed and declared, making a request (qal imperfect – literally with unfolding consequences)) to (‘el) ‘Abraham (‘Abraham – the father who raises and lifts up those who stand up and reach up, father of the abundantly enriched, merciful father, or father of the multitudes who are confused and troublesome), ‘As for you (wa ‘atah ‘eth – in addition and with regard to you), you should continually examine and genuinely consider (shamar ‘atah – you should consistently observe, always focusing upon, look at and pay attention to, learn from and care about, diligently and literally contemplating the details which comprise (qal imperfect – literal interpretation of the relationship with ongoing and unfolding consequences throughout time)) My Family Covenant Relationship (beryth ‘any – My Household Accord and Agreement).

In addition, so should the offspring you conceive (wa zera’ ‘atah – as well as your seed, descendants, and prodigy) following you (‘achar ‘atah – after you) so that they might approach throughout their generations (la dowrym hem – for them to draw near and reach the goal no matter when or where they live, for every age, period, lineage, race, or class of individual). (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:9)

This specific (zo’th – this one and only, singular entity being discussed as the (demonstrative singular feminine pronoun from zeh – lamb and sheep)) Familial Covenant of Mine (beryth ‘any – My Family Agreement, My Household Accord, and My Home (singular feminine construct)), which beneficially marks the way to the relationship (‘asher – which to show the way to this fortunate and joyful place that is found by walking the correct way, thereby revealing the steps which lead to life), you should continuously observe, closely and literally examining, while carefully considering (shamar – focus upon, look at and pay attention to, be aware of, learn about and remember, care about and cling to, retain for protection, diligently contemplate and in great detail evaluate (qal stem imperfect conjugation – literally and genuinely, consistently and continually, with actual and ongoing implications regarding the relationship)).

You should strive to be discerning and make an intelligent connection to understand Me (bayn ‘any – to pay attention while being observant and diligently join things together in a rational and prudent way which lead to perceiving, properly regarding, and comprehending Me). This is for you to be perceptive and prudent regarding the association (wa bayn ‘atah – for you to make the appropriate connection after exercising good judgment).

To form a thoughtful relationship and make a comprehensible connection between (wa byn – to consider the instruction provided and make an intelligent association with) your offspring (zera’ ‘atah – your descendants and children, your seed and posterity, those you conceive who are harvested) following you (‘achar ‘atah – after you), you should circumcise (muwl – you should cut off and remove the foreskin, warding off a deadly and debilitating curse by way of this oath, changing priorities while making a binding promise to undergo the benefits of circumcision (scribed with the niphal stem denoting the genuineness of this relationship while stressing the benefit accrued to the parent, while the infinitive absolute intensifies the importance of the act, and in the imperfect conjugation, reveals that this instruction on circumcision will endure uninterrupted throughout time with ongoing benefits)), accordingly (la – to facilitate their approach), your every male to help them remember their status (‘atem kol zakar – every son of yours, every man and every boy to remember, memorialize, and honor the status and renown associated and implied with this celebration of the relationship).’ (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:10)

And (wa) you all shall make a declaration by cutting off and separating (malal – you shall truthfully proclaim and speak about being circumcised, announcing the truth regarding the principle of circumcision as a sign, as a subtle means of communicating what it means to be set apart (the niphal stem is used to convey the voice of genuine relationships where the subject, which is “you” 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 accomplished and considered whole and complete, and in the consecutive associating it with our basar – flesh)) your foreskin’s (‘arlah – the fold of skin covering the conical tip of the masculine genitalia; akin to ‘aram and ‘arak – the tendency of people to gather together before the cunning and crafty, to be drawn in by the clever counsel and calculating tendencies which are conceived, arranged, set forth, ordained, and esteemed to appear comparable) association with (‘eth) one’s animalistic instincts and propensity to preach (basar – the physical body and animal nature but also separating from mankind’s propensity to proclaim and publish what the people yearn to hear).

And (wa) this will exist (hayah – this is and will be (scribed in the qal perfect, signifying the relationship is genuine and that the act is only performed once and is considered complete)) 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 the one and only sign, construct form, linking the sign to)) 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 – in concert with 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 more readily comprehend the association). (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:11)

Therefore, with (wa – it follows that with) 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) 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 whereby the parents benefit from doing as God has requested, and in the imperfect conjugation which tells us that this must continue to occur over time because it is designed to produce ongoing results)) with regard to your (la) every (kol) male to remember (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 the extended family through natural childbirth) in the home (beyth – into the household and family (singular absolute)), and also (wa) those wanting to be (kasap – those desiring, yearning, and passionately longing to be) acquired and included (miqnah – purchased and obtained; from qanah – to be redeemed (speaking of adoption)), of (min) every (kol) son (ben – male child) of foreign lands (nekar – of places where they were not properly valued and appreciated, and yet who are nonetheless observant) who relationally (‘asher – by way of making a connection) are not (lo’) from (min) your seed (zera’). (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:12)

He (huw’ – third person masculine singular pronoun, addressing fathers) should absolutely circumcise him, definitely cutting off the foreskin (muwl muwl – he can ward off a deadly and debilitating curse by way of this oath, promising to cease what he is currently doing by changing his priorities while making a binding promise to undergo circumcision (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 with ongoing benefits)) 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) and also (wa) those desiring to be (kasap – those wanting, strongly yearning, and passionately longing to be) included (miqnah – acquired, purchased, redeemed, and obtained) as well as those who are acquired (miqnah – purchased through adoption and included) with your money (keseph – your precious metals; born out of a deep longing and love for adoption).

This shall be (hayah – this was, is, and will be, existing as (qal stem denotes a genuine relationship between the subject and the action of the verb which is existence, in the perfect conjugation revealing an act that is complete, lacking nothing, when accomplished, 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 promise, relational accord and marriage vow based upon home and family (feminine singular)). (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:13)

Therefore (wa), the uncircumcised (‘arel – the stubborn, unresponsive, untrusting, and self-reliant, those unwilling to listen and those who are unobservant, those who are not separated and who are unwilling to be set apart) male (zakar – man who fails to remember to do this) who relationally (‘asher – by association does not know the proper way or the benefits of the relationship and) is not circumcised (lo’ muwl – willing to change his direction and priorities and make this binding promise to ward off the curse (nifal imperfect – men who continually remain uncircumcised as a result of their inaction suffer the consequence)) with regard to (‘eth) the flesh (basar – physical, human, and animal nature in addition to being separated from those who preach and publish what mankind wants to hear in association with) of his foreskin (‘arlah – symbolic of ‘aram and ‘arak – man’s propensity to be drawn together by crafty counsel, by cunning tendencies, and that which is conceived, arranged, set forth, ordained, and esteemed to appear comparable), that soul (ha nepesh ha hy’ – speaking of what makes each individual unique, alive, aware, and conscious) shall be cut off, be excluded, and banished (karat – it shall be severed and cut down, it shall be uprooted and die, perishing and destroyed, ceasing to exist (nifal perfect – they will not only have caused their soul’s banishment, they will suffer the effect of their exclusion as a result of this singular failure during their brief lives)) from (min) her / Her (hy’ – addressing the nepesh which is now severed from the Ruwach Qodesh’s Covenant) family (‘am – people who are kin, related biologically or through a common language or experience).

By way of association (‘eth – therefore as a result), they violated and broke by creating two separate variations, thereby dissociating themselves from (parar – they nullified the agreement and injured themselves by revoking the Covenant’s promises, tearing asunder and thwarting the relationship’s benefits, splitting away and harming themselves in the process by severing the agreement through the process of tearing into two parts (hifil perfect – their act of creating a new covenant led to their own demise such that neither they nor their new covenant will endure)) My Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth-y – My mutually binding agreement and promise, My relational accord and vow based upon home and family (feminine singular, scribed in the construct form, connecting and associating the beryth – covenant with God’s ‘am – family; written with the first person singular suffix: My – reminding us that this specific and unique Covenant is God’s)).” (Bare’syth / 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. Do not 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 Yahowah’s 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 not 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 Sha’uwl’s “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.” Those who believe Paul must reject Yahowah, and He just happens to be God. Or we can trust Yahowah, which means rejecting Paul. The truth is undeniable: Sha’uwl’s faith and his promise are the antithesis of God’s promises – especially relative to the Covenant.

There are so many questions which are answered by Yahowah’s declaration, let’s linger here and consider them one at a time. First, karat, like so many Hebrew terms, has a dark and light side. The word’s 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 us – one which “separates” those who accept it from those who do not.

For those who ignore Yahowah’s 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” Yahowah’s Family. They will be “excluded” from His Covenant and will be “banished” from His Home. Those who choose not to sign their acceptance of Yahowah’s 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.” It is an essential part of our nature, the reservoir of our personality and means to observe and respond to what is around us.” 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 Yahowah’s 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, by itself, the means to reconciliation, but it is a barrier to salvation. While most of those who are circumcised will not be adopted into God’s family, one hundred percent of men and boys who have not been circumcised will be excluded.

Fourth, we either agree to God’s 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.

This distinction is so well established, so clear cut, so unequivocal, and so obviously delineated as a condition of the Covenant, it means that Paul’s attack against Yahowah, His Towrah, and His Beryth was deliberate and overtly adversarial. It also means that Paul was wrong.

God is not going to negotiate this point nor is He going to capitulate. He cannot change the terms of His agreement without becoming dishonest and unreliable. As a result, 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 God’s 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 Heaven. 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 would not reject them for getting some of the details, well actually, 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 to His nature, we have everything to gain if we agree to His terms, and He loses nothing if we do not.

Fifth, the “nepesh – souls” of those who do not rely upon God’s instructions “karat – die, they perish and cease to exist.” Throughout the Towrah and Prophets, 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.

The evaporation of a soul 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. And that is because eternal life with God is predicated upon us associating with Him in the specific manner He has delineated. If we do not accept His terms, if we don’t avail ourselves of the path He has provided, then our souls, disconnected from the source of life, perish, which means that an individual’s consciousness will simply cease to exist.

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 don’t acquiesce to their edicts. However, not a person among such believers pauses to think that, if their god actually said “love me and agree with me or I’ll see to it that you suffer forever,” such a spirit would not be lovable. 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. Religious leaders, however, universally deny the fact that God has such a provision since this outcome is neither something to be coveted nor feared and cannot be used to threaten masses of people into submission.

That is not to say that there is not a place of eternal separation – there is. But there are no fires blazing or physical tortures perpetrated therein. She’owl is a lightless place which exists only in the dimension of time. It was established 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. It is where Sha’uwl | Paul will endure eternity.

No doubt, eternal separation from God is a penalty, but having one’s 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 Yahowah’s 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, tremendous empowerment and enrichment.

Those who choose to ignore Yahowah’s provision, to rely on a different scheme, to alter the deal He has cut with us, or simply reject it, will be ignored by God and remain unaltered by His Covenant promises. It is ashes to ashes and dust to dust. Such individuals do not know God and God does not know them. Death will be the end of life.

The sixth lesson we can learn from this Towrah presentation brings us back to Sha’uwl. Circumcision is the fulcrum upon which those who rely on Yahowah’s 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 those Yahowsha’ had chosen and taught, to explain his departure from Yahowah’s Covenant instructions. They told Paul that he was wrong, so in his initial letter, the one he wrote to the Galatians, Paul demeaned Yahowsha’s disciples, especially Shim’own | Peter, Yahowchanan | John, and Ya’aqob | Jacob (Yahowsha’s 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 God’s 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 can’t blame this conflict between Yahowah and Paul on scribal error. These specific passages from Bare’syth / Genesis on circumcision are not only extant among the Qumran scrolls, they are unchanged. There isn’t a single discrepancy between the Dead Sea Scrolls, dating to the 2nd century BCE, and the Masoretic Text from Bare’syth 17:12 through the end of the chapter. And on the other end, we have a complete copy of Paul’s letter to the Galatians dating to the 2nd century CE.

Moreover, the preposterous notion that Paul didn’t 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 Towrah, does not exonerate Paul. He is equally opposed to circumcision, the Covenant, and the Torah in Acts and also 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 God’s 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 God’s 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 to benefit from the relationship (‘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, they will be excluded and 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).” (Bare’syth 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 Yisra’el rather than from the “beryth – Covenant,” yet another feminine noun.

The King James Version reads identically. It promotes the same myth, one which would reinforce the church’s desire 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 God’s 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 foreskin” – ostensibly 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 Yahowah’s Covenant, males are to be circumcised. The foreskin is to be removed from the male genitalia which is responsible for consummating marriage and producing children. It reveals that we have agreed to be “separated, and thus set apart.” Our Heavenly Father’s Covenant is about bearing children and building a family set apart from the world of corrupt institutions. Yahowah does not want anyone to miss these points.

Therefore, considering Yahowah’s position on this particular topic, and Paul’s, it would be inappropriate to spin Galatians to infer anything other than Paul is overtly opposed to God and to His Covenant. Satan’s Apostle is not only assailing God’s instructions regarding circumcision, Paul’s position states that if you rely on God’s Word you cannot be saved. Good luck with that.



Continuing to assail Yahowah’s Covenant, whose sign remains circumcision, and God’s Towrah, the man who considered his testimony more vital than the Almighty’s, according to the NAMI ineloquently opined: “I testify but again to all man being circumcised that debtor he is whole the law to do.” Let’s be perfectly clear so that no one is misled: this is Paul’s testimony, not God’s.

“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 the 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 Towrah’s guidance on how we should live our lives among men. Therefore, the fact that Yahowah calls Dowd “right, righteous, and vindicated,” demonstrates that Paul’s premise was wrong.

In that this is an important distinction, since Yahowah called Sha’uwl the “plague of death,” since God affirmed that Dowd was “correct,” let’s contrast what we have been reading to Dowd’s 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 Dowd’s 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’ pa’al) that which is harmful or wrong (‘eowlah) by walking in His ways (ba derek halak).

You (‘atah), Yourself, provided and ordained (tsawah) Your precepts, these instructions which You have entrusted to us, encouraging us to respond appropriately to You (piquwdym) in order that they would be diligently examined and carefully considered (la ma’od shamar).

As a result (‘achalay), my path through life (derek) will 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) God’s (‘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 (me’ah) eternities (‘ad).

In what way (ba mah) can a young man (na’ar) 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 (ma’an) 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 (saphar / sepher) 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 Almighty’s abundance, God’s 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 (sha’a’). 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 both “right” and “vindicated,” in addition to “My son,” “Messiah,” and “King.” Sha’uwl 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,” in addition to “the Father of Lies” and “Son of Evil.” And that leaves us with only one question: why is this comparison too difficult for Christians to understand?

In order to control his audience, Paul needed the faithful to believe that he was the foremost authority on the Towrah as well as the world’s leading expert regarding salvation. Therefore, in the case of his most recent proclamation, the myth he is promoting is that if someone does anything Yahowah asks, they must do everything He asks, or they are dead men walking. But as we just noted with Dowd, that clearly was 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, which is comprised of seven invitations to meet with God, is presented in the heart of the Towrah, in the book aptly named Qara / Called Out / Leviticus. Yahowah offers His remedy for our inadequacies after formalizing the Covenant with Abraham. And along His Way, Yahowah does the work so that nothing other than attendance and appreciation is required of us.

But that is not to say that Paul’s myth, one born out of a hatred for God, was not persuasive. Christians the world over and throughout time have been cheated by Sha’uwl’s belligerent deceptions into believing that “the problem with the Torah is that its restrictive and antiquated rules require perfection.”

Let’s pretend for the sake of argument that Paul was right: how can disobeying everything God requests 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 God’s 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 Yahowah’s remedy.

Seeing religion among the rubbish, the NLT again interpreted Paul correctly, which of course put them in opposition to God. “I’ll 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 isn’t 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, Paul’s animosity against circumcision is misplaced.

For consistency sake, here are the Roman Catholic and Protestant versions of Paul’s 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 the Devil’s Advocate is apo. It “describes the separation of something from an object which it was previously united but is now disjoined.” In this case, Sha’uwl is speaking of the purported separation of “Christou from the Towrah.” So now, addressing those who had chosen to follow Yahowah’s Torah instructions regarding circumcision, Sha’uwl 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 (ΧΥ – a Divine Placeholder for the Ma’aseyah (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)

Sha’uwl was a man on a mission. Too bad it involved promoting pagan deities, and demeaning the only actual Deity, on behalf of the Adversary.

And speaking of Paul’s mission, he had become a broken record. In a rut, he was demeaning the Galatians again. However, by lambasting the entire community of those he had preached to for completely rejecting what he had demanded of them, Paul’s letter proves that those who knew Paul best did not believe him.

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 God’s grace.” To the contrary, it is only by observing the Towrah that we come to avail ourselves of what Yahowsha’ accomplished. This in turn enables us to rely upon Yahowah’s merciful gift. Those who disassociate the Towrah 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 it’s Paul’s 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 were true, and it is not, accepting it would not lead to this conclusion. Pretending that one thing is wrong does not demonstrate that something different 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 (ΠΝΙ – a Divine Placeholder used to convey ruwach – spirit) out of (ek) faith (pistis – originally conveyed “trust and reliance” but migrated as a result of Sha’uwl’s 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, Sha’uwl 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 “Apostle’s” 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 isn’t 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.”

Nothing comes to us by way of “faith.” Yahowah’s “promises” are knowable because they are all memorialized in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. We realize we can trust God’s testimony because it is all enveloped in prophetic predictions which have proven to be accurate. As such, those who know the Towrah are in a position to trust Yahowah and rely upon His provisions. Those who don’t understand God’s Word are relegated to faith, while those who understand God’s Word recognize that faith is counterproductive.

Using the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear as a handrail in this upside down, backward, and twisted realm of Paul’s mind, we find: “In for Christ Jesus neither circumcision some is strong nor uncircumcision but trust through love operating.”

Or, more precisely and completely:

“[For (gar – indeed because then) omitted from P46] In (en) Christo Iesou (ΧΡΩ ΙΗΥ – divine placeholders used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement and Iesou – a corruption of Yahowsha’) neither (oute) circumcision (peritome) is someone (ti) is capable, powerful, and mighty (tis ischuo – is able, competent, strong, or healthy) nor (oute – neither) uncircumcision (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 mistaken. Even the Christian “Christ Jesus” was neither Torah observant nor trustworthy. Everything he said during the Sermon on the Mount was evidently untrue. He may have been a “Judaizer.”

His crucifixion on Pesach was pure happenstance, as was the reunification of Yahowah’s soul with the Set-Apart Spirit on Bikuwrym. He was not yet in touch with his inner sha’uwl when he said that we could come to know him through the Torah and Prophets. Ignorance really is bliss. Just believe Paul and hope that he was right in contradicting and demeaning God.

It is always laughable when those prone to protest in hateful fashion, as Paul has done since the beginning, claim that they are loving. And yet there is no difference between hating under the pretense of love and claiming to speak for the God one constantly denigrates. Citing the Towrah’s presentation of the Covenant and salvation of Abraham to claim that the Towrah cannot save is equally duplicitous. But few things are as hypocritical as claiming to have been chosen by Yahowsha’ only to negate the purpose and benefit of his Passover sacrifice. And yet Paul has done all of these things, and worse.

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 Yahowah’s 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 it’s 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 Father’s advice, which is what Paul is asking, is the opposite of loving God. And placing one’s faith in Paul’s deplorable rhetoric, which is what he is demanding, is hateful to God.

Here then is a summary of Paul’s most recent assault on the truth. These are the most deceitful, destructive, deadly, and damning words ever written:

“This freedom and liberty of ours by becoming Christos, it freed and released. So you all are directed to stand firm.

Therefore, also, never again associate with the yoke of subservience and slavery. You were 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.” (Galatians 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. (Galatians 5:2)

So then, furthermore, repeating myself, I testify, insisting and protesting to every man being circumcised that he actually is obligated to do and perform the entire and complete Towrah. (Galatians 5:3)

You have invalidated and rendered inoperative, abolishing the purpose of the separation of Christou, whosoever is in unison with the Towrah, you having been declared righteous, and having been vindicated with the Charis / Gratia / Graces, you have fallen away and have been forsaken. (Galatians 5:4)

Because indeed, we in spirit out of faith hope. Righteousness we await patiently. (Galatians 5:5)

In Christo Iesou neither circumcision is someone capable, nor is the uttermost part of the penis. On the contrary through faith love operating.” (Galatians 5:6)

Since She’owl alone would be insufficient to hold Sha’uwl accountable for the hell he has unleashed upon humankind, I wonder how Yahowah intends to punish him.



Questioning Paul

Devil’s Advocate

…Plague of Death

7

Peithos | Conform

Follow Along Faithfully…

It remains puzzling that Paul’s letters can be littered with his admission of abject failure and complete rejection, with him lambasting the communities which denounced his preaching, and yet those who do not know him nearly as well believe him. How is it that Paul can decry obedience to the Towrah, only to demand the same for himself? Why would anyone put their faith in a man who claimed that he was inspired by the God whose testimony he is fiercely denouncing?

When we compare the merits of Yahowah’s Towrah | Teaching, His Naby’ | Prophets and Mizmowr | Psalms, along with the profound insights He provides and His generous nature, including God’s overall consistency, historical and prophetic accuracy, to this man’s hypocrisy, contradictions, logical fallacies, and errant citations, it is a miracle that Paul’s letters are preferred over Yahowah’s testimony by a factor of a million to one. This either speaks very poorly of human intelligence or explains why God hates the debilitating nature of religion.

This might indicate the reason one would have to be a Christian to believe what follows: “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) 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”) you (umas) from the truth (te aletheia – of the validity which is in accord with the facts and corresponds to reality) such that you are no longer persuaded and obedient, following along faithfully and conform (me peithos – such that you are no longer convinced, influenced, or converted, failing to agree, to mind, and to adapt)?” (Galatians 5:7)

At this point, we know that this has nothing to do with “objective truth.” The Galatians epistle has been neither “objective” nor “accurate.” Paul has lied about everything from his name to his calling, from his personal history to the veracity of his citations.

Therefore, the problem is that Sha’uwl was so convinced that he was smarter and more persuasive than everyone else, news that the Galatians had rejected him and his message was inconceivable and unacceptable. As a paranoid schizophrenic, narcissist, and psychopath, Sha’uwl imagined his foes sneaking in behind him to undermine his influence and credibility. And for this affront to his fame, he would stop at nothing to squelch them. He attacked their intellect and motives. He demeaned their choices and sources. He unleashed all manner of rational fallacies:

Ad Hominem – assaulting a foe personally rather than challenging his or her argument. (The Galatians were ignorant, irrational, traitors so they were wrong and Paul was right.)

Straw Man – the presenter argues against a fallacious and ridiculously misleading position they have created to easily refute. (The Towrah is comprised of laws to obey so it is enslaving.)

Appeal to Authority – the presenter’s decrees are considered valid because they claim to be authorized and approved by a higher authority. (Paul cannot lie because he was chosen by God.)

Playing to Ignorance – since you cannot know or prove something, it must be either true or false. (You do not know what the Towrah says so it must be invalid.)

Circular Reasoning – also known as begging the question, occurs when the presenter begins by stating their supposition, suggesting that, because their premise is valid, so is their conclusion. (Abraham believed and he was righteous therefore faith makes righteous.)

False Dichotomy – also known as the black and white fallacy, reduces the possibilities down to only two options when there are typically many more and better outcomes. (You are either with me or against me, free as a result of faith or enslaved by the Towrah.)

Slippery Slope – extrapolating an argument from a somewhat sensible place and moving it to an extreme conclusion, where one thing leads to another without evidence or reason. (By doing anything God says you must do everything God says.)

Bandwagon – something is deemed correct because others believe it, having jumped on the bandwagon. (There are billions of Christians so the religion must be true.)

Alphabet Soup – the presenter uses a ruse of obscuring language to bamboozle people into believing that he is an expert and knows what he is talking about. (Since zera’ seed is singular, the only seed of Abraham that matters is Christo.)

Red Herring – an irrelevant argument which is distracting. Even if it is true, it does not prove the presenter’s point. (Hagar had been a slave so the Covenant’s children are enslaved.)

Name-Calling Fallacy – exercised today with Political Correctness, where the presenter changes the name of something good and makes it seem bad, such as being discriminating becomes discrimination. (Paul changed Towrah | Teaching to Law.)

Paul also fell victim to Hasty Generalization, Fallacy of Sunk Costs, False Analogy, and Ad-Hoc Reasoning. He was what he falsely projected upon his foes. And if I may, the term derived by leading neuroscientists when diagnosing schizophrenia, Word Salad, is especially revealing in the context of Paul’s letters.

Based upon his words, it is now obvious that Sha’uwl was irrational, clinically insane, and borderline illiterate. It is a wonder this word salad, filled as it is with inaccuracies and contradictions, errant citations and logical fallacies, wasn’t tossed into the trash by the first Galatian to read it. And perhaps it was.

It is Sha’uwl’s personal copies of his letters that were enshrined in the Christian New Testament, not the ones he sent away. But it is 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 is perverted.

Let’s turn to the charter members of the Pauline fan club to see how they deciphered Sha’uwl’s 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?”

There is no evidence delineated in this letter. So how does one come to know “the objective truth” if it is not shared? Sha’uwl’s singular citation from Yahowsha’ was erroneous, as were all of his quotations from the Torah and Prophets. The Father of Lies has even created a completely incongruous and revisionist history of the Covenant. Truth is Paul’s short suit.

It is possible that Paul’s preaching may have been more compelling than his writing. However, the emotional charge of impassioned oratory only lasts a short while. Adolf Hitler comes to mind as a modern analog in this regard. The reason I studied Hitler’s Mein Kampf was to compare it to Muhammad’s Qur’an and Hadith. They were so remarkably similar, I observed der Fuehrer’s speeches to see if I could ascertain how delusional egomaniacs like Hitler, Muhammad, and Paul manage to spellbind audiences with an emotional mix of racist drivel and an unfounded sense of hope in their fanaticized approach. 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, while Hitler’s written and spoken messages were remarkably similar with regard to their conclusions, they differed 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.

When the impassioned orator was in their midst making such extraordinary claims while playing to the crowd, many Galatians may have listened in stunned disbelief. But in Paul’s troubled mind, their silence was perceived as a favorable response. They were “running well” and “following along” in Paul’s 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 hot air quickly dissipated from the trial balloons and they floated back down to earth. The Galatians were likely dismayed that they had even given him an audience. He had played them for fools and was now slandering them, providing the motivation for them to track Sha’uwl down and try to stone him.

The choice Paul has given us is to believe him and reject God, or reject him and trust God. As a result, a rational and informed individual would have every incentive to dismiss Paul based upon his claims. And in all likelihood, this letter was more appealing than his preaching.

Next, we find…

“The (e) enticing persuasion and inducement (peismone – solicitation and enticement) was it 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)

The implications are fascinating. Do you suppose the name was Yahowah? Could it have been Yahowsha’?

Considering 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 reasonably accurate, not that it helps: “The persuasion not from the one calling you.”

That was not any clearer, so let’s turn to the father of biblical translations, the Latin Vulgate, for elucidation: “This persuasion is not from him that calleth you.” Other than introducing the flourish of Elizabethan English, the KJV copied the Catholic text: “This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.”

Clearing all this up for us, the NLT authored: “It certainly isn’t 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.

God’s Word stands forever. And one of the things it stands for is freewill. We were given the freedom to choose to reject God and His Word as Sha’uwl and Christians have done. But fortunately for them, the Galatians chose God and rejected Paul.

This known, the source of the “enticing persuasion and inducement” and the identity of the individuals who “provided a name” were left unspecified. Probably those pesky “Judaizers” again. They were developing a habit of siding with Yahowah over Sha’uwl. Nonetheless, we don’t know what was said to undermine the Devil’s Advocate. So other than acknowledging that Paul was miffed that someone was exposing him, interpreting this beyond that is a fool’s folly.

At least his next line was comprehensible. But what if the “little yeast” was Yahowah’s name? What if it was to agree with God regarding circumcision?

“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)

This reads sensibly, but 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 Paul’s disdain for circumcision in verses two, three, and four. He is saying that those who observe even a small part of the Torah are completely corrupted by it.

The Nestle-Aland’s 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 novel approach, the NLT authored their own bible with: “This false teaching is like a little yeast that spreads through the whole batch of dough!” Their errant translation was likely an accurate interpretation of Paul’s intended message.

Even though, and as a pleasant change, Paul’s statement was comprehensible (albeit condemning in this context), it does not add to our comprehension. Therefore, in order to more fully appreciate the distinction between unsupported, errant, and poorly worded human opinions and Godly instruction, let’s 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 Yahowsha’s disciple (“one who learns”) Lowy | Levi, an eyewitness, and then translated by Matthew into his Gospel 50 years thereafter, is presented translated out of Greek into English...

“And (kai) 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 (semeion ek tou ouranou). (Matthew 16:1)

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, it will be beneficial weather (legete eudia), for indeed the sky reddens (purrasei gar o ouranos). (Matthew 16:2)

And in the morning (kai proi oemeron), there will be stormy weather (cheimon), for the sky is fiery red, becoming threatening, gloomy, and overcast (gar pyrrazo stugnazon o ouranos).

So this shows (to men) that the appearance of the atmosphere (prosopon tou ouranou – the face, person, and presence of heaven) is something 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 regarding the miraculous signs of this occasion and opportunity, 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). (Matthew 16:3)

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). That is 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).” (Matthew 16:4)

You have to love Yahowsha’s sense of humor. The religious and political establishment had dispatched some of their own to interrogate and trap him. They requested a miracle, a sign from heaven, even though the miraculous manifestation of heaven was standing right before them. So Yahowsha’, representing the Passover Lamb, told them that God had already done so, predicting his arrival long ago.

Then Yahowsha’ coined the old sailor’s adage, “Red sky at night, sailor’s delight. Red sky in the morning, sailor’s warning,” to make a point. It showed that they could interpret the appearance of the atmosphere but could not recognize nor capitalize upon the appearance of heaven’s agent. They knew from the sky what the next few hours would bring, but could not deduce from the Torah and Prophets what God would manifest in their midst and right on schedule. He even specified the miracle that would be produced by heaven at this time. It would transpire similarly to events chronicled in the prophets regarding Yownah | Jonah. He had come to warn the Assyrians about the futility of their religious and political institutions while providing the means to reconcile their relationship with Yahowah.

Similar to Yownah, Yahowsha’s experience 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 Passover Lamb with the departure of the Set-Apart Spirit. Then as the sunset, commencing the Miqra’ of Matsah, Friday evening, and thus the beginning of the Shabat, his soul entered She’owl to remove the yeast of religious teaching and political indoctrination from our souls. It remained there throughout the most important Shabat in history.

Then on the first day of the week, before sunrise, once liberated from She’owl, Yahowah’s soul and Spirit were reunited in a celebration of the Invitation to be Called Out and Meet of Firstborn Children. He remained in Yaruwshalaim until late that afternoon, when he was presented talking with two gentlemen on the road to Emmaus. He, therefore, was in the heart of the land three days and three nights, just as had been the case with Yownah. And during them, he would perform the ultimate sign: enabling the Covenant’s promises. God’s children would become immortal and be perfected prior to being adopted into Yahowah’s Covenant family.

It is interesting to speculate, but I suspect that if God walked into the Vatican today, no one within the Roman Catholic royalty would recognize Him. The Pope would most likely rebuke, 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.

The difference between God’s teachings and Sha’uwl’s proclamations are profound. And Yahowsha’ wanted us to be aware of religious rhetoric and political propaganda so that we would reject it, distancing ourselves from these corruptive cultures. So now having walked away from the religious and political establishment and mocking their inability to understand, Yahowsha’ 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). (Matthew 16:5)

So then (o de) Yahowsha’ (ΙΗΥ – a placeholder used by Yahowsha’s disciples and in the Septuagint to convey Yahowsha’, meaning Yahowah Frees and Saves) said to them (eipen autois), ‘Pay attention to understand (orao). So now (kai) you all should carefully consider, 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).’” (Matthew 16:6)

When we understand this, we can appreciate why Yahowah asked us to walk away from religion and politics before engaging in His Covenant. And then we can capitalize upon the purpose of the “Miqra’ – Invitation to be Called Out and Meet” of “Matsah – UnYeasted 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 and politics of men.

However, even for those who walked in Yahowsha’s 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).’ (Matthew 16:7)

So having known this (gnous de o), Yahowsha’ said (eipen), ‘What kind of thinking and 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 do not possess any bread (artous ouk echete)? (Matthew 16:8)

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).

Do you 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) What about 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)?” (Matthew 16:9-10)

In other words, pay attention, consider 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, let’s 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)? This was not about loaves of bread (oti ou peri arton) when I said to you (eipon umin), “You all should watch out for 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)?”’ (Matthew 16:11)

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).” (Matthew 16:12)

In consummating a relationship with God, there are few symbols more revealing than yeast, few days more essential than UnYeasted 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 the appropriate connections that politicized Christians fail to understand – even unto this day. There is an indivisible connection between the Covenant and the Invitations to Meet, between the Towrah and Yahowsha’s life, between the delineation of the path to God and its enablement on behalf of the Covenant’s children.

Just as yeast is a metaphor, the seven Miqra’ey 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 Yahowsha’s 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. Let’s come to appreciate the promise of UnYeasted Bread, knowing that Yahowah’s 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 Paul’s 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) with (en – in) 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 accept the possibly of placing your faith in, acknowledging as an opinion and demonstrating a favorable attitude [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), he 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)

This may be what Satan wants, but not God. Winning souls is a Christian ambition, not a Divine mandate. Yahowah has laid all of His cards face up on top of the table. How we react to them is our choice.

Further, every individual must remain free to ponder and believe, to accept or reject, even the most ridiculous notions. That is not to say that acting upon religious, political, and conspiratorial ideas is without consequence, but only that we have the right to be wrong.

Divine judgment is real, but it does not apply to those who speak in defense of the Towrah and Prophets and in support of the Beryth and Miqra’ey. And when it comes to passing judgment on unnamed individuals, or on the person rather than their philosophy, this is not our responsibility nor Paul’s. However, Yahowah taught us how to identify a false prophet, and therefore, we are encouraged to judge public speeches or documents which purport to speak for the Almighty – as we are doing in Paul’s case.

In this light, it is interesting that thus far, even though he is denouncing all of Galatia, the verbs pertaining to Paul’s foe continue to be exclusively singular. Therefore, Paul’s foe cannot be “Judaizers” as Christians protest.

The implications are far-reaching because, other than to condemn “Judaizers,” there has not been a single reasoned defense for Paul’s broadside against Yahowah’s Towrah.

Paul has already told us who contradicted his preaching in this region. He even told us who he believes stands “convicted and condemned.” There is no reason to speculate as to the identity of Paul’s foe. It is the disciple Shim’own 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 5:10, e is the third person singular present active subjunctive of eimi, “he may be.” “Ostis – this individual” was masculine singular – making the third person singular of e “he.” The present tense infers that he is presently agitating the Galatians, and there is no assessment of when or if he will stop troubling them – at least from Sha’uwl’s jaundiced perspective. The subjunctive mood of the verb indicates uncertainty, conveying the idea that Paul wants Yahowsha’s most trusted disciple to endure condemnation and punishment no matter who “he might be.” That is to say, even if he is Yahowsha’s chosen and beloved disciple, I’m condemning him anyway. If so, it would make Galatians 2:11 a case of premature evisceration.

There are a couple of reasons Shim’own Kephas would be the least appropriate person on earth with whom to feud. First, Yahowsha’ said that upon the Rock’s understanding, he would establish his Miqra’ – Invitation to be Called Out and Meet” with God – that being Passover. And second, the conclusion of Yahowchanan’s eyewitness account is devoted entirely to the proposition of Yahowsha’ asking Shim’own Kephas to tend his sheep, to feed them and to protect them from predators – and therefore from wolves in sheep’s 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, let’s consider Jerome’s 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 is not what Paul wrote, and we cannot say for certain if it is what Paul meant, at least it makes sense.

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 find:

“You were trying, running, and progressing well, in a fine way that was pleasing. What prevented and impeded you from the truth, such that you are no longer persuaded or obedient, following along faithfully? (Galatians 5:7)

The enticing persuasion and soliciting inducement, was it not from the one providing a name to you all? (Galatians 5:8)

A little yeast, the whole of the batch it yeasts. (Galatians 5:9)

I have been persuaded to coax and convince you, winning you over with the Lord because nothing different other than this may you 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, he will undergo and endure the judgment, be condemned and punished, no matter who this individual might be. (Galatians 5:10)



As we press on to Sha’uwl’s next statement, we once again need to call on the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear to get the lay of the land. But even then, we find ourselves in the mythical land of the Anti-Circumcision… “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), brothers (adelphos), if (ei – on the condition) I (ego), nevertheless (eti – yet and still in addition) myself preach (kerysso – I announce and proclaim in an official capacity, I urge and persuade) circumcision (peritome), why and for what (ti) then (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), this (to) offending trap and scandalous stumbling block (skandalon – obstacle which causes sin, ensnares, and is offensive) invalidates (katageomai – abolished and annulled, rendered useless and impotent, inactivated and rendered inoperative) the (tou) crucifixion (ΣΤΡΩΥ – 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)

Obviously “adelphos” wasn’t much of an endearing term the way Paul wields it while calling the Galatians nincompoops and traitors. And oh brother, why would anyone care what Paul was preaching when we can turn to the Towrah and learn what Yahowah is teaching?

This statement seems to imply that Sha’uwl’s position on circumcision vacillated based upon the viewpoint of his audience and their propensity to hold him accountable. He is suggesting that the Galatians would still be prosecuting him for other lies, even if he came clean on the sign of the Covenant.

But then the overly intoxicated, in a less than sober moment, wants us to believe that if he were to agree with God on circumcision, that by falling into such a scandalous trap, he would become the stumbling block that invalidates the crucifixion. Sha’uwl thought he had the power to negate Passover. And the means to perpetrate this crime would have been to invite the uncircumcised to participate.

It is obvious 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. So rather than ΣΤΡΩΥ serving to depict the Upright One affixed to Passover’s Door, Paul meant to convey the gruesome spectacle made infamous by the Romans.

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, Sha’uwl was not being persecuted. He was instead pursuing his alleged foes. All they were doing was disagreeing with him. Further, he was not “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 Mowryah’s “ΣΤΡΩΥ – Upright Pillar.” What happened on the Doorway to Heaven serves as the first step in Yahowah’s 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. Yahowsha’s Miqra’ of Pesach sacrifice was neither a “sin” nor a “temptation.” The “ΣΤΡΩΥ – Upright Pillar” is the embodiment of one of the Torah’s most essential promises, because it enables the Covenant’s children to live forever – just as it did forty Yowbel (2000 years) earlier with Abraham and Yitschaq.

Nothing Sha’uwl or anyone could say or do could ever “katageomai – invalidate, abolish, or render inoperative” the value of what Yahowsha’ achieved by enduring Passover as the Lamb of God. Although, by disassociating Yahowsha’ from Yahowah, his life from the Towrah, and Passover from God’s plan of salvation, Sha’uwl has effectively rendered God’s Word moot – at least for all of those who believe him. What Sha’uwl has written has been scandalous and offensive, creating a stumbling block which has caused billions of souls to fall needlessly short of Heaven’s Door.

Passover apart from the Torah is nothing more than a gruesome and deadly scene – one which is the furthest thing from life. UnYeasted 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. Sha’uwl has concealed, corrupted, contradicted, and condemned these truths which comprise the lone, narrow path to life everlasting, in our Heavenly Father’s home.

This known, 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 Yahowsha’s sacrifice?

As a reminder, if we were to use the Nestle-Aland Interlinear as a guide, we would understand Sha’uwl 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 KJV’s 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 let’s turn to the novelists at the NLT: “Dear brothers and sisters, if I were still preaching that you must be circumcised—as some say I do—why 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 Qur’an.

“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)

Given the opportunity to cut off Paul’s troublesome tongue to spare billions of souls, the exchange would clearly be compassionate and moral. But for other than a serial rapist or pedophile, castration is no more appropriate than any of the tortures perpetrated by Catholics during their Inquisitions. By wanting such a thing, Paul was opening up a dark window into his soul.

Keep in mind, Paul was not only circumcised, and personally circumcised his lover, Timothy, he was castrated sexually by his duplicity on homosexuality. It is why Yahowah mocked his fixation on the male genitalia.

By moving from a singular foe to multiple antagonists, perhaps Sha’uwl was being inclusive and counting Ya’aqob and Yahowchanan among his rivals. However, if we were to understand this correctly, according to Paul, circumcision was too brutal to endure, he would have preferred 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 Sha’uwl 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 Paul’s 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, Paul’s 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 Paul’s recital on behalf of his Lord to Muhammad’s on behalf of Allah. Qur’an 5:33 reads:

Noble Qur’an: “The recompense of those who wage war against Allâh 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 Paul’s words in the original Greek, I had thought that Qur’an 5.33 was the most repulsive verse ever written in the name of God. And while Muhammad’s words are a bit more graphic, the spirit behind Paul’s message is worse, so it appears that I owe Muslims an apology.

Leaving the Qur’an and returning to the Christian “New Testament,” we find that according to the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear, which dutifully reflects Paul’s actual word sequencing, Satan’s 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 impetus 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)

I am really beginning to dislike 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 Sha’uwl, 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.

The sadistic fellow who 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 his followers to “be love slaves to one another.” Caligula would have loved this guy.

To his credit, the Devil’s Advocate has just come full circle and reprised his use of stoicheion in Galatians 4:3, when the Lord’s 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 Sha’uwl, the Torah is the one place man cannot go. Evidently, its vision was inadequately and improperly developed when compared to the liberties Paul has now taken.

In a way, it is 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 Paul’s cleverness.

Following the Catholic’s lead, the Authorized King James 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 Paul’s ploy.

Operating in their own universe, the NLT contrived: “For you have been called to live in freedom, my brothers and sisters. But don’t use your freedom to satisfy your sinful nature. Instead, use your freedom to serve one another in love.” While these folks claim that Paul was inspired by their god and was writing “Scripture,” their interpretation surely takes precedence.

Next, the perverted and savage sadist 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 Yahowsha’s disciples 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, it is obvious that Paul can’t 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, we would 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 to 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, Sha’uwl was not 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 one’s neighbor” is not 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.

Yahowah’s most earnest request was clearly articulated by Moseh:

“Hear, O Yisra’el, Yahowah is our God. Yahowah is one. Therefore, 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 integrated into your inner nature. 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 the Towrah.

This was the first time, but not the last time, Sha’uwl 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)

It is frustrating to read “and also whatever other commandments are in the Word.” Paul’s disdain for God is appalling.

You no doubt noticed that Sha’uwl left some of the Instructions Yahowah provided off of his list. Do you suppose that this was because he did not remember them or because he didn’t want his audience to know that he was guilty of violating them?

The answer to that question is found in the Instructions Paul omitted. Therefore, let’s turn to Shemowth / Names / Exodus 20 and see what the Devil’s Advocate failed to disclose.

“Then (wa) God (‘elohym – the Almighty; plural of ‘elowah) conveyed (dabar – communicated, spoke, and wrote, provided instruction and direction with (piel imperfect consecutive – the subject, God, causes the object, these words, to be effective, enabling and empowering them with ongoing and unfolding implications over time as a function of His will)) all of (kol – every one of) these statements using words (ha dabarym – this message and declaration) in our presence (‘eth – in association with us and in proximity to us), providing perspective (ha ‘eleh – from a relatively close vantage point), by saying (‘amar – explaining, claiming, answering, counseling, warning, and promising), (Shemowth / Exodus 20:1) ‘I am (‘anky) Yahowah (Yahowah – from the Hebrew vowels Y aH oW aH), your God (‘elohym ‘atah – your shepherd, a ram among the sheep, and the doorway to an expansive and abundant life for those who are engaged, standing up, reaching up, and looking up), who relationally and beneficially (‘asher – who to show the correct and narrow path to get the most out of life) brought you out and delivered you (yatsa’ ‘atah – descended to serve you (hifil perfect – at a moment in time God engaged with us in such a way that we were empowered to come out)) away from the realm (min ‘erets – out of the land, region, territory, nation, and country) of the Crucibles of Oppression in Egypt (mitsraym – the smelting furnace where metals are refined (serving as a metaphor for the crucible of political, religious, economic, and military oppression)), out of the house (min beyth – the household and place) of slavery (‘ebed – of worship and servitude, of bondage and working for one’s salvation, of government authority and religious officials). (Shemowth / Exodus 20:2)

You shall not continue to exist with (lo’ hayah la ‘atah – you will neither function nor move toward, live nor appear with) other (‘aher – someone else’s, different, extra, or additional) gods (‘elohym) over and above (‘al – elevated beyond or in addition to) My presence (paneh ‘any). (Shemowth / Exodus 20:3)

You should not continue to associate yourself with (lo’ ‘asah la ‘atah – you should not make a practice of attending to nor doing anything with, you should not act upon nor engage with, fashion nor profit from (qal imperfect – conveying a literal interpretation of ongoing practices)) a religious image or object of worship (pesel – a designed icon or idol associated with the divine, a representation of any god), or any (wa kol) visual representation of something (tamunah – a likeness, appearance, picture, or form which attempts to establish a relationship by way of a substitution), which is (‘asher) in (ba) the heavens above (ha shamaym min ma’al – including the sun, moon, planets, and stars above), or (wa) which is (‘asher) on (ba) the earth (ha ‘erets) below (min tahath), or (wa) which is (‘asher) in (ba) the waters (ha maym) beneath the land (min tahath la ha ‘erets). (Shemowth / Exodus 20:4)

You should not speak about them on your own initiative nor make a practice of bowing down and worshiping them (lo’ chawah la hem – you should not continue to promote their message on your own accord nor display their words because such uncoerced and ongoing verbal declarations and announcements will influence you), and (wa) you shall not habitually serve them nor compel anyone to be passionate about them (lo’ ‘abad hem – you should not continually work or labor in their cause nor make a career of working as their ministers).

For, indeed (ky), I (‘anky), Yahowah (Yahowah – a transliteration of , our ‘elowah – God as directed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), your God (‘elohy ‘atah), am a fiercely protective, steadfastly loyal, and jealous God (qana’ ‘el – a God who is desirous of exclusivity in a deeply devoted relationship), actually counting and reckoning (paqad – literally taking stock of and genuinely recording) the perversity of twisting and distorting (‘awon – the depravity of perverting and manipulating) of the fathers (‘ab) upon (‘al) the children (ben) concerning (‘al) the third and the fourth generations (silesym wa ‘al ribea’) of those who actually dislike Me (sane’ ‘any – of those who are openly hostile and adverse toward Me, literally striving maliciously against Me, shunning Me by refusing to engage in a relationship with Me (qal participle – serving as a literal and vivid depiction as a verbal adjective)). (Shemowth / Exodus 20:5)

However (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) loyal and devoted love, unfailing mercy, unearned favor, and genuine kindness (chesed – actual forgiveness) on behalf of (la’) thousands (‘elephym) who move toward Me and love Me (la ‘ahab ‘any – who form a close and affectionate, loving and familial relationship with Me) and also (wa – in addition) who approach Me by closely observing and carefully considering (la shamar) My instructive conditions of the relationship (mitswah ‘any – the verbal and written stipulations, statements, and structure which uphold My Covenant). (Shemowth / Exodus 20:6)

You should not continue to deceive, nor should you tolerate or support delusions (lo’ nasha’ – you should not habitually deploy or advance clever tricks to enrich oneself by indebting others, and should avoid actually beguiling people on an ongoing basis by consistently lifting up, promoting, or forgiving that which causes them to miss the way) associated with (‘eth) the name and reputation (shem) of Yahowah (Yahowah), your God (‘elohym), thereby advancing worthless and lifeless deceptions (la ha showa’ – deploying that which advances devastating dishonesty, nullifying one’s existence, leading to emptiness and nothingness, so as to advance deceitful and lifeless lies which are ineffectual, futile, and ruinous).

For, indeed (ky), Yahowah () will not forgive or leave unpunished (lo’ naqah – as an ongoing admonition unconstrained by time, He will not purify nor pardon, He will not acquit nor free from guilt, He will not exempt from judgment nor sentencing) those who (‘eth ‘asher – in association with others) consistently deceive, actually beguile, and habitually delude, promoting or accepting trickery so as to forget (nasha’ – religiously using deception to continually mislead, lifting up and advancing a clever, albeit dishonest, ruse) in association with (‘eth – through) His name (shem – proper designation) to advance and promote (la – to bring into effect) vain and ineffectual lies which lead to lifelessness, nullifying one’s existence (showa’ – devastating deceptions which destroy, deceiving in a ruinous manner). (Shemowth / Exodus 20:7)

“Remember (zakar – recognize and be earnestly mindful) that the Shabat (‘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 to approach Him (la qadash – is separated unto Him for purifying and cleansing and thus special to Him (piel stem – where the object, Yahowah, is engaged and acts in response to the subject’s (our) willingness to set this day apart and infinitive construct – serving as a verbal noun)). (Shemowth / Exodus 20:8)

Six (shesh) days (yowmym) you should actually and continuously work (‘abad) and (wa) choose to act, engaging in (‘asah – express your freewill to prepare and produce the full extent of) all of (kol) your service as a spiritual messenger (mala’kah ‘atah – your usefulness as a spiritual envoy; from mal’ak – spiritual messenger and heavenly envoy). (Shemowth / Exodus 20:9)

But (wa) the seventh (shaby’y – the solemn promise which fulfills and satisfies those who listen and are observant of the role of the seventh) day (yowm), the Shabat (ha Shabat) is to approach (la – to draw near) Yahowah (), your God (‘elohym). You should not continually 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 God’s Representative and Messenger (mala’kah – from mal’ak, the ministry and mission of the heavenly envoy, the Divine endeavors and labor of God’s 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 sa’ar). (Shemowth / Exodus 20:10)

For indeed (ky – because) in six (shesh) 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) 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) which relationally (‘asher) is in them (ba hem).

And (wa) He became completely settled spiritually (nuwach – He settled all unresolved issues) during (ba) the Almighty’s seventh (ha shaby’y ‘al – God’s solemn promise which fulfills and satisfies those who listen and are observant of the role of the oath) day (yowm).

Therefore (ken), Yahowah () blessed and adored (barak – knelt down and lowered Himself to greet those He had created, and did everything to lift them up on) this day (‘eth ha yowm), the Shabat (ha shabat – the seventh day, the time of observance, reflection, and celebration of the relationship), setting it apart (qodesh – separating it from others, making it special).” (Shemowth / Exodus 20:11)

Not surprisingly, Paul failed to mention any part of the first four statements Yahowah etched in stone. Little wonder. They were all pro-Towrah and anti-Pauline.

“You should choose to carefully consider, view as worthy, enormously valuable, extremely significant, and highly enriching (kabed – I want you of your own volition to elect to respect and honor, and to perceive as awesomely impressive, intensely relevant, 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 an exhortation which is subject to volition)) accordingly the symbolism of (‘eth – that which is represented by) your Father (‘ab) and (wa) that which is represented by your (‘eth) Mother (‘em) for the purpose of (le’ma’an) continuously lengthening (‘arak – choosing of your own volition to constantly elongating and always prolonging, growing and continuing) your days (yowm) within and upon the Almighty’s (‘al) land (‘adamah) which relationally and as a blessing (‘asher) Yahowah (), your God (‘elohym), has actually given to you (nathan la – has literally produced, provided, and genuinely bestowed freely to you as a gift).” (Shemowth / Exodus 20:12)

Paul omitted this statement as well. He disrespected our Heavenly Father and Spiritual Mother as he neglected his own father and mother – of whom he never spoke.

“You should not kill on an ongoing basis (lo’ ratsach – you should not make a practice of taking the life of another whether by accident, revenge, manslaughter, premeditation, assassination, governmental execution, military slaughter, or murder (qal imperfect)). (Shemowth / Exodus 20:13)

You should not continue to participate in idolatrous worship or make a habit of taking another’s wife (lo’ na’aph – you should not be unfaithful by being religious and pursuing other gods nor have sexual relations with a married woman). (Shemowth / Exodus 20:14)

You should not make a habit of stealing (lo’ ganab – you should not routinely take something from others without their permission, neither kidnap nor committing robbery using deception or acting secretly).” (Shemowth / Exodus 20:15)

For obvious reasons, Paul also neglected this instruction…

“You should not continuously answer and respond (lo’ ‘anah – you should refrain from replying by providing testimony or consistently making a declaration) against (ba) your neighbor’s evil thoughts (rea’ ‘atah – the sinful and improper, regretful and debilitating way of your countrymen, friends, companions, or associates) as a deceptive or misleading (seqer – false, conniving, clever, mistaken, vain, or unreliable, lying or fraudulent, useless or irrelevant) witness (‘ed – source of evidence by way of testimony).” (Shemowth / Exodus 20:16)

This is the Instruction the Roman Catholic Church changed into two separate “commandments” so that they could eliminate the 2nd Statement and still remain at 10. The “no graven images” notion was a wee bit of a problem for an institution awash in idols, from Crucifixes to Madonnas.

“You should not make a practice out of desiring (lo’ chamad – you should not habitually covet, delighting in, lusting for, craving, nor seek pleasure from (qal imperfect)) your neighbor’s (rea’ ‘atah – your countryman’s, friend’s, companion’s, or associate’s inappropriate behavior and improper opinions) home or household (beyth – family of house).

You should not continuously covet (lo’ chamad) your improper neighbor’s (rea’ ‘atah) wife or woman (‘ishah), nor (wa) his male or female servants (‘ebed huw’ wa ‘amah huw’ – his employees or the working men and women serving him), his comings and goings or his domesticated animals (sowr huw’ wa chamowr huw’ – that which is capable of providing mobility and bearing a load, carrying cargo), or anything (wa kol) which is associated (‘asher) with (la) your maligned neighbor’s errant opinions or inappropriate behavior (rea’ ‘atah).” (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 20:17)

Sha’uwl was the most dishonest and deceptive person who ever claimed to speak for God – and that is saying a lot because Muhammad was particularly evil. It is little wonder he skipped over the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and eighth Instructions.

Paul’s preaching was in conflict with six of Yahowah’s ten most essential statements. But that’s 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 gift of reconciliation. And that leaves “coveting,” which is what made Sha’uwl susceptible to Satan in the first place. But even if we were to replace God’s list with Paul’s, the Devil’s Advocate not only didn’t 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. Paul’s 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, do not take my word on the fact that his diatribe isn’t literate. 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, let’s simply summarize this interlude in Sha’uwl’s ongoing assault on God’s Word:

“But now, brothers, if I, nevertheless myself preach circumcision, why and for what then am I pursued and persecuted? As a result, this offending trap and scandalous stumbling block invalidates the crucifixion. (Galatians 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. (Galatians 5:12)

For you, upon freedom you 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 love you all are slaves of each other. (Galatians 5:13)

Because of this then all the Towrah in one word has come to an end and is finished in you loving of the nearby neighbor as yourself. (Galatians 5:14)

But if each other you all bite and you devour, you watch out, not under one another you might be consumed.” (Galatians 5:15)

If we have to believe Paul to be in their club, let’s opt-out.



Questioning Paul

Devil’s Advocate

…Plague of Death

8

Antikeimai | Adversarial

A Passion to Negate…

As we move past mutilation and cannibalism into the second half of the fifth chapter of Paul’s epistle to the Galatians, we find the 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 Sha’uwl’s 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 he adopted the Platonic and Socratic spiritual mysticism of Gnosticism. The Gnostics 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. Paul’s association of “stoicheion kosmos – the rudimentary principles representing the basic elements of the universe in the world’s 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 Deity was malevolent and enslaving – just as Paul has been seen depicting the God of the Towrah. Growing out of the consciousness of man, “the One” who was Spirit usurped the power and authority of the Demiurge. This “Monad,” using Plato’s terminology and popularized by Pythagoras, represented “the Good Spirit” who came to reign above the original, but now old and arcane, Theos. The “Spiritual One,” consistent with Paul’s 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 oneness with the Deity. Personal poverty (achieved by donating one’s wealth to the cult’s spiritual guides), sexual abstinence (as opposed to marriage and family), and helping other initiates (being slaves to one another in Paul’s 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 One’s 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 Paul’s “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 faith’s scriptures...

“But (de) I say (lego – I speak, I narrate, and I tell the story, I communicate, providing meaning, I report, I convey, and I imply (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 (ΠΝΙ / pneumati – the Divine Placeholder is a symbol for the ruwach (however, since Sha’uwl’s 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 – therefore) the desire and passion (epithymia – the forbidden strong impulses and longings) 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 reader’s actions, and the subjunctive mood expresses a mere possibility)).” (Galatians 5:16)

This is a presentation of Gnosticism. Paul finally got something right. Too bad he was advocating on behalf of a discredited religious philosophy.

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. It is therefore likely that the scribe of Papyrus 46, written one hundred years or more after Galatians was originally penned by Sha’uwl, replaced his Greek words with these contrivances so that his letters would harmonize with the Septuagint. 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 Placeholders were ubiquitous, since Ruwach Qodesh is the Torah’s terminology, it would have been an abomination to Sha’uwl. Moreover, because Sha’uwl’s Gnostic spirit is the antithesis of Yahowah’s 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.” Jerome’s 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 the behest of the New Living Translation imagined that Paul meant to say: “So I say, let the Holy Spirit guide your lives. Then you won’t be doing what your sinful nature craves.” I suspect that these Christian institutions were all desirous of hiding the Gnostic leanings of their religion’s founder.

That leads to this, a second referendum on Gnosticism:

“For indeed (gar – because then), the (e) flesh’s (sarx – the physical nature of the body’s) desires and passions are against (epithumeo kata – forbidden impulses, evil longings and impulsive lusts are in opposition to) the spirit (tou ΠΝΣ / pneumatos – Divine Placeholder for the Ruwach (however, since Sha’uwl’s 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 ΠΝΑ / pneuma) is in opposition to (kata – against) the flesh (tes sarx – that which is physical), because (gar – for) of these (houtos) each 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) potential behaviors and somehow doing an assigned task (poieomai – you all might perform an assigned duty).” (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 isn’t 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 would appreciate and could accept the Ruwach Qodesh. As such, body, soul, and Spirit are complementary, celebrating life in harmony with Yahowah’s design. Further, God never negates His purpose by interfering with freewill. Christians endorsing Paul’s caustic attack on the Towrah are proof of this. Therefore, the Authorized King James Version is wholly errant.

For consistency sake, here is the Latin Vulgate’s 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.” It is strikingly similar to the KJV, which is telling considering the incomprehensible nature of Paul’s 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 you would 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 Sha’uwl is pitting “the spirit” against “the flesh” in pristine Gnostic fashion, there is a hole in his reasoning. According to Yahowchanan, Yahowsha’ is “the Word (logos) made flesh (sarx).” Moreover, there is a “spirit” opposed to God’s Word (and thus His Towrah) and to Yahowsha’: Satan. With this in mind, and from this perspective, let’s consider the Devil’s Advocate’s case in favor of his “spirit,” and against the Towrah.

“But (de) if (ei – on the condition) in spirit (ΠΝΙ / pneumati) you are (eimi – you exist), you are not guided (ou ago – you are not led and carried) 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 Sha’uwl his spirit’s 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 Paul’s spirit is demonic.

The facts in this case are clear. Our Spiritual Mother is introduced early in the Towrah, initially in Bare’syth / Genesis one. She plays a starring role throughout God’s 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 God’s 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, the comparisons between “the flesh” and “the spirit” which follow are specifically designed to read like a campaign speech. Sha’uwl wants Christians to view his rival’s 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, Sha’uwl 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 Paul’s assault on God’s 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 God’s 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.

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 Yahowah’s Towrah, writing: “He might possibly gouge or tear us out (exaireo emas) from the past inflexible and unrelenting circumstances of the old system (aionos – the previous era, the long period in history operating as a universal or worldly system) which 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 the desire, will, and intent of the 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 Paul’s 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 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 beauty of loving and romantic sensuality between a man and woman. Anyone who has ever read the Towrah knows that God isn’t 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 developing loving relationships. Yahowah wants us to appreciate the nature of His Covenant. Paul simply wants Christians to abstain from something he could never appreciate. Misery loves company.

Additionally, Sha’uwl has obscured the role of the “Qodesh – Set-Apart” Ruwach – Spirit in Yahowah’s redemptive process. She is the Towrah’s 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,”

Having denounced the Towrah, Paul is establishing the moral code for his new religion. It is incompatible with God’s instructions. For example, Yahowah is not concerned about “porneia – sexual promiscuity and fornication.” His list of inappropriate sexual behavior is limited to incest, pedophilia, bestiality, rape, and the harassment of anyone under one’s control.

Similarly, apart from the benefit of general hygiene and the symbolic gesture of washing our hands, our “akatharsia – material impurities and cleanliness” are of no interest to God. The reluctance to clean one’s house or take a shower at the end of the day may deter visitors, but neither have any bearing on our relationship with God.

The addition of “aselgeia – sensuality” after “porneia – sexual promiscuity,” reminds me of the politically incorrect line in Mel Brooks’ movie “Blazing Saddles.” Conducting a job interview, the actor Harvey Korman playing Hedley Lamarr, asks…

Hedley Lamarr: “Qualifications?”

Applicant: “Rape, murder, arson, and rape.”

Hedley Lamarr: “You said rape twice.”

Applicant: “I like rape.”

And while rape is a crime and no laughing matter, the realization Paul repeated himself reveals a sexually perverted and repressed attitude. On the other hand, Yahowah is the architect of our sensuality and encourages it. It is one of the most enjoyable aspects of a loving relationship.

The Christian fixation on promiscuity, fornication, and sensuality is purely Pauline. It is not unlike a Muslim woman playing religious dress up by wearing a tent when the instruction comes from Muhammad, a rapist, pedophile, and misogynist.

Considering Paul’s devotion to the Greek and Roman goddesses of Charity and Grace, his condemnation of Shim’own, his enmity toward the Disciples Yahowchanan and Ya’aqob, his hostility toward the Covenant, his animosity toward Yahowah’s Towrah, his desire to mutilate his rivals, and his willingness to contradict the Word of God, this also oozes hypocrisy:

“…the likeness representing what can be observed (eidololatria – often 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 one’s foes or opposition, discord and feuds, animosity), strife and dissension (eris – conflict, contentious variance, discord, arguing, debate, wrangling, and quarreling), 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 choose or hold a divergent opinion, separatist teaching, factions and diversity, selecting a religion using heretical tenets; from “haireomai – to prefer, choose and accept for oneself, to vote or elect”),…” (Galatians 5:20)

Since Paul is anything but clear, upon etymological investigation we discover that “eidololatria – a likeness representing what can be observed,” is based upon “eidolon – image which is similar.” It in turn is derived from “eidos – representing the external and outward appearance or manifestation.” Then digging deeper, “eido – is of that which can be seen, perceived, discerned, and observed.” Collectively, these words provide the basic meaning of eidololatria. And yet, since Yahowah created humankind “in His image and in His likeness” it cannot be a bad thing. Based upon this insight, God is telling us that He can be perceived through the image and likeness of man.

And even if we buy into the commonly rendered religious connotation of eidololatria as “idolatry,” we find Paul’s 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 Yahowah’s 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 Sha’uwl “would cause his companions to drink, thereby, associating them with his poisonous antagonism and wrath” in Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:15, because of Sha’uwl’s fixation on “observing the male genitalia.”

Ignoring the obvious connection between Pharmakeia and pharmacy, and thus the manufacture and distribution of medicines and healthcare products, Christian translators convey pharmakeia’s dark derivatives, recognizing that some drugs were toxic and potions were sometimes used to create magic spells. Therefore, rendering pharmakeia as “witchcraft” or “sorcery” is like equating charming and beautiful women with whores.

Third, Yahowsha’ was extraordinarily “echthra – hostile” to the government and religious leaders of His day, so being “antagonistic” and “indignant” toward clerics and their false teachings cannot be inappropriate. Yahowah is relentless in this regard, showing unrelenting opposition to religion and politics.

Moreover, denouncing “echthra – hostile antagonism” is the epitome of hypocrisy for Sha’uwl. His Galatians letter is rife with “enmity toward his foes.” He is constantly “engaging in feuds.” He has “picked a fight” against Yahowah, Yahowsha’, and his disciples. Apart from the Qur’an, it would be hard to find a religious text filled with so much “animosity.”

And fourth, speaking of the Qur’an, Paul’s Galatian epistle is similarly “eris – quarrelsome and divisive.” Therefore, if “arguing, discord, and contentious variances” are wrong, so is Paul. That said, Yahowah wants us to be divisive. He wants us to quarrel with the likes of Paul.

Fifth, zelos is most often used in a positive sense. It defines the “fervor and passion” Yahowsha’ desired, but found lacking, in the Laodiceans – the 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.” Therefore, if Paul’s 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 Sha’uwl was opposed to Yahowah’s “desire to make the sacrifices” needed to fulfill His Towrah promises. Thumos would decry Yahowsha’s sacrifice as the Passover Lamb.

Seventh, Muhammad was the only person who rivaled Paul in his pursuit of “eritheia – selfish ambitions which led to hostile rivalries.” Sha’uwl spent much of his time campaigning against Yahowsha’s disciples, presenting himself as being superior to those the Passover Lamb 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 Yahowah’s perspective, especially 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.” This is again the height of hypocrisy. Sha’uwl proposed a New or Second Covenant in complete discord with God’s instructions. Therefore, what the Devil’s Advocate is actually saying is that, while his rules do not apply to him, it is not okay for someone else to take another stand or one against him. Further, just on the face of it, “dichostasia – standing apart through dissension and disunity” summarizes most everything we have read in Galatians 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 Yahowah’s perspective, freewill is unassailable. And from Paul’s, believers are to have no choice in the matter of their religion. So once again, we find similarities between Galatians and the Qur’an 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’s 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 nothing right, and almost everything wrong, 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 (ΘΥ), 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 Paul’s initial letter, is that the envy Satan has for Yahowah has caused Sha’uwl to corrupt God’s testimony throughout this epistle. And Sha’uwl’s jealousy toward Yahowsha’s Apostles has prompted him to destroy their credibility and message.

“Methe – intoxication” is a problem because, in Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:5, Yahowah accuses Sha’uwl of being “an intoxicating man of deceptive infidelity and treacherous betrayal,” revealing that “whoever is open to the broad path associated with Sha’uwl” will discover that “he and his soul are like the plague of death.”

Komos, translated as “public partying,” is an issue 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 killjoy, but God likes to party.

In Paul’s 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, Sha’uwl 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 God’s kingdom,” Paul has created a works-based religion in which being “good” by his definition becomes essential. Yahowah is far more interested in us being right. So much for faith.

Not only does Sha’uwl lack the authority to limit Yahowah’s mercy, many of the things on Paul’s list, God encourages. And there is not a single item on Sha’uwl’s 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 Sha’uwl 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.

By comparison, God wants us to know that those who observe His Towrah, those who embrace the terms of His Covenant, those who attend His seven annual Invitations to Meet will be adopted into His Family and live with Him in Heaven. However, those who deceptively promote lifeless teachings, men 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.

There is nothing on Paul’s list which will preclude entry to Heaven. Much of it, God does not even care about. With eight wives and ten concubines, Dowd would have been sexually promiscuous, and he is in heaven. He was also exceedingly quarrelsome and deeply passionate, as is God.

Before we move on to the spiritual side of Gnosticism, here is a review of the things Paulos says will restrict a believer’s entry into heaven:

“But (de) I say (lego) in spirit (pneumati), you are all commanded to advance (peripateisoe). Therefore (kai), the desire and passion (epithymia) of the flesh (sarx) you must deny (ou), lest (me) you may come to an end (teleo). (Galatians 5:16)

For indeed because (gar), the (e) body’s (sarx) desires and passions are forbidden because they against (epithumeo kata) the spirit (tou pneumatos). And so then (de) the spirit (to pneuma) is in opposition to (kata) the physical world and the physical body (tes sarx) because (gar) of these (houtos) one another (allelon) is hostile and adversarial (antikeimai) in order to (hina) negate (me) what (hos) conditionally (ean) you might presently propose and want, even enjoy (thelo) of these (houtos) potential behaviors and somehow doing an assigned task (poieomai). (Galatians 5:17)

However (de), if (ei) in spirit (pneumati) you are (eimi), you are not guided (ou ago) under the control of or subject to (hypo) the Towrah (nomon). (Galatians 5:18) So now (de) it is evident, clearly seen, and widely known (eimi phaneros) that the works and assigned tasks (ta ergon) of the flesh (used as a metaphor for the Towrah) (tes sarx) indeed (hostis) exist as (eimi) sexual promiscuity and fornication (porneia), being dirty (akatharsia), sensuality (aselgeia), (Galatians 5:19) the likeness of an outward appearance of what can be seen and perceived (eidololatria), the use and administering of medicines (pharmakeia), hostile antagonism, enmity and feuds (echthra), strife and dissension, even debate and quarreling (eris), devotion and jealousy (zelos), the desire to make sacrifices (thumos), selfish ambitions, running for an elective office, and rivalries (eritheia), discord and division, especially a second option (dichostasia), the freedom to choose for oneself (hairesis), (Galatians 5:20) corruption (phthonos), intoxication (methe), public partying or a festive assembly (komos), and (kai) that (ta) similar to (homoios) this (houtos) which (hos) I previously spoke (prolego) to you (umin) inasmuch as (kathos) I said before (proepo) that (oti) the likes of such (oi ta toioutos) carrying out and committing these practices (prasso), the reign and kingdom (basileia) of God (ΘΥ), they will not inherit (ou kleronomeo).” (Galatians 5:21)

NAMI: “I say but in spirit walk around and desire of flesh not not you might complete. 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.

Evident but are the works of the flesh which is sexual immorality, uncleanness, debauchery, idol service, magic, hostilities, strife, jealousy, furies, selfish ambitions, divisions, sects, 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: “I say then: Walk in the spirit: and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. 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.

Now the works of the flesh are manifest: which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury,” idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects, 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: “This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 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.

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 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.”

NASB: “But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the desire of the flesh is against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, in order to keep you from doing whatever you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: sexual immorality, impurity, indecent behavior, idolatry, witchcraft, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

NLT: “So I say, let the Holy Spirit guide your lives. Then you won’t be doing what your sinful nature craves. 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.

When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, the results are very clear: sexual immorality, impurity, lustful pleasures, idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division, 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.”

The Sixteen Heaven-Foreclosing Sins of Pauline Christianity in the Greek text, from my literal translation, then the Latin Vulgate, the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear, the King James Version, the New American Standard Bible, and the New Living Translation, followed by an assessment of its validity, are…

Porneia – sexual promiscuity | fornication | sexual immorality | adultery and fornication | sexual immorality | sexual immorality | Paul was admittedly guilty, and God considers sexuality good.

Akatharsia – being dirty | uncleanness | uncleanness | uncleanness | impurity | impurity | Irrelevant.

Aselgeia – sensuality | immodesty and luxury | debauchery | lasciviousness | indecent behavior | lustful pleasures | God created it.

Eidololatria – the likeness of an outward appearance of what can be seen or perceived | idolatry | idol service | idolatry | idolatry | idolatry | God admonishes against idols but Christianity is rife with them.

Pharmakeia – the use and administering of medicines | witchcrafts | magic | witchcraft | witchcraft | sorcery | God recommends the use of medicines necessitating an invalid translation of the Greek word by Christians.

Echthra – hostile antagonism, enmity and feuds | contentions | hostilities | hatred | hostilities | hostility | Paul was admittedly guilty and God wants us to be antagonistic toward the likes of Paul, but not Him.

Eris – strife and dissension, even debate and quarreling | enmities | strife | variance | strife | quarreling | Paul was admittedly guilty and God wants us to debate and quarrel with him.

Zelos – devotion and jealousy | contentions | jealousy | emulations | jealousy | jealousy | Paul was admittedly guilty and God is and wants us to be jealously devoted.

Thumos – the desire to make sacrifices | emulations | furies | wrath | outbursts of anger | outbursts of anger | Paul claimed to have made sacrifices and God wants us to appreciate and capitalize upon His sacrifices for our benefit.

Eritheia – selfish ambitions, running for an elective office, and rivalries | wraths | selfish ambitions | strife | selfish ambition | selfish ambition | Paul was exceedingly guilty and God has nothing against us being ambitious so long as we are not self-reliant to the exclusion of trusting Him.

Dichostasia – discord and division, especially a second option | quarrels and envies | divisions | seditions | dissensions | dissension | In the negative sense, this is the basis of Galatians. However, God is a proponent of division when we separate ourselves from the world and become set apart unto Him.

Hairesis – the freedom to choose for oneself | dissensions and murders | sects | heresies | factions | division | Paul opposed freewill and God is devoted to it.

Phthonos – corruption | sects | envies | envyings, murders | envy | envy | When it comes to corruption, even sects, envy, and murder, no one did these better than Paul, making him a hypocrite. That said, Yahowah is opposed to corrupting His testimony and to coveting what belongs to others.

Methe – intoxication | drunkenness | drunkenness | drunkenness | drunkenness | drunkenness | In His prophecy warning us against Sha’uwl | Paul, Yahowah repeatedly said that the Plague of Death would be intoxicating.

Komos – public partying or a festive assembly | revellings | carousing | revellings | carousing | wild parties | Yahowah’s seven annual Miqra’ey | Invitations to Called Out and Meet are Chag | Parties, so we know God’s position on public parties and festive assemblies.

Kai ta homoios houtos prasso – and that similar to carrying out and committing these practices | and such like | and the like these | and such like | and things like these | and other sins like these | There was only one thing on this list that is genuinely troubling to God: idols in a religious setting. And yet Christianity celebrates and is known for its Dead God on a Stick (Crosses and Crucifixes), Baby in his Mommy’s Arms (Madonna and Child), and Living Room Bushes (Christmas Trees).

Basileia theos ou kleronomeo – the kingdom of Theos they will not inherit | shall not obtain the kingdom of God | kingdom of God not will inherit | shall not inherit the kingdom of God | will not inherit the kingdom of God | will not inherit the Kingdom of God | There is nothing on Paul’s list which would individually or collectively preclude entry into Heaven. Even being around idols, while bad, can be resolved by disassociating from them.

This reads like a list of projections because Paul is guilty of either committing or contesting most everything in the list. He is setting up a smokescreen by speaking out against his own vulnerabilities, so when rightfully accused, an apologist can dispense with the criticism by saying that Paul spoke against it. This is similar to Satan speaking out against Satan because he despised the “ha satan – adversary” designation in that it impedes his ambition of being worshiped as God.

But how can Paul’s list be valid if faith in his 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 faith – one which must favor hypocrisy (at least based upon this letter).

“But (de) the (o) fruit (karpos – harvest and result) of the (toe) spirit (ΠΝΣ / 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 Sha’uwl’s 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 antitheses of the characteristics he attributes to his spirit.

At the same point in his Instruction on the Mount where Yahowsha’ spoke of the “wolf in sheep’s 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 sixteen rotten lemons Sha’uwl has hung before us, thus far, precludes him from consideration as a worthy source. God does not grade on a curve. The presence of “love, happiness, and peace” in this second list does not exonerate him. The little he got right only serves only to make the bad fruit he has offered seem more appealing.

Chrestotes, translated, “mercy from an upright implement,” is a term that should give Christians shivers. It is based upon Chrestus, the title Shim’own 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 Yahowsha’s life’s work 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 One’s 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 accouterments are listed prominently among Gnostic attributes as “generosity” and “faith.” But as is the case when we compare Yahowah’s list of the ten things He is most concerned about with Sha’uwl’s, there is no commonality. Moreover, God has no interest in “faith.” He wants us to “know.”

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 Paul’s 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 Paul’s 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, 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 totally misleading. For example, agape’s 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.”

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 mankind’s most inalienable God-given right, and why the Towrah is God’s most valuable gift. It is also the reason that God did not stop Paul from writing, or Christians from immortalizing him.

But Paul has this backward. The attitude and choice inherent in true love are 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)

This known, neither Yahowah nor the Set-Apart Spirit are all loving. God hates and so should we. Until we know what and how to hate, we cannot truly love. Empathy and compassion dictate that we come to despise rape and rapists, pedophilia and pedophiles, murder and murderers, terror and terrorists, politics and political leaders, religions and their scriptures. However, our disdain must be expressed in words, relying upon evidence and reason, never fists or weapons.

If we were to summarize Yahowah’s instruction regarding the fruit of the Set-Apart Spirit, Her influence in our lives would include: providing spiritual birth from above into God’s family on Bikuwrym following Pesach and Matsah. This enables us to become our Heavenly Father’s 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 Yahowah’s eyes and enables us to exist in His presence. The Set-Apart Spirit enlightens us by nourishing us in the Word of God, 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.

“Chara – happiness” is not 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 Paul’s list. She, like Yahowsha’, brings division.

Pistis has served as the fulcrum of Paul’s deception. While it originally meant “trust and reliance,” it was translated “faith and belief” in Galatians 5:22 because the content of Paul’s epistles and his legacy allow no other rational option. And 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.

As it relates to this verse, these four translations aren’t 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,”

It is hard not to shout “hypocrite” when Paul, of all people, promotes a word most often translated as “meekness and humility.” But nonetheless, Sha’uwl’s list of spiritual fruit continues with:

“…gentleness, meekness, and humility (prautes – considerate friendliness), self-control over one’s 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)

Sha’uwl is saying that the “fruit of the spirit” is incompatible with the Towrah. And so long as you recognize the demonic nature of Paul’s spirit, he is right.

But there is a benefit of Sha’uwl 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 Yahowah’s 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 Paul’s list 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 scale – quite similar to Muhammad.

His summation of spiritual Gnosticism, therefore, reads:

“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 one’s sexual appetite, with regard to such there is no Towrah.” (Galatians 5:23)

The oldest witness of Sha’uwl’s 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 (ΧΥ – Divine Placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement to usurp the Septuagint’s credibility and infer Divinity) the (ten) flesh (sarx – the physical nature) has been crucified (ΕΣΤΑΝ) 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.

Yahowsha’s crucifixion was irrelevant apart from him serving as the Passover Lamb, thereby enabling the Towrah’s promise to make us immortal. And his sacrifice on this day had 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.

Paul’s statement 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 Sha’uwl’s proclamation suffers from some linguistic inadequacies, let’s 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 ΧΥ was written instead of Χριστοῦ/Christou, and Ἰησοῦ/Iesoe isn’t found in the text of the oldest witness, not even by way of a placeholder. Further ἐσταύρωσαν/estaerosan was rendered ΕΣΤΑΝ.

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 Christ’s 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.” 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 Constantine – and he knows it.

Of course, it is true that Yahowsha’s flesh had been affixed to the “Upright Pillar” to honor the promise of Passover, but that was not remotely close to what Sha’uwl was saying. And the fulfillment of Passover only opened the door to eternal life. Our perversions, religious and political rebellion, were actually redeemed the following day, during the Miqra’ of Matsah. Yahowah’s soul went to She’owl to pay the penalty so that we might receive Yah’s gift of perfection – all in accord with the Towrah and its Covenant.

Contrary to what Sha’uwl 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 Bible’s 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 Sha’uwl’s next statement, since “kai – and or also” is omitted from P46, since Paul did not write “en – in” once, much less twice, since the placeholders for Ruwach are side by side, and since “στοιχωμεν – stoichomen – advances in a line” was rendered in the plural, present, active tense, the Nestle-Aland Interlinear isn’t even remotely accurate. “If we live in spirit in spirit also we might walk.” Therefore, while admittedly less unintelligible, this is at least a little more consistent with the original text:

“If (ei) we live (zao) for spirit (ΠΝΙ / pneumati), for spirit (ΠΝΙ / 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 concern. 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. Yahowah’s spiritual envoys, messengers, and representatives follow 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 to which we are headed. 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 stoichomen’s 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.

Jerome’s 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 Spirit’s leading in every part of our lives.”

Thankfully, we have arrived at the last verse of the fifth chapter. Now if only this were 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, arrogant, 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 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, even so, 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 it’s not the Protestant’s 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, let’s not act like Paul.

As is our custom, let’s give Sha’uwl the last word:

“This freedom and liberty of ours by becoming Christos, it freed and released. So, you all are directed to stand firm. Therefore, also, never again associate with the yoke of subservience and slavery. You were 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. (Galatians 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. (Galatians 5:2)

Then, furthermore, repeating myself, I testify, insisting and protesting to every man being circumcised that he actually is obligated to do and perform the entire and complete Towrah. (Galatians 5:3)

You have invalidated and rendered inoperative, abolishing the purpose of the separation of Christou, whosoever is in unison with the Towrah. You having been declared righteous, and having been vindicated with the Charis / Gratia / Graces, have fallen away and have been forsaken. (Galatians 5:4)

Because indeed, we in spirit out of faith hope. Righteousness we await patiently. (Galatians 5:5)

In Christo Iesou neither circumcision is someone capable, nor is the uttermost part of the penis. On the contrary through faith love operating. (Galatians 5:6)

You were trying, running, and progressing well, in a fine way that was pleasing. What prevented and impeded you from the truth, such that you are no longer persuaded or obedient, following along faithfully? (Galatians 5:7)

The enticing persuasion and soliciting inducement, was it not from the one providing a name to you all? (Galatians 5:8)

A little yeast, the whole of the batch it yeasts. (Galatians 5:9)

I have been persuaded to coax and convince you, winning you over with the Lord because nothing different other than this may you 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, he will undergo and endure the judgment, be condemned and punished, no matter who this individual might be. (Galatians 5:10)

But now, brothers, if I, nevertheless myself preach circumcision, why and for what then am I pursued and persecuted? As a result of this offending trap and scandalous stumbling block invalidates the crucifixion. (Galatians 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. (Galatians 5:12)

For you, upon freedom you 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 the love you all are slaves of each other. (Galatians 5:13)

Because of this then all the Towrah in one word has come to an end and is finished in you loving of the nearby neighbor as yourself. (Galatians 5:14)

But if each other you all bite and you devour, but watch out for not under one another you might be consumed. (Galatians 5:15)

But I say in spirit, you are all commanded to advance. Therefore, the desire and passion of the flesh you must deny, lest you may come to an end. (Galatians 5:16)

For indeed because, the body’s desires and passions are forbidden because they against the spirit. And so then the spirit is in opposition to the physical world and the physical body because of these one another is hostile and adversarial in order to negate what conditionally you might presently propose and want, even enjoy of these potential behaviors and somehow doing an assigned task. (Galatians 5:17)

However, if in spirit you are, you are not guided under the control of or subject to the Towrah. (Galatians 5:18)

So now it is evident, clearly seen, and widely known that the works and assigned tasks of the flesh (used as a metaphor for the Towrah) indeed exist as sexual promiscuity and fornication, being dirty, sensuality, (5:19) the likeness of an outward appearance of what can be seen and perceived, the use and administering of medicines, hostile antagonism, enmity and feuds, strife and dissension, even debate and quarreling, devotion and jealousy, the desire to make sacrifices, selfish ambitions, running for an elective office, and rivalries, discord and division, especially a second option, the freedom to choose for oneself, (5:20) corruption, intoxication, public partying or a festive assembly, 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. (Galatians 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 one’s sexual appetite, with regard to such there is no Towrah. (Galatians 5:23)

But the ones of the Christou, the flesh has been crucified with the sufferings, the deep desires, and longings. (Galatians 5:24)

If we live for spirit, for spirit we march in a line, living in conformity. (Galatians 5:25)

Not that we might come to exist vainly boastful sharing opinions which are baseless, one another provoking and irritating, each other jealous and envying.” (Galatians 5:26)



Questioning Paul

Devil’s Advocate

…Plague of Death

9

Harpayesomeoa | Snatched Away

Being Caught…

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 rebuttal to the Galatians, consider this rendition of his pronouncement as it was 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 selected twenty-three words and strung them together like 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 engaging in His Covenant. Therefore, the following exercise in linguistics may be 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), as the spiritual ones (oi pneumatikoi – the ones who bear and bring forth the spirit), must be prepared to completely restore (katartizo – you are commanded to make and render wholly mended; from “kata – according to” and “artios – perfectly fit”) that one (ton) such as this (toioutos) with (en – in) a meek and gentle (prautes – humble) spirit (ΠΝΙ / pneumati – Divine Placeholder for the Ruwach (however, since Sha’uwl’s 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, this seems to suggest that Paul knew he had been caught lying to the Galatians. And yet unlike his response to Shim’own Kephas, he wanted those he deliberately deceived to cut him a break. However, since he had told them 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 Sha’uwl’s proclamation, with an eye to exposing errant Christian theology, let’s tackle these statements one word at a time. The problems begin with “prolambano – may have previously detected or caught.” This is very similar to the Qur’an asking Muslim children to spy on their parents and turn them into the authorities if they suspect them of rejecting any of Muhammad’s commands. It was how ordinary people in Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany were controlled. This 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 because it is the operating mechanism behind Political Correctness.

This is also the spirit behind totalitarian regimes: “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 the Gestapo 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 Yahowah’s instructions in the Torah and Prophets. As a result, if we were to follow Yahowsha’s advice and example, we would all be holding Sha’uwl 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 Sha’uwl. 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 Satan’s. Instead, the standard that God wants us to observe is the Towrah and learn from it so that we are right when it comes to the things of God.

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 God’s 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’s (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. It is the Qodesh | Set-Apart Ruwach’s | Spirit’s 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 Paul’s 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 is not 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 is not about meekness as we use that word, but instead about understanding the human condition relative to Yahowah’s 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 Sha’uwl’s message is the antithesis of Yahowah’s, who are you going to trust?

The key, of course, to making the right decision is “focus.” We must “skopeo – carefully observe, be concerned and think about,” Yahowah’s Word. But unfortunately, Paul told Christians to “skopeo seauton – focus upon, carefully observe, and think about yourself.”

The reason Sha’uwl 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 “aren’t tempted” to reject his dogma. And he is equally insistent that they do not “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 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, 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.” (Galatians 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 don’t 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 “Towrah.” We had Sarah’s promised liberation from the Towrah, Hagar’s enslavement to the Towrah, and now the Towrah of Christou. And yet, like Yahowah and His Covenant, there is only one Towrah. But beyond a Trinity of Torahs, the preamble to the myth may be even worse than its conclusion.

“For 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 (ΧΥ / 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, it is 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 Paul’s religious realm. But in the world Yahowah created, He alone fulfills and completes His Word – and 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 else’s. This is God’s job. He alone is qualified. And this makes every aspect of Paul’s instruction fraudulent. Frankly, since Yahowsha’ and Yahowah endured pain and separation beyond imagination to fulfill the Towrah on Passover and UnYeasted 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 Sha’uwl were told to avoid reading Yasha’yah / Isaiah 53, so Sha’uwl would never have considered its message while studying to be a Pharisee. And yet it affirms the Passover Lamb’s role in our immortality and Yahowah’s 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 (mak’ob – physical suffering and emotional anguish) he carried away (sabal – sustained the load, dragging our burden away).” (Yasha’yah / Isaiah 53:4)

“All of us like sheep have gone astray (ta’ah – erred by wandering away, deceiving ourselves or having been misled). Mankind has turned to his own way. But Yahowah has caused the guilt and punishment (‘aown | ‘awon – the liability, perversity, depravity, and the consequence of twisting and distorting) of us all to fall on him (paga’ – to encounter him for him to make intercession).” (Yasha’yah / Isaiah 53:6)

Then Yahowah speaks of His soul enduring She’owl on our behalf on the Invitation to be Called Out and Meet of UnYeasted 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.” (Yasha’yah / Salvation and Freedom are from Yah / Isaiah 53:10-12, 54:1)

The contrast between Yahowah’s Word and Paul’s drivel is monumental. It is the difference between God and man. So why is it that billions believe Sha’uwl?

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 another’s 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 another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” I don’t think so.

Recognizing the hubris and pain associated with even pretending to do what Yahowsha’ had done, the NLT arbitrarily changed “complete” to “obey.” “Share each other’s 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, let’s 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-Aland’s “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 – and perhaps written it on his mirror. He claimed to be God’s exclusive apostle to the world, deceiving all who believed him.

Sha’uwl wrote this for the same reason that he used dokei previously in this letter, besmirching the authority Yahowsha’ vested in the Disciples Shim’own, Ya’aqob, and Yahowchanan. He viewed those whom Yahowsha’ chose and trained as rivals and as a threat.

This statement further indicts Sha’uwl. 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 Sha’uwl seems to know what the word meant here, he knew what it meant there.

Remember Galatians 2:9: “And having recognized and become familiar with the Charis of the one having been given to me, Ya’aqob, Kephas, and also Yahowchanan, the ones presently presumed and supposed (dokei – of the opinion 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 Father of Lies 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) he (to) boasts and brags (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 Paul’s previous statements is quite similar to the translations, even though we would view the implications very differently:

“And also brothers, if a man may have previously detected or caught someone in a false step, you all, the spiritual ones, 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.” (Galatians 6:1)

For one another, the weighty burdens you carry, remove, and endure and thus in this way you all complete the Towrah of the Christou. (Galatians 6:2)

Indeed, if someone supposes and presumes to be somebody, he is nothing. He deceives himself. (Galatians 6:3)

But the performances and accomplishments of himself, he must examine and prove meritorious, and then to himself, alone, at the exclusion of others, he can boast and brag, having the justification for pride and praise, and not for any other.” (Galatians 6:4)

If this is what Paul meant to say, and it probably is, then we have to question his mental stability. It is yet another moronic attempt to negate the Towrah, this time by claiming believers complete the Towrah by removing burdens, divesting them of the benefit of Matsah.

The last two statements are then 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 should not be boasting about what we have done. What we do on behalf of God should never be about us, especially to the exclusion of others. Our words and deeds should be focused on encouraging people to consider Yahowah’s words and deeds.

And yet, knowing Paul, the first of these four statements was designed to indemnify himself and impugn his rivals, especially Yahowsha’s disciples. And the second was postured to annul Yahowah’s Towrah and Yahowsha’s sacrifice.

This would leave Paul alone. So, 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 won’t need to compare yourself to anyone else.”

Speaking of hallucinogenic schizophrenia, after telling his audience that they should remove and bear other people’s burdens, as if they, themselves, were fulfilling the Towrah, Sha’uwl says that everyone will carry their own load. Some would call that an internal or self-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) they 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, you would have to read His Towrah.

Beyond the fact that Paul has contradicted himself regarding a command he has just issued, and beyond the realization this negates Yahowah’s fulfillment of UnYeasted Bread, bastazo was rendered in the future tense and the indicative mood (making it a reality from the writer’s 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 will not be any forgiveness. And unfortunately, for those who believe Paul, he finally got something right.

These translations are an accurate reflection of Sha’uwl’s 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 willingly alter the words which were written in Galatians to make Paul appear credible, the New Living Translation perpetuates the deception that Sha’uwl was inspired by God. As coconspirators, 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 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.



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, because you are being ordered to participate in association with others, to support (koinoneito – everyone is commanded to join together as partners with others to contribute to) the one (o) who is outspoken, making the ears ring, verbally informing (katechoumenos – reporting the instruction and teaching orally; from kata – according to and echos – loudmouthed rumors and noisy reports) the (ton) word (logos), instructing (katechounti – communicating and teaching) in (en) all (pas) good, excellently and beneficially (agathois – a worthy and deserving way, outstanding and exceptional, useful and advantageous, and of course right).” (Galatians 6:6)

We are in the sixth chapter of Galatians, and there have not been six passages cited from Yahowah’s Towrah and Prophets thus far – and not one correctly. And we have not seen a single citation from Yahowsha’ – not a solitary word. Recognizing that the Towrah verses which have been cited have all been misquoted and twisted, it’s obvious that the “word” Sha’uwl wants to be promoted and supported is his own.

His purpose has been to demean the Word of God, obsolescing and besmirching the Towrah. There is no chance whatsoever that Sha’uwl was motivating the Galatians to share the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. And at this point, he had not yet co-opted Mark or Luke to compose their complementary Gospels. Also, while Yahowchanan’s testimony was composed around this time, it had not yet been widely distributed. Therefore, the Devil’s Advocate was ordering, actually commanding since koinoneito was written in the imperative mood, the Galatians to recite what he had preached and written.

Paul was the man making ears ring.

If the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear is right, then Paul was also saying that the one being instructed should do the instructing. That is 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 students informing their instructor: “Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.”

Apparently suffering writer’s 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 (ΘΣ) 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.

Sha’uwl has been sneering at Yahowah from the onset of this letter. He has derided and ridiculed His Towrah, treating the Word of God with utter contempt, suggesting that it enslaves and that it was annulled – even that it was impotent.

As a result of these letters, Christians uniformly turn up their noses at the Almighty’s seven annual Invitations to Meet. It is 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, Sha’uwl 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. Paul is projecting his faults, and the consequence, on his foes.

Beyond duplicity and hypocrisy, in the world God conceived, as a result of Passover and UnYeasted Bread, we do not have to reap what we have sown. We can be perfected and forgiven. Only those who deliberately lead souls away from God, as Paul has done, will reap what they have sown. Sha’uwl will spend his eternity in the place that shares his name: She’owl.

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: “Don’t be misled—you cannot mock the justice of God. You will always harvest what you plant.”

If God’s 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 Paul’s epistles is in serious trouble.

Speaking of reaping that which one sows, Sha’uwl continues to cultivate his agricultural theme while advancing his Gnostic beliefs. It is, however, not a revelation that flesh decays, which is why we will not 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 (ΠΝΑ / pneuma – Divine Placeholder for the Ruwach), from (ek – out of) the (tou) spirit (ΠΝΑ / 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 is not true.

In his own sneaky way, Sha’uwl 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 was not Sha’uwl’s intent. For him, “the flesh” remains synonymous with the tangible and concrete nature of “the Towrah” (in part because of its insistence against circumcision), and “the spirit” is represented by the unseen and nebulous ether of “faith.” Therefore, he is saying that sowing the seeds found in God’s 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 Sha’uwl 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 She’owl.

And while it is a technical point, we do not “sow into the Spirit.” We can sow the seeds of truth by conveying Yahowah’s 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. Therefore, the notion of “sowing into the Spirit” isn’t 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 asked not to belittle Her. And while our Spiritual Mother plays a crucial role in our perfection, “eternal life” isn’t the result of anything we do, including “living to please the Spirit.”

Not finished, Satan’s 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) doing (poiountes – performing behaviors and working assigned tasks) good (kalon – advantageous, fine, fitting, beneficial, beautiful, sound, and handsome) we do not become malicious (me egkakomen – we do not give in to 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 one’s 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 was a bit of a riddle until I realized 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 Yahowah’s 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 Miqra’ey are not only directly associated with the “reaping” of saved souls, these “propitious harvests” are all celebrated “in season.” Specifically, three of the seven are designated as harvests (Firstborn Children, Seven Shabats, and Trumpets) and a fourth, Shelters, is symbolic of a covered shelter or storehouse of saved souls. Therefore, since Sha’uwl has told Christians to ignore Yahowah’s Harvests, and impugned the Towrah which presents them, he is now offering a substitute – not unlike what Christmas and Easter have become.

Paul’s hypocrisy is showing. He has led the faithful 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, let’s 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 let’s not get tired of doing what is good. At just the right time we will reap a harvest of blessing if we don’t give up.”

There are problems which arise in these translations which we should not ignore. First, it is God’s 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. It is 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 aren’t 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 Paul’s letter. He throws all manner of poorly identified and unsupported things against the wall, hoping that something will stick. But he has not 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 is not 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 countless hours preparing and tailoring my presentations for each unique customer. Then, after the buyer responded favorably and purchased products from the firms I represented, I invested many more hours following through on the logistics of the shipment, making sure nothing went wrong. I was prepared, and thus prevailed.

Before we leave Paul’s field of lies, this appears to be an opportune time to share something from this “Apostle’s” 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 people’s fears over the death of loved ones. The founder of the Christian religion mistakenly 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 Sha’uwl was wrong with regard to his prophecy, why would anyone who isn’t 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?

Speaking of death, God cannot die, and thus believing that He did, is neither accurate nor beneficial. It is one of Christendom’s deadliest deceptions.

“For if (gar ei – because under the condition) we really believe (pisteuo – we actually have faith (present active indicative)) that (oti – because namely) Iesous (ΙΥ) 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 ΘΣ), 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 (ΙΥ), 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. Sha’uwl’s 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 you would like to gain a full appreciation from God’s perspective of exactly what happened on Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children, and if you would like to understand how these fulfillments apply to you and your relationship with God, you are invited to read the Miqra’ey | Invitations and Mow’ed | Meetings Volumes of Yada Yahowah. There you will discover that Yahowah’s Spirit departed from Yahowsha’s body and soul on the upright pole so that his physical body could die serving as the Passover Lamb. His soul descended into She’owl for the express purpose of enabling the promise Yahowah had made to perfect the children of the Covenant. His soul, then released, reunited with the Spirit, to celebrate Firstborn Children, enabling God to adopt us into His family.

The implication in this next statement is that Sha’uwl is attempting to quote something Yahowsha’ said. If true, it would be the first time in any of his letters, but it was not to be. Yahowsha’ never said anything like this. In fact, his depiction of the Taruw’ah 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 Sha’uwl 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. By the time those who foolishly believed him figured it out, it would be too late to voice a complaint.

We can also speculate on the identity of Paul’s “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.”

We may even want to speculate on why Sha’uwl claimed to speak for his god and yet neglected to cite any of said god’s instructions. And if we are to believe that Sha’uwl was speaking for Yahowah about His Taruw’ah Harvest, why didn’t he quote what God had His prophets write about this Miqra’ | Invitation in His Towrah | Teaching, in Yasha’yah | Isaiah, Zakaryah | Zechariah, or Mal’aky | Malachi. Yahowah had a great deal to say about this Spiritual Harvest of His children.

If we were to make our way 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.” However, he was not even close. He died alone and miserable nineteen centuries before the fulfillment of the still-future Taruw’ah | Trumpets Harvest. Moreover, his promise was hollow to those who were sleeping and living.

Yahowah had long since established in His Word that the Taruw’ah Harvest was predicated upon the concept of being a troubadour to trumpet His message. Therefore, while the association of this harvest with this instrument, a showphar, or ram’s horn in Hebrew, is accurate, it was not prophetic. As for the rest, it is inaccurate. 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 (ΘΥ 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 (ΧΥ) will actually stand (anastesontai – will really rise) first (protos – before).” (1 Thessalonians 4:16)

Actually, there is no indication that Yahowsha’ will be greeting those harvested prior to the worst of Ya’aqob’s Troubles (the Tribulation in Christian parlance). He served as the Passover Lamb, which was more than sufficient. In the end, it is Dowd | David who will return as Shepherd, Messiah, and King, so I would not be surprised if he serves in this role.

The order of who rises first, if indeed there is a difference, will be completely irrelevant in association with eternity. Therefore, 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. However, there are no Christians in Heaven. (That may not be what you want to hear, but it is the truth. And unlike Paul, I am not promoting myself or a religion.)

Lastly, the reason for 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, Sha’uwl 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 Sha’uwl), 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 explain 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. (We will explore Yasha’yah 17-18 in the closing volume of Yada Yahowah in which all of this is explained.) 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” is not the kind of word one would normally associate with Yahowsha’, although it’s a perfect depiction of Satan’s (a.k.a. the Lord’s) idea of a good time. And what is particularly interesting is that Yahowsha’ used a derivative of harpazo in Matthew 7:15, “harpax – exceptionally self-promoting and self-serving,” to describe wolves such as Sha’uwl:

“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 sheep’s 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 one’s 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).” (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 that Christians would henceforth proclaim, not God’s. As Roman Catholics, they would summon the world to their Lord and to their Church. For many, it was convert or die.

Now that we know 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, let’s return to Galatians. There we find Comrade Paul, the Devil’s 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 this 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).” (Galatians 6:10) (In P46, the verb “might work” was scribed as a noun, “ergaxometha – work.”)

According to Paul, work is enslaving when we choose to act upon the Towrah’s guidance for our own benefit and enrichment. However, when we work for Paul’s Faith, our labor is advantageous. That’s handy because now Christians can work for their own enrichment.

With Yahowah’s Covenant, other than choosing to respond and participate in accordance with His instructions, man does not make any contributions because God does all of the work. But here, man is the one laboring. And the beneficiary is Paul’s 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.” This reveals that, after investing the first three-quarters of this epistle criticizing “works,” calling them unproductive, ignorant, and enslaving, 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, Sha’uwl wrote:

“And also brothers, if a man may have previously detected or caught someone in a false step, you all, the spiritual ones, 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.” (Galatians 6:1)

For one another, the weighty burdens you carry, remove, and endure and thus in this way you all complete the Towrah of the Christou. (Galatians 6:2)

Indeed, if someone supposes and presumes to be somebody, he is nothing. He deceives himself. (Galatians 6:3)

But the performances and accomplishments of himself, he must examine and prove meritorious, and then to himself, alone, at the exclusion of others, he can boast and brag, having the justification for pride and praise, and not for any other. (Galatians 6:4)

For each and every one, their own individual and distinct burden they will carry and bear. (Galatians 6:5)

But one must share, because you are being ordered to participate in association with others, to support the one who is outspoken, making the ears ring, verbally informing and orally reporting the word, instructing in everything good, excellent, and beneficial. (Galatians 6:6)

You must not become misled and stray because a god is not sneered at or ridiculed, nor is he mocked or treated with contempt. For then, whatever if a man may sow, this also he shall reap. (Galatians 6:7)

Because the one sowing into the flesh of himself, out of the body will reap corruption, destruction, and depravity and death. But the one sowing into the spirit, from the spirit will reap life eternal.” (Galatians 6:8)

But the one doing good, we do not become malicious or disparaging. Because on occasion, for oneself we will reap, not being discouraged by being bound, bandaged, and exhausted. (Galatians 6:9)

As a result, therefore, likewise, on this occasion, we are presently able to experience the potential to work for the advantageous generous benefit of all, but especially and chiefly benefiting those belonging to the Faith.” (Galatians 6:10)

I could not have imagined when we began this journey together that it would be this disorienting and dark. This has been the rollercoaster to Hell.



Questioning Paul

Devil’s Advocate

…Plague of Death

10

Peritemno | Circumcised

Cut Off…

Sha’uwl’s 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 he was now writing these words in his own hand. If so, it did not help.

And yet with letters the size of his ego, he did establish his trademark. Galatians has been Paul’s epistle. He composed it and will be held accountable for it. And he will repeat this practice at the conclusion of subsequent letters as his way of demonstrating authenticity.

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 Sha’uwl’s 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 was attempting to certify that he, himself, was responsible for every word of what we have read.

While the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear doesn’t 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 Paul’s epistle. The Latin Vulgate reads: “See what a letter I have written to you with my own hand.” If this is correct, then Sha’uwl wrote all of this, from beginning to end, and what’s more, he’s proud of it.

Following the Catholic’s 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.” That’s hilarious. In modern social media parlance, Paul is now screaming at us.

Whether this next statement 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 Yahowsha’s name after the one for a title, whatever that may have been. 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, I am going to disregard the passive voice of the verb (as reflected in the NA27 and LV) because it renders the concluding clause senseless.

Corrections aside, Sha’uwl | Paul continues to be as Yahowah had described him to us 666 years in advance of this intoxicating man writing these words. The Devil’s Advocate had become completely obsessed with male genitalia and apoplectic over circumcision.

In the first edict Paul wrote with his own hand, with pen poised above the papyrus he was holding, he demeaned the Galatians, misrepresented their motives, and contravened Yahowah’s instructions on circumcision. Then gleefully staining the reeds with his indelible mark, Paul elevated an irrelevant object to cult status while negating the purpose of Passover.

This is the toxicity this man dispensed 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 (ΣΤΡΩ / stauro – Divine Placeholder for Upright Pillar but later changed to cross) of the (tou) Christou Iesou (ΧΥ ΙΥ / Christou Iesou – divine placeholders used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement and Iesou – a corruption of Yahowsha’, however it’s misleading to connect that which Paul has severed) they presently may not pursue (me dioko – they currently might not follow and strive toward, running after).” (Galatians 6:12)

It would be reminiscent of what Yahowah warned us about so many years ago…

“Woe, this is a strong warning regarding (howy) the one who causes his companions and compatriots to drink (shaqah ra’), thereby associating them with (saphach) this antagonizing venom which is poisoning you (chemah), while also pursuing his passions (wa ‘aph) by intoxicating (shakar) for the purpose of (ma’an) looking at (nabat ‘al) their genitals (ma’aowr). (Chabaquwq / Habakkuk 2:15)

You will get your fill of (saba’) shame and infamy, a little and lowly status (qalown), instead of (min) honor and glory (kabowd) by choosing to continually intoxicate (shathah) because, in addition (gam), you (‘atah) also (wa) are desirous of showing them to be unacceptable by going roundabout using circular reasoning regarding them becoming circumcised (‘arel muwsab).

Upon you is (‘al) the binding cup (kows) of Yahowah’s () right hand (yamyn), therefore, (wa) public humiliation and a lowly status, ignominy (qyqalown), will be your reward (‘al kabowd).” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:16)

This was one of many things Yahowah correctly predicted regarding Sha’uwl | Paul and the consequence of his deadly and deceptive position on circumcision.

Since Paul likes to namedrop, Yahowsha’ was circumcised. So Paul is saying that no one should 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 Paul’s religion and Yahowah’s relationship are in irreconcilable conflict.

What is particularly sickening about all of this is that Sha’uwl has misappropriated Yahowsha’ and his Passover sacrifice to make it appear as if he and Sha’uwl were on the same side, when in fact they are adversarial. And that is one of the most beguiling aspects of Paul’s Faith. He has established the illusion that the religion he conceived was founded by “Jesus Christ.” And billions of souls have succumbed to this deceitful and deadly proposition.

The big letters are not making a big difference. Sha’uwl’s premise and conclusion continue to be wrong. Moreover, he is a hypocrite many times over. He was also circumcised. He circumcised Timothy. Abraham was circumcised. Yitschaq was circumcised. And Ya’aqob was circumcised – so was Dowd and every one of Yahowah’s prophets.

By stating his point this way, it is obvious that “desiring to make a good showing in this flesh” is to be read “making it appear as if they are observing the Towrah.” Observing the Torah was then cast as an excuse not to pursue the benefits of Yahowsha’s Passover sacrifice. Sha’uwl is continuing to distinguish between and separate the Towrah and Yahowsha’ as opposed to connecting them, especially Pesach with its ‘Ayil.

Second, while “Jews” can be accused of many things, “forcing you all to become circumcised” has never been one of them. Over 99.9% of Jews are circumcised at birth, so Jews cannot be compelling other Jews to get circumcised. And Jews have never sought to convert a community of Gentiles. Circumcision is not a source of pride among Jews or something Jews are prone to show off, making Paul’s claim absurd in the extreme. Moreover, even if there were such a thing as the mythical “Judaizer,” the notion that the Towrah observant 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 Yisra’elites observe Passover, which is what the “Christian cross” has obscured. And therefore, what Paul has written is delusional.

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. By avoiding circumcision, the benefit of Pesach, which is eternal life, is forestalled.

Fourth, circumcision is not only the sign of the Covenant, it is the fifth of five conditions for participating in the Covenant. Therefore, while circumcision does not in and of itself allow someone to become part of Yahowah’s family, without becoming part of the Covenant, there can be no relationship with God. 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 Heaven through the Doorway to Life. God is unequivocal on this issue and Paul is clearly wrong.

And fifth, by associating “the flesh” and “circumcision” in this way, Sha’uwl 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, it’s a weak argument and a flimsy case, but misrepresenting one of Yahowah’s symbols while ignoring and rejecting the rest of His instructions 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.” For this rendering to be accurate, one would have to believe that Paul’s foes encouraged circumcision in order to avoid being pursued and harassed. And yet this inverts the historical record such that Jews are persecuting Christians, as opposed to the actual legacy of Christians continually harassing Jews.

While Christian apologists might protest, suggesting that Gentile followers of the Way were acquiescing to circumcision to avoid being persecuted, that argument will not fly either. Back in Paul’s killing days, he harassed Jews (who were circumcised on the eighth day after 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 Gowym, as 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 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 transpired.

As usual, the NLT has a novel rendition of this sentence – one 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 don’t 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 Paul’s foes as cowards.

It should be obvious, but salvation is not derived from a cross. It cannot even be achieved through Passover alone. In fact, Pesach and Matsah together will not get the job done. Our salvation is predicated upon participation in Yahowah’s Covenant Family. And for that to occur, we must accept all five conditions. And it is one of those conditions, walking to Yahowah to become perfected, that puts us on the pathway through the Miqra’ey to God’s Home.

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 internal contradiction, and the other establishes a “neither-nor” option which is not provided in the text. Further, the verb peritemnomenoi was rendered in the perfect passive participle, and thus conveys: “those who have already been circumcised” as opposed to “who is 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 that parents make regarding how they intend to raise their children. It is made in quiet contemplation as mother and father commit themselves to share God’s Covenant within their home.

What follows is every bit as preposterous, providing further evidence of Paul’s psychopathy….

“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 was by his own admission so uncontrollably conceited that Satan had to demon-possess him to rein 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 God’s Towrah “boastful.” Like most every politician today, Sha’uwl was a complete hypocrite.

Sha’uwl has covered this ground before, so other than to demean the Covenant’s Children in a completely hypocritical fashion, this is redundant. But since he has once again contradicted Yahowah’s testimony, here are the facts: In the Torah, Yahowah asks parents to circumcise their sons on the eighth day as a sign and symbol of a mother’s and father’s commitment to raise their children so that they become God’s children.

Abraham did as Yahowah requested – and on the very same day that he was asked, he circumcised himself and Ishmael, along with every male who was born in his home. And while that single act did not save him, it demonstrated the appropriate attitude and mindset – one which those who would like to be adopted should consider adopting. Unlike Paul, Abraham respected what Yahowah had to say – he trusted God – and as a result, Abraham relied upon Yahowah’s advice. And that is what saved him.

The process of discounting Yahowah’s 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 Yahowah’s plan, we dim the lights, blur the signs, and put stumbling blocks on the path to salvation. That is what Paul is doing here.

Adult circumcision is a personal choice between a man and God. After thoughtful contemplation of Yahowah’s guidance on the matter, we are free to accept or reject the conditions He has established for entry into His Family and Home. It is never compelled and no one ever gloats. Paul’s claims misrepresent reality and are delusional.

While every man, woman, and child has the opportunity to ignore God’s request, embrace it, or decry it, no one has the right to change it. It is His Home and this is one of His rules. If you do not like it, you are free to go elsewhere. But do not buy into Paul’s rhetoric and think that you can impose yourself on the Almighty, believing He will accept those who reject Him. It does not work that way.

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 don’t 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 were identified as such.

What these folks are all missing, including Paul, is that Yahowah is the one who is advocating circumcision. The choice to be circumcised has nothing to do with the opinions of others. We either agree with God or not.

Circumcision, while one of many things Yahowah prescribes in the Towrah, is unique because it is one of the conditions we must accept to engage in a relationship with Him. So, while we are all free to speculate as to why He prescribed it, it would be unwise to suggest that His advice is outdated and passé, or that Paul’s advice is better.

The Torah is Yahowah’s Way, His Operating Manual. It includes words to teach us and symbols to guide us. Circumcision is one of these word pictures. Just as Yahowah “cut a covenant with Abraham,” one in which Abraham 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 relationship. It is the offer of a lifetime. We are being invited to join Yahowah’s family. We do so by following His instructions.

Yahowah’s Covenant is an open invitation. It is between you and God.

The path Yahowah has provided home is not, however, open to human copyedits or alterations. And speaking of these, the oldest witness to Paul’s 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 continued to expose his schizophrenia…

“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 (ΣΤΡΩ / stauro – Divine Placeholder for Upright Pillar indicating that God is the Doorway to Life and to Heaven (but since Sha’uwl has negated the purpose of Passover, the symbolism is inconsistent with his letter)) of the (tou) Lord (ΚΥ / kuriou – Divine Placeholder for either Upright One or Yahowah’s name in the Septuagint (but since Sha’uwl is speaking against God, the Adversary’s title is a better fit in this context)) of ours (emon), Christou Iesou (ΧΡΥ ΙΗΥ – divine placeholders used by early scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement and Iesou – a corruption of Yahowsha’, however it’s misleading to reestablish that which Paul has severed), by (dia) whom (ou) my (emoi) world (kosmos – universe, earth, or world system) has been actually crucified (ΕΣΤΡΑΙ / estaurotai – Divine Placeholder for being affixed to the Upright Pillar, identifying the Door to Life and the Way to Heaven with Yahowah (something Sha’uwl has sought to negate)) and likewise, I (kago) to world (kosmo).” (Galatians 6:14)

For anyone seeking evidence that Sha’uwl did not include the Divine Placeholders in the autographs of his letters, we have it now. The ΣΤΡΩ 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 Sha’uwl has negated the purpose of Passover, and he never refers to it as the Doorway to Life or the door to God’s Home.

Likewise, ΚΥ is a Divine Placeholder used in the Septuagint to convey either Yahowah’s name or “Upright One” who is the “Foundation and Upright Pillar of the Tabernacle.” These are concepts that are only understood based upon the deployment of ‘edon throughout the Towrah – a book Sha’uwl has relentlessly demeaned. But beyond this, by juxtaposing them in this way, if they were rendered appropriately, Sha’uwl 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 Yahowah’s Word “bragged in the cross,” rather than in his own perverted message, or that he was somehow “crucified” with Yahowsha’ – someone he never knew. Yes, he crucified himself with his own words, but that does not count.

If Paul’s opening claim were 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 were 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 Passover Lamb fulfilling the Towrah’s promises on behalf of the Covenant’s children on the Miqra’ey of Pesach, and then sharing the Spirit’s role in Matsah, Bikuwrym, and Shabuw’ah. But that is the antithesis of what we have endured throughout Galatians.

Further, there is no connection between Sha’uwl and Yahowsha’s sacrifice. Paul’s sacrifices, whatever they may have been, are completely irrelevant. Even if Paul had told the truth rather than convolute it, his actions cannot save anyone. It is shameful that he continues to present himself as if he were a co-savior. Paul was not crucified, not on this day or any day – and even if so, it would not amount to a hill of beans. Sha’uwl could have been crucified a billion times over, and it would not have benefited anyone.

Passover provides life. Crucifixion kills.

Passover is Yahowah’s gift to free His people from the sting of captivity and death. Crucifixion was Rome’s torturous means to dissuade anyone from seeking to be free. To forego Passover and celebrate a crucifixion instead, as Paul is doing, is hopelessly thoughtless and incurably stupid.

The cross is a degrading and humiliating implement of excruciating pain, horrifying death, and government subjugation. The image of a dead god on a stick is the most disgusting insult to God to ever come from man’s perverted mind. Those who believe they will be saved by this implement are sadly mistaken – and the fact that there are billions of them does not make it any better.

The NAMI touts: “To me but not may it become to brag except 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 Paul’s 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 world’s interest in me has also died.” It appears as if the NLT translators had never read Paul’s letters. But alas, if only: “the world’s interest in me had also died.”

Like a bad habit that will not 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, Sha’uwl 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 had been “newly created” was Paul’s Faith, known as Christianity. It is “alla – contrary” to Yahowah’s guidance on everything from circumcision to 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 Father’s promise as the Passover Lamb to make us immortal, opening the door for the children of the 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 Yahowah’s family on “Bikuwrym – Firstborn Children,” we are renewed by God, but that is not to say that “we become a new creation.” We are not recreated but instead our souls are “restored.” This is the same concept at work in Yirma’yah / Jeremiah 31, whereby the Covenant with Yisra’el and Yahuwdah is reestablished and reaffirmed, not replaced.

It has become increasingly obvious that Paul required a “new creation,” one that became known as the “New Testament.” He not only opposed the existing Covenant but had striven to annul Yahowah’s testimony. And yet 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 Sha’uwl received when he was called to Yaruwshalaim to confront Yahowsha’s disciples. They were concerned about him because he was denouncing circumcision, the Covenant, and the Towrah. This letter has been Sha’uwl’s | Paul’s response. Rather than align his pronouncements so that they were consistent with God’s teachings, the Plague of Death invented his own religion. In the process, he demeaned everything associated with Yahowah: from His teaching to His people.

If this is what Paul scribed with his own hand, he should not 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.” Yahowsha’ could not have been his inspiration because he was both circumcised and Towrah observant. 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 Yahowah’s Family.

Speaking for themselves and Paul, but most certainly not Yahowah or Yahowsha’, the NLT promised: “It doesn’t 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 Towrah or the Covenant?

The oldest witness of Paul’s 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 Towrah observant. In fact, Paul has assailed, belittled, convoluted, and concealed the path that Yahowsha’ followed.

“And (kai) as many who are (osoi) in this (to touto) rule and standard (kanoni – principle) imitating this and marching in conformity by following along (stoicheosin – will proceed arranged in military ranks, and may walk compliantly in someone’s 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) Yisra’el (‘Israel – a transliteration of Yisra’el, meaning “Individuals who Engage and Endure with God”) of the (tou) God (ΘΥ).” (Galatians 6:16)

Paul’s Greek was so bad that his intent was often obscured, but it is there nonetheless. After building a false premise on monstrous delusions, the Father of Lies is introducing his magnus opus – Replacement Theology. The uncircumcised were a New Creation: the Yisra’el of God. If Jews were not going to capitulate, he would simply replace them.

Since “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 Yahowah’s Word meaningless. All that mattered was to believe Paul’s claim that Passover had been replaced by crucifixion and that crosses save.

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 Yahowah’s depiction of His “mal’ak – spiritual messengers” who are: “tsaba – relegated to a command and control regimen where they follow orders.” And that’s important because it is Satan’s quid pro quo: he wants mankind treated as he was treated. So hypothetically, stoicheo’s “submit and obey” connotation was meant to be derogatory when applied to God, but it’s just fine when believers relinquish the benefits of informed freewill, and fall in line with Sha’uwl’s satanically-inspired commands. It is little wonder Christians act like lemmings and the nonconformist is considered a heretic and silenced.

More telling still, 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 Devil’s Advocate: “eleos – mercy” is afforded to those who accept his standard which requires rejecting Yahowah’s standard.

And truthfully, there is only one “rule,” one “measure,” one “standard” which matters according to Yahowah – His Towrah. Even Yahowsha’ was measured and perfected by this standard. 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. Unfortunately, those who believe him will discover too late that his promises deliver neither “peace” nor “mercy.”

Sha’uwl’s ending clause was intentionally provocative. In a long litany of damning doctrines, this may have been his most debilitating. There is only one Yisra’el, and that name already includes ‘el, which is God’s title. This makes Sha’uwl’s sentence read: “‘Yisra’el – Individuals who Engage and Endure with God’ of the God.”

Yisra’el is a racial designation bequeathed by Yahowah upon Ya’aqob, which God then applied to Ya’aqob’s sons and their descendants. Our DNA determines if we are the offspring of Yisra’el, not circumcision, not faith, and most certainly not Paul.

Based upon what Sha’uwl has written thus far, it is obvious that he intended to rob the Chosen People of the distinction Yahowah had afforded the Children of Yisra’el, taking it away from them and giving it to the adherents of his new religion: Christianity.

“As a result, therefore, likewise, on this occasion, we are presently able to experience the potential to work for the advantageous generous benefit of all, but especially and chiefly benefiting those belonging to the Faith.” (Galatians 6:10)

You must look at and become acquainted with how great and especially exemplary the letters I have written with my own hand to you. (Galatians 6:11)

As much as they currently want to make a good showing and favorable impression in this flesh to actually compel and force, obligating and necessitating you all to become circumcised merely so that the cross of the Christou Iesou they presently may not pursue. (Galatians 6:12)

For none of those already having been circumcised themselves carefully observe the Towrah. To the contrary, they just want to take pleasure in you all becoming circumcised in order that in the flesh of yours they may boast. (Galatians 6:13)

But for me, may it never be that I stop 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 the world. (Galatians 6:14)

But neither circumcision someone is nor uncircumcised, on the contrary, a new creation. (Galatians 6:15)

And as many who are in this rule and following this standard, imitating this by marching in conformity and following along, peace upon them, and mercy, and also upon them the Yisra’el of God.” (Galatians 6:16)

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. “Eleos – mercy, compassion, affection, loving-kindness, and clemency” accurately represents the Hebrew chanan. If Paul had been promoting Yahowah’s mercy, he would have used ‘eleos instead of charis. It was not only the perfect word to convey the nature of Yahowah’s “merciful” gift, he was aware of the term and its meaning because he used it in Galatians 6:16.

And yet instead, the man, who listened to and heeded the words of Dionysus, promoted the names of pagan goddesses familiar to 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 Paul’s religion because clerics were always willing to amalgamate 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, you will 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 “God’s peace and mercy,” nor did Paul suggest that these gifts came from God. But they did come to the same conclusion regarding Replacement Theology. NLT: “May God’s 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 “Yisra’el”? Do you suppose they replaced Yisra’el because they believe that they have become “God’s 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 Yisra’el? But if so, why do Christians universally ignore the basis of those promises: the Towrah?

That is quite the conundrum. The promises Christians claim they inherited are presented in the Towrah. If the Towrah is invalid, so are the promises. But since the Towrah is valid, Paul’s letters, which serve as the basis of the religion, are not worth the papyrus they were written upon.

The same Sha’uwl who went out of his way to antagonize and harass his foes (the most prominent of whom were Yahowsha’s disciples), who made a career out of abusing members of Yahowah’s family, who demeaned his audience, calling them idiots and traitors, 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), bear 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 (ΙΗΥ / ‘Iesou – Divine Placeholder for Yahowsha’, meaning “Yahowah Saves” (which was most likely added by a 2nd century scribe because Sha’uwl’s 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 Sha’uwl has yet postured. Not only can’t he be bothered, but the Galatians have also been ordered to prevent anyone from giving Satan’s Messiah any trouble, now and forevermore. 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.

Sha’uwl is presenting himself as Yahowsha’s savior, the one bearing his burdens. But unlike Yahowsha’, who willingly labored on our behalf, Sha’uwl does not want to be troubled.

Incidentally, when “loipos – furthermore, from now on, and for the remainder of time as inferior” was used in the context of Shim’own | “Peter’s” evaluation of Paul’s epistles, it was convoluted to mean “other” by almost every English translation. And that was to infer that all of Paul’s “graphe – written” letters were “scripture,” based upon a transliteration of the Latin word for “written.” However, based upon these translations of loipos, it was not a result of them being unaware of what the word actually meant. 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, don’t 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 Shim’own, or you and me for that matter: “If you bother me again, I’ll have nothing to do with you?” Such a command does not bear the mark of God.

Since Sha’uwl 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. Therefore, it is interesting that the man who has preached against God’s instructions to cut one’s foreskin as a sign of the Covenant has now proclaimed that he bears a stigma in his body, all in direct conflict with the Towrah.

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 Allah’s prophet – in his case, a hairy mole.

It is also revealing that, while the Qur’an does not mention circumcision, almost every Muslim man is circumcised – regrettably along with two hundred million Muslim women. The obvious implication is that Muhammad was born of Jewish parents who circumcised him on the eighth day. Then Muslims were told to follow his example in the Sunnah, because Muhammad stated that circumcision was a “law for men.”

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 Yahowsha’ (misquoting him once doesn’t 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 for his false teachings on billions of Christian souls, given the opportunity, I have 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, Paul’s concluding comments contain the names of three false gods, five if you consider the Greek or English corruptions of the Ma’aseyah | Doing the Work of Yah Yahowsha’ | Yahowah Saves. The first of these is especially incriminating, because just a couple of statements ago the Devil’s Advocate acknowledged that he was aware of a perfect Greek alternative to “Grace,” that being: “eleos – mercy.” Disregarding it, and promoting the pagan goddesses yet again, Sha’uwl 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 (ΚΥ / Kuriou – Master who possesses, owns, and controls slaves), our (emon) Iesou Christou (ΙΗΥ ΧΡΥ / ‘Iesou Christou – Divine Placeholders for “Yahowsha’ – Yahowah Saves” and “Ma’aseyah – Implement Doing the Work of Yahowah” (however, Sha’uwl almost certainly wrote the corrupted Greek name and title which has been poorly transliterated “Jesus Christ”)), with (meta) the (tou) spirit (ΠΝΣ / pneumatos – Divine Placeholder for the Ruwach (however, Sha’uwl’s 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 was ever a place where an article was deadly, it is here. “Tou – of the” before the placeholder ΚΥ precludes the symbol from representing Yahowah’s name in this sentence. And that means Paul purposefully left him out of this salutation.

More devastating still, since “the Lord” is Satan’s title (derived from the Hebrew “Ba’al – Lord) and since Sha’uwl wrote “emon – our” before he personally scribed “Iesou Christou” with his own hand, we must assume that he was speaking of his and his Lord’s 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, most especially, the Passover Lamb. The only thing which mattered, did not matter to Paul.

Also, Sha’uwl 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. Paul has come full circle from his conversion to his corruption.

Continuing to clean up Paul’s 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. The Ruwach Qodesh, or Set-Apart Spirit, is from God. She is not “with the spirit of you.” And since Sha’uwl has just asked believers to be spiritual, it has become obvious that the spirit of Christianity is averse to God.

When transliterated and capitalized, rather than translated, “Amen” is the name of a pagan god – the sun god of Egypt. Had the Greek transliteration (amane) of the Hebrew word ‘aman (also pronounced aw·mane) 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 god’s 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 Yahowah’s name was specifically excluded from a salutation which began and ended with pagan monikers.

One last time, let’s 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.” As we conclude, please notice that our trilogy of Christian publications transliterated the name of the Roman goddesses “Grace,” but then translated “kuriou – Lord” rather than acknowledge the placeholder. They ignored the placeholders for Yahowsha’ and whatever title may have been intended for the Passover Lamb. Then, adding insult to injury, they respectfully transliterated “Amen,” even capitalizing it, demonstrating that it wasn’t 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 Protestant Authorized 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 Sha’uwl’s personal vendetta against Yahowah, His Towrah, His Beryth, His Miqra’ey, and His ‘Am, Yisra’el, reads:

“And also brothers, if a man may have previously detected or caught someone in a false step, you all, the spiritual ones, 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. (Galatians 6:1)

For one another, the weighty burdens you carry, remove, and endure and thus in this way you all complete the Towrah of the Christou. (Galatians 6:2)

Indeed, if someone supposes and presumes to be somebody, he is nothing. He deceives himself. (Galatians 6:3)

But the performances and accomplishments of himself, he must examine and prove meritorious, and then to himself, alone, at the exclusion of others, he can boast and brag, having the justification for pride and praise, and not for any other. (Galatians 6:4)

For each and every one, their own individual and distinct burden they will carry and bear. (Galatians 6:5)

But one must share, because you are being ordered to participate in association with others, to support the one who is outspoken, making the ears ring, verbally informing and orally reporting the word, instructing in everything good, excellent, and beneficial. (Galatians 6:6)

You must not become misled and stray because a god is not sneered at or ridiculed, nor is he mocked or treated with contempt. For then, whatever if a man may sow, this also he shall reap. (Galatians 6:7)

Because the one sowing into the flesh of himself, out of the body will reap corruption, destruction, and depravity and death. But the one sowing into the spirit, from the spirit will reap life eternal. (Galatians 6:8)

But the one doing good, we do not become malicious or disparaging. Because on occasion, for oneself we will reap, not being discouraged by being bound, bandaged, and exhausted. (Galatians 6:9)

You must look at and become acquainted with how great and especially exemplary the letters I have written with my own hand to you. (Galatians 6:11)

As much as they currently want to make a good showing and favorable impression in this flesh to actually compel and force, obligating and necessitating you all to become circumcised merely so that the cross of the Christou Iesou they presently may not pursue. (Galatians 6:12)

For none of those already having been circumcised themselves carefully observe the Towrah. To the contrary, they just want to take pleasure in you all becoming circumcised in order that in the flesh of yours they may boast. (Galatians 6:13)

But for me, may it never be that I stop 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 the world. (Galatians 6:14)

But neither circumcision someone is nor uncircumcised, on the contrary, a new creation. (Galatians 6:15)

And as many who are in this rule and following this standard, imitating this by marching in conformity and following along, peace upon them, and mercy, and also upon them the Yisra’el of God.” (Galatians 6:16)

Furthermore, from now on, do not let anyone continue to cause trouble or difficulty for me.

For indeed, I bear the scars and brands of the Iesou, in the body of me, I actually bear, endure, and undergo. (Galatians 6:17)

Becoming the Charis | Grace of the Kurios | Lord and Master, our Iesou Christou, with the spirit of you brothers. Amen.” (Galatians 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’ 149 verses. When God’s Word is used as the standard, Sha’uwl’s message is found to be:

Accurate (0.7%): 5.9

Irrelevant (5.4%): 1.2, 1.13, 1.14, 1.19, 1.21, 2.15, 4.20, 6.11

Insufficient (2%): 1.18, 3.1, 5.5

Half Truth (6.7%): 3.8, 3.16, 3.17, 3.26, 4.4, 4.6, 4.22, 4.30, 5.22, 6.3

Unintelligible (10%): 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

Inaccurate (75.2%): 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

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 7.4% 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 10% 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 Qur’an.

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 God’s 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 thesis 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 Yahowah’s Towrah did not reconcile a single statement throughout this letter. And while the translators took great liberties with regard to Paul’s words, the plethora of religious deceptions which have been disseminated as a direct result of this epistle cannot be blamed on errant translations. Therefore, 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.

The Great Galatians Debate is over. You can trust the Creator of the universe or a tentmaker, the Author of the Torah or someone who rejected the Torah. Perhaps it’s 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 Theos, 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) Charis | Grace to you and peace from Theos, father of us and Kurios | Lord Iesou Christou, (1:3) the one having given himself on account of the sins of us so that somehow, he might gouge and tear out, uprooting us from the past circumstances of the Old System which had been in place and is disadvantageous and harmful, corrupt and worthless, according to the desire and will of Theos and father of us, (1:4) to whom the opinion regarding the glorious appearance of the shining light, a manifestation of Theos’ reputation, by means of the old and the new systems, Amen, let it be so. (Galatians 1:5)

I am astonished, wondering in this way how quickly you changed, becoming disloyal apostates and traitors away from your calling in the name of Charis | Grace to a dissimilar healing messenger (1:6) which does not exist differently, or conditionally negated, because some are stirring you up, confusing you, proposing to 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. (Galatians 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 as a result of my command, a curse with a dreadful consequence. (Galatians 1:9)

For because currently, is it men I am presently persuading, actually using words to win the favor of, seducing and appeasing for Theos? And by comparison, do I seek to please and accommodate humans? Yet nevertheless, if men I am accommodating and exciting, being lifted up as a slave of Christou, certainly it not was me. (Galatians 1:10)

But nevertheless, I profess and reveal to you brothers of the profitable message which having been communicated advantageously by and through myself, because it is not in accord with man. (Galatians 1:11)

But neither because I am a 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. (Galatians 1:12)

Because indeed, you heard of my wayward behavior in a time and place in the practice of Judaism, namely that because throughout, showing superiority, surpassing any measure of restraint, and to an extraordinary degree, 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. (Galatians 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. (Galatians 1:14)

But at a point in time when it pleased and was chosen to be better for Theos | 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 profitable message among the races, immediately. I did not ask the advice of or consult with flesh or blood. (Galatians 1:16)

I did not ascend into Yaruwshalaim with 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. (Galatians 1:17)

Then later in the sequence of events, after three years time, I ascended up to Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem to visit and get acquainted with Kephas and remained against him fifteen days. (Galatians 1:18)

But other of the Apostles, I did not see. I did not pay attention to them, nor concern myself with them except Ya’aqob | Jacob, the brother of the Kurios | Lord. (Galatians 1:19)

But now what I write to you, you must pay especially close attention in the presence of Theos | God, because I cannot lie. (Galatians 1:20)

Thereafter, I came to the regions of Syria and also of Cilicia. (1:21) But I was not known and was disregarded, either ignored or not understood, not even unrecognized personally by my appearance as an individual by the called out of Yahuwdah | Judah in Christo. (Galatians 1:22)

But then they were constantly hearing that the one presently pursuing and persecuting us at various times, now he presently proclaims a profitable message of faith where once he was attacking, continuing to annihilate, ravaging and destroying. (Galatians 1:23)

And so they were praising and glorifying me, attributing an exceptionally high value and status to me, considering me illustrious and magnificent, magnifying me for Theos | God. (Galatians 1:24)

Later, through fourteen years also, I went up to Yaruwshalaim along with Barnabas, having taken along also Titus. (Galatians 2:1)

I went up from uncovering an unveiling revelation which lays bare, laying down to them the good messenger which I preach among the races according to what is mine alone, uniquely and separately.

But then as a result of the opinions, presumptions, and suppositions, into foolishness and stupidity, without purpose, it was thought that I had run. (Galatians 2:2)

To the contrary, not even Titus, a Greek individual, was compelled, forced, or pressured to be circumcised. (Galatians 2:3)

But then on account of the impersonators who faked their relationship and were brought 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 us subservient, controlling us for their own ends, (2:4) to whom neither to a moment we yielded, surrendered, or submitted in order that the truth of the Theos | God may continue to be associated among you. (Galatians 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 in the face of Theos with regard to man not taking hold or receiving, because to me, the ones currently presuming and dispensing opinions based upon reputed appearances, were of no account. Worthless was their advice and counsel in the past. (Galatians 2:6)

Contrariwise, the objection and exception, having been seen and perceived because, namely, I have been believed to have been entrusted with the profitable message and as the good messenger of the uncircumcised inasmuch as Petros | Rock of the circumcised. (Galatians 2:7)

Because then namely, the one having previously functioned in Petro to an apostle for the circumcision, it was actually functioning also in me to the nations and ethnicities. (Galatians 2:8)

And having recognized, becoming familiar with the Charis | Grace of the one having been given to me, Ya’aqob | Jacob, Kephas | “Peter,” and also Yahowchanan | John, 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. (Galatians 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 the same. (Galatians 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. (Galatians 2:11)

Because, before a certain individual came from Ya’aqob | “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. (Galatians 2:12)

So they were hypocritical, and also the remaining Yahuwdym | Jews. As a result even Barnabas was led away and astray with them in their duplicitous hypocrisy. (Galatians 2:13)

Nevertheless, when I saw that they were not walking through life rightly with the truth of the profitable message and good messenger, I said to Kephas in front of all: ‘If you Jews are actively being racists, how do you compel and force the ethnicities into being and acting Jewish? (Galatians 2:14)

We are Jews by nature and are not from the social outcasts of sinful and heathen races. (Galatians 2:15)

I have come to realize (albeit without investigation or evidence) that by no means whatsoever is any man made right or vindicated by means of acting upon or engaging in the Towrah if not by belief and faith in Iesou Christou.

And we of Christon Iesoun, ourselves believed, in order for us to have become righteous. We have 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 or vindicated, nor be made righteous. (Galatians 2:16)

But if by seeking to be made righteous and innocent in Christo, we were found ourselves also to be social outcasts and sinners, shouldn’t 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 torn down and dissolved, dismantled and invalidated, abolishing and discarding, this on the other hand I restore or reconstruct, promoting this edifice, I myself bring into existence and recommend transgression and disobedience. (Galatians 2:18)

I then, because of the Towrah’s allotment and law, myself, genuinely died and was separated in order that to Theos | God I might currently live. In Christo I have actually been crucified together with. (Galatians 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 Theos and Christou, the one having loved me and surrendered for me, entrusting authority to me, yielding and handing over to me the power to control, influence, and instruct exclusively of himself because of me. (Galatians 2:20)

I do not reject the Charis | Grace of the Theos because if by the Torah we achieve righteousness then, as a result, Christos for no reason or cause, without benefit and in vain, he died. (Galatians 2:21)

O ignorant and irrational, unintelligent and unreasonable, Galatians, who bewitched and deceived you, and who are you slandering, bringing this evil upon you, seducing yourselves? (Galatians 3:1)

This alone I want to learn from you: out of accomplishments of the Towrah was the spirit received by you or alternatively out of hearing and belief? (Galatians 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 flesh are you completing? (Galatians 3:3)

So much and for so long you have suffered these things, vexed and annoyed without reason or result, chaotically without a plan. If indeed this really happened and you were so thoughtless, achieving nothing, being without reason or result. (Galatians 3:4)

The one therefore then supplying you with the spirit and causing it to function, was it this operation of powers in you by acting upon and engaging in the tasks delineated in the Torah or out of hearing faith? (Galatians 3:5)

Just as and to the degree that Abram believed and had faith in the Theos | God so it was reasoned and accounted to him as righteousness. (Galatians 3:6)

You know as a result that the ones out of faith, these are the sons of Abram. (Galatians 3:7)

Having seen beforehand by contrast in the writing that out of faith makes right the people from different races and places, the Theos | God, he before the profitable messenger acted on behalf of Abram so that they would in time be spoken of sympathetically in you to all the races. (Galatians 3:8)

As a result, the ones out of faith, we are spoken of favorably, even praised together with the faithful Abram. (Galatians 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.’ (Galatians 3:10)

So with that Torah, absolutely no one is vindicated or saved alongside God. It becomes evident: ‘Those who are justified and righteous, out of faith will live.’ (Galatians 3:11)

But the Towrah exists not out of faith. Instead to the contrary, ‘The one having done and performed them must live by them.’ (Galatians 3:12)

Christos bought us back from the evil and hateful curse and malicious influence of the Towrah, having become for our sake a repugnant and maligning curse, because it has been written: ‘A vengeful curse based upon divine slander on all those having hung on wood.’ (Galatians 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)

Brothers, according to man I say nevertheless a man having been validated with an agreement; no one rejects or actually accepts added provisions. (Galatians 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. (Galatians 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)

Because if from the Towrah the inheritance is no longer from a promise, but to Abram by a promise he has favored the God. (Galatians 3:18)

Then, why the Towrah? Until the seed which might come to whom it has been promised having been commanded by messengers in the hand of a mediator and middleman. (Galatians 3:19)

But now the middleman, he is not of one, but the God, he is one. (Galatians 3:20)

Indeed, the Torah accordingly is against the promises of the Theos | God. Not may it become. For if it had been given to the Torah to be the one with the power and ability to impart life, certainly in the Torah would be the righteous and vindicated. (Galatians 3:21)

On the contrary, the writing imposed restrictions, trapping and enclosing everything under the control of error and evil, missing the way in order that the promise could be from the Faith of Iesou Christou. Then it might at some time be passively given to the believers. (Galatians 3:22)

But before this coming to the Faith, under the control of the Towrah, we were actually being held in custody as prisoners, confined and strictly controlled, restricted and trapped until the bringing about of the Faith was revealed. (Galatians 3:23)

As a result, therefore, the Towrah had become our disciplinarian and enslaving pedagogue, pedantic and dogmatic with its strict, old-fashioned methods and overbearing demeanor, a taskmaster, extending until Christon in order that, by means of the Faith, we might, at some point in time, while doing nothing ourselves, be justified. (Galatians 3:24)

But now having come forth and arrived, the Faith, this belief system and religion, no longer do we exist under the auspices of an old fashioned and strict disciplinarian, this pedagogue who instructs in a particularly pedantic and dogmatic manner using harsh, old-dated methods. (Galatians 3:25)

Because everyone is a child of God. You all exist that way out of Faith in Christo Iesou. (Galatians 3:26)

Indeed, then, as many as to Christon, you all were actually at some point baptized. To Christon you were all clothed or plunged. (Galatians 3:27)

No longer is there Yahuwd | Jew nor Hellen | Greek. No longer is there slave nor free. No longer is there male and female. This is because now all of you exist as one in Christo | Christ Iesou | Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

So then, if you all are Christou | ‘Christian,’ then consequently, you are Abram’s seed. You exist representing promise as heirs, receiving the inheritance. (Galatians 3:29)

So I say, as long as the heir exists as someone who is childish and immature, he is no different than a slave, belonging to the lord and master who owns and controls everyone and everything. (Galatians 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. (Galatians 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 world, we were subservient slaves. (Galatians 4:3)

But when came the fullness and complete contents of the unspecified time, the Theos sent out the son of him, having come to exist from a woman, having come being under Towrah (4:4) in order that the ones under Towrah, he might buy back so that to the son’s adoption, we might be received back and obtain. (Galatians 4:5)

But because you are sons sent out by the god, the spirit into the hearts of us shouts, ‘Abba’ – the Pater | Father. (Galatians 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. (Galatians 4:7)

Certainly, by way of contrast, on the other hand then not having known, perceived, or acknowledged Theos, you were enslaved to nature not existing as gods. (Galatians 4:8)

But now having known Theos, but more and by contrast, having been known under Theos | God, how have you returned, changing your beliefs back upon the incapacitating and incompetent, even infirmed, worthless, belittling, and terrifying, submitting before dying in the elementary teachings and rudimentary principles of religious mythology which, reverting back again and again, you are choosing to be controlled as a slave (4:9) by observing and attending, days, and months, and seasons denoting proper and specific times, and years? (Galatians 4:10)

I am afraid and fear for you that maybe somehow, without reason and for nothing, I have grown tired and become discouraged, struggling to demonstrate additional effort toward you. (Galatians 4:11)

You all must become like me because I am actually commanding it. Then I, as an emphatic priority as a result, like you, we all become brothers and fellow believers. This is 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. (Galatians 4:12)

But you realize that because of an incapacity and limitation in the flesh, I announced this profitable messenger of the good message to you all previously. (Galatians 4:13)

My temptation to prove my integrity and my submission to another, my true nature, 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. (Galatians 4:14)

Consequently then, the declaration of blessedness and the pronouncement of happiness is yours. I witnessed and testified because of you that, if possible and competent, your eyes having gouged and plucked out, you gave them to me. (Galatians 4:15)

So as a result, a hostile and despised adversary of yours I have become by telling the truth to you. (Galatians 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. (Galatians 4:17)

But it is good and right to be jealous while good and right at all times. And not only alone in my presence with you. (Galatians 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. (Galatians 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, and I don’t know what to do with you. (Galatians 4:20)

Speak to me those proposing to exist under the control of the Towrah: can’t you hear what the Towrah is saying? (Galatians 4:21)

For it has been written that Abram had two sons, one from the slave girl and one from the free. (Galatians 4:22)

Certainly, from the slave girl have been born those according to flesh. From the free, by way of a promise. (Galatians 4:23)

Whatever is being spoken of allegorically, these then exist as two covenants – two testaments – one from Mount Sinai into subservience, slavery, and bondage, giving birth to whoever exists as Hagar. (Galatians 4:24)

Accordingly, now Hagar exists as Mount Sinai in Arabia, therefore corresponding to the present Yaruwshalaim. She is enslaved because of being associated with her children. (Galatians 4:25)

But the Yaruwshalaim above is in opposition. Free and independent is the one who is our mother. (Galatians 4:26)

For indeed, it has been written, ‘Be glad infertile one, the one not giving birth, violently throwing an angry fit while viciously ripping things to pieces, cry aloud for not suffering the birth pains because many are the children of the desolate, more than of the man possessing.’ (Galatians 4:27)

But you are brothers according to Yitschaq | Isaac. You are of promised children. (Galatians 4:28)

Otherwise just as at that time accordingly, flesh having given birth pursued and persecuted this according to the spirit and so it continues even now. (Galatians 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.’ (Galatians 4:30)

Therefore, brothers, we are not children of slave girl, to the contrary, the free. (Galatians 4:31)

This freedom and liberty of ours by becoming Christos, it freed and released us. So, you all are directed to stand firm.

Therefore, also, never again associate with the yoke of subservience and slavery. You were held based upon a grudge against you all, controlling you and forcing you to surrender to someone who bears ill-will, who is resentful, violent, and quarrelsome. (Galatians 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. (Galatians 5:2)

Then, furthermore, repeating myself, I testify, insisting and protesting to every man being circumcised that he actually is obligated to do and perform the entire and complete Towrah. (Galatians 5:3)

You have invalidated and rendered inoperative, abolishing the purpose of the separation of Christou, whosoever is in unison with the Towrah.

You having been declared righteous, and having been vindicated with the Charis / Gratia / Graces, have fallen away and have been forsaken. (Galatians 5:4)

Because indeed, we in spirit out of faith, hope. Righteousness we await patiently. (Galatians 5:5)

In Christo Iesou neither circumcision is someone capable, nor is the uttermost part of the penis. On the contrary, through faith love operating. (Galatians 5:6)

You were trying, running, and progressing well, in a fine way that was pleasing. What prevented and impeded you from the truth, such that you are no longer persuaded or obedient, following along faithfully? (Galatians 5:7)

The enticing persuasion and soliciting inducement, was it not from the one providing a name to you all? (Galatians 5:8)

A little yeast, the whole of the batch it yeasts. (Galatians 5:9)

I have been persuaded to coax and convince you, winning you over with the Lord because nothing different other than this may you regard or ponder, potentially holding as a belief.

So now, the one stirring you up and causing you distress, confusing, bewildering, and mystifying you, he will undergo and endure the judgment. He will be condemned and punished, no matter who this individual might be. (Galatians 5:10)

But now, brothers, if I, nevertheless myself preach circumcision, why and for what then am I pursued and persecuted?

As a result of this offending trap and scandalous stumbling block, it invalidates the crucifixion. (Galatians 5:11)

And also, oh 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 sedition. (Galatians 5:12)

For you, upon freedom you 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. (Galatians 5:13)

Because of this then all the Towrah in one word has come to an end and is finished in you loving of the nearby neighbor as yourself. (Galatians 5:14)

But if each of you bite and you devour, watch out, for if not under one another, you might be consumed. (Galatians 5:15)

But I say in spirit, you are all commanded to advance. Therefore, the desire and passion of the flesh you must deny, lest you may come to an end. (Galatians 5:16)

For indeed, because the body’s desires and passions are forbidden. This is because they are against the spirit.

And so then the spirit is in opposition to the physical world and to the physical body because each of these is hostile and adversarial in order to negate what conditionally you might presently propose and want, even enjoy, of these potential behaviors, then somehow doing an assigned task. (Galatians 5:17)

However, if you are in spirit, you are not guided under the control of or subject to the Towrah. (Galatians 5:18)

So now it is evident, clearly seen, and widely known that the works and assigned tasks of the flesh (used as a metaphor for the Towrah) indeed exist as sexual promiscuity and fornication, being dirty, sensuality, (5:19) the likeness of an outward appearance of what can be seen and perceived, the use and administering of medicines, hostile antagonism, enmity and feuds, strife and dissension, even debate and quarrelling, devotion and jealousy, the desire to make sacrifices, selfish ambitions, running for an elective office, and rivalries, discord and division, especially a second option, the freedom to choose for oneself, (5:20) corruption, intoxication, public partying or a festive assembly, and what may be similar to this which I previously spoke to you inasmuch as I said before that the likes of those carrying out and committing these practices, the reign and kingdom of God, they will not inherit. (Galatians 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 one’s sexual appetite.

With regard to such, there is no Towrah. (Galatians 5:23)

But the ones of the Christou, the flesh has been crucified with the sufferings, the deep desires, and longings. (Galatians 5:24)

If we live for spirit, for spirit we march in a line, living in conformity. (Galatians 5:25)

Not that we might come to exist vainly or boastful, sharing opinions which are baseless, provoking and irritating one another, each other jealous and envying. (Galatians 5:26)

And also brothers, if a man may have previously detected or caught someone in a false step, you all, the spiritual ones, must thoroughly prepare and completely restore this one with a meek and gentle spirit, carefully observing yourself so then you, yourself, may submit and be tempted, having tried to catch a mistake. (Galatians 6:1)

For one another, the weighty burdens you carry, remove, and endure, and thus in this way you all complete the Towrah of the Christou. (Galatians 6:2)

Indeed, if someone supposes and presumes to be somebody, he is nothing. He deceives himself. (Galatians 6:3)

But the performances and accomplishments of himself, he must examine and prove meritorious, and then to himself, alone, at the exclusion of others, he can boast and brag, having the justification for pride and praise, and not to be shared with any other. (Galatians 6:4)

For each and every one, their own individual and distinct burden they will carry and bear. (Galatians 6:5)

But one must share, because you are being ordered to participate in association with others, to support the one who is outspoken, the one making ears ring, the one verbally informing and orally reporting the word, instructing in everything that is good, excellent, and beneficial. (Galatians 6:6)

You must not become misled and stray because a god is not sneered at or ridiculed, nor is he mocked or treated with contempt. For then, whatever if a man may sow, this also he shall reap. (Galatians 6:7)

Because the one sowing into the flesh of himself, out of the body will reap corruption, destruction, and depravity and death. But the one sowing into the spirit, from the spirit will reap life eternal. (Galatians 6:8)

But as for the one doing good, we do not become malicious or disparaging. Because on occasion, for oneself we will reap, not being discouraged by being bound, bandaged, and exhausted. (Galatians 6:9)

You must look at and become acquainted with how great and especially exemplary the letters I have written with my own hand to you. (Galatians 6:11)

As much as they currently want to make a good showing and favorable impression in this flesh to actually compel and force, obligating and necessitating, you all to become circumcised, merely so that the cross of the Christou Iesou they presently may not pursue. (Galatians 6:12)

For none of those already having been circumcised, themselves, carefully observe the Towrah. To the contrary, they just want to take pleasure in you all becoming circumcised in order that, in the flesh of yours, they may boast. (Galatians 6:13)

But for me, may it never be that I stop 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. (Galatians 6:14)

But neither is someone of the circumcision nor uncircumcised, but to the contrary a new creation. (Galatians 6:15)

And as many who are in accord with this rule and following this standard, imitating this by marching in conformity and following along, peace upon them, and mercy, and also upon them the Yisra’el of God.” (Galatians 6:16)

Furthermore, from now on, do not let anyone continue to cause trouble or difficulty for me.

For indeed, I bear the scars and brands of Iesou, in the body of mine, I actually bear, endure, and undergo them. (Galatians 6:17)

Becoming the Charis | Grace of the Kurios | Lord and Master, our Iesou Christou, with the spirit of you brothers. Amen.” (Galatians 6:18)



Questioning Paul

Devil’s Advocate

…Plague of Death

11

Chabaquwq | Embrace This

Cruel Lies…

As is often the case, we see things more clearly when we step back and achieve a better perspective. Sometimes 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. Sha’uwl with God’s opening statement regarding this man and his religion.

Approximately 666 years before Sha’uwl penned his first letter, sometime around 615 BCE, Yahowah chose a man named “Embrace This” to expose and condemn an individual named “Question Him.” God’s 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 is the prophetic pronouncement (ha masa’ – the published prophecy) which, for the benefit of the relationship (‘asher – to show the way to get the most enjoyment out of life), 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 | Embrace This (Chabaquwq – Accept This, which is to acknowledge, accept, and act upon what is being revealed), the prophet (ha naby’ – the individual who proclaims the message of God regarding past or future events).” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 1:1)

Yahowah brought Chabaquwq / Habakkuk forward in time to around 52 to 59 CE, where he was able to witness the speeches and writings of a man who would fundamentally change the nature of man and the course of history. What he saw and heard caused him to respond in a condescending manner, similar to our reaction throughout Questioning Paul.

It is indicative of Yahowah to encourage His prophets and witnesses to be judgmental. He wants us to express our disdain openly – recognizing that it is the most rational and compassionate response to something this hurtful and destructive.

During the one thousand years of prophetic discourse, there have been many monumentally important portrayals of future events. And while Yahowah’s promises to fulfill His Miqra’ey | Invitations to be Called Out and Meet while establishing and restoring His Beryth | Covenant with His ‘am | People remain supreme, this prophecy pertains to more people. It is among the most specific, relevant, and far-reaching ever recorded. And yet, we are the first to read these words as God intended – as a scathing rebuke against Sha’uwl | Paul and his creation: Christianity.

In his opening statement, Chabaquwq actually cried out to God, pleading for what he was witnessing to end. And while I suspect that all of us, having been exposed to Sha’uwl’s | Paul’s deplorable rhetoric over the past 1000 pages, are sympathetic, I think Habakkuk was actually pleading for his people and on behalf of his God. Having seen how Yahowah, Yisra’el, and Yahuwdah would suffer as a result of Paul and Christianity, he could not bear the thought that this Plague of Death would haunt the world for nearly 2000 years. Considering the carnage, it is heartbreaking.

“For how long and to what extent (‘ad ‘an – until when and up to what point), Yahowah ( – the pronunciation of YaHoWaH as guided by His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), shall I plead for relief during this desperately horrible and dangerous situation (shawa’ – should I vocalize this request for help (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 but finite in time)) because (wa) You will not actually listen for a prolonged period of time (lo’ shama’ – You do not want to hear about this for an ongoing period (the qal stem is the voice of reality and imperfect conjugation conveys that this condition endures)) to my anguished appeal and summons (za’aq – to my cry and subpoena as a result of this emotional torment, asking for a response (qal imperfect))?

Toward and against You (‘el ‘atah – concerning You, the Almighty) there is a devastating plot comprised of cruel lies regarding being Towrahless and the plundering of people without moral restraint (chamas – there is a destructive force, a lack of ethical restraint, widespread injustice and violence from negating the Towrah, a despoliation of the people, grievous wrongdoing and unrighteousness, leading to death; from chamas – that which is wrong rationally and ethically, such that people are violently wronged), and so (wa – as a result) You must continuously withhold salvation (lo’ yasha’ – You do not provide deliverance (in the hifil 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)

One thousand nine hundred sixty-nine years (from Paul’s inception in 52 CE to today in 2021 CE) is a very long time, and yet that is how long the world has endured the horrible stain and stigma of Pauline Christianity. Nothing will ever approach its horrific treatment of God’s people – from which there would be no relief prior to Yahowah’s return with the Mashyach Dowd.

During this long hour of hopelessness, Yahowah has turned a deaf ear. There would be no reason for Him to endure the torment He cannot resolve. There is no fixing Christianity, and its premature removal would breach freewill.

Sha’uwl’s | Paul’s religious faith remains man’s greatest affront to God. It is a devastating plot comprised of exceedingly cruel lies, plundering God’s hopes and mankind’s soul. This lone individual’s immoral and unconstrained attack on Yahowah’s Towrah, Beryth, and Miqra’ey would result in God not being able to save anyone for nearly two millennia.

Yahowah can do many things, but He will not breach a promise. When He offered Abraham the five benefits of the Covenant based upon his acceptance of its five conditions, the standard Yahowah would forever honor had been established. And since Sha’uwl | Paul repudiated every condition, there would be no hope of reconciliation.

Further, Paul’s message was so repugnant, so vehemently anti-Semitic, his recasting of Yahowsha’ as both God and Messiah, and inference that Jews killed him, repelled Yahuwdym from Yahowsha’. This has precluded the Chosen People from capitalizing upon the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb – precluding their salvation.

Lost, abused and blind, Jews sold Muhammad Talmud citations, which he bastardized to vilify them. In the process, rabbis played a starring role in creating yet another adversarial religion.

Trying to deflect adverse attention away from Paul, there are those who will say that Habakkuk’s lament was over the treatment of Yisra’elites in Babylon after they were drug off into captivity. But that experience was not nearly as horrific as what they had already endured under the Assyrians or would suffer as a result of Christians. And since Yahowah orchestrated the Babylonian “time out” for bad behavior, there was no devastating plot nor cruel lies in its inception.

The exile to Babel was imminent and would become a current event in Chabaquwq’s lifetime, something he would witness with his own eyes. At this late date, there would have been no reason for Chabaquwq to use “masa’ – a prophetic pronouncement,” “chazah – a future vision received as a revelation,” or the title “naby’ – prophet who proclaims God’s testimony regarding future events” in his introductory statement. In addition, Yahowah had been clear, revealing to other prophets precisely why Yahuwdym would be taken from the Land. And then there is the realization that the Babylonian captivity only lasted 70 years, which is inconsistent with the prolonged timeline Chabaquwq revealed regarding the influence of Sha’uwl.

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. From this perspective, Babylon represents the “babel – confusion of commingling and intermixing” God’s words with man’s ideas resulting in religion. To this day, it remains man’s greatest impediment to salvation.

Babel is the first thing Yahowah asks us to leave before engaging in His Covenant. And it is the last plea Yahowah makes to His people in the waning chapters of Yirma’yah / Jeremiah. More than anything, God wants us 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 (la mah – for whom and why) are You having me witness (ra’ah ‘any – are You showing me, revealing to me, and having me look at and consider (in the hifil imperfect God wants this revelation to influence the witness as it does Him with ongoing implications)) this grotesque corruption and deliberate fraud (‘awen – the vanity and injustice, the wickedness of this evil individual, the falsehood and immoral iniquity that has been intentionally perpetrated, this misfortunate act of deceit, this troubling presentation of idolatry, the dishonesty and perversion; from an unused root meaning to pant, aggressively and emotionally exerting oneself in vain) along with (wa) the distressing misery being inflicted which (‘amal – the abysmal situation brought about as a result of this horrific imposition of oppression, subjugation, and harassment that) You are having me consider (nabat – You are causing me to observe and evaluate (hifil imperfect – Yahowah is enabling Chabaquwq to be His understudy with his witness seen over time))?

A demonic spirit seeking to be worshiped as God who is exceedingly malicious and oppressive (shod / shed – an malevolent spirit representing Satan, the Devil, himself, a demon seeking havoc, ruinous carnage and anguishing harassment), (wa) a destructive force, completely Towrahless and lacking moral restraint (chamas – a devastating plot comprised of cruel lies regarding the negation of the Towrah, widespread injustice and violence, plundering the people with grievous wrongdoing and unrighteousness, leading to destruction and death), is conspicuously before me, publicly conveying this message (la neged / nagad ‘any – is speaking right out in the open in my presence, confessing, avowing, and announcing, proclaiming and publishing this right up in my face).

He has been and continues to be (wa hayah – so he is continuously (imperfect conjugation scribed in the third person masculine singular)) contentious and conflicting, taunting and quarrelsome, harboring in hostile opposition a different perception regarding the proper standard (ryb – insulting and complaining, using words in a dispute to bicker).

He brings forth and continuously advocates (nasa’ – he consistently promotes and carries forward, advancing and lifting up, allowing to arise (qal stem imperfect conjugation scribed in the third person masculine singular)) dissension regarding judgment and vindication (wa madown – contention regarding the means to acquit, argumentative objections with regard to exoneration and condemnation; from mah – to question dyn – the means to judge and acquit).” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 1:3)

Yahowah had asked His prophet to witness ‘awen, the “most grotesque corruption” of His testimony the world would ever know – Paul’s “deliberately deceitful” faith. God designated Sha’uwl’s message “fraudulent,” which means that his “dishonesty and perversion” of the Word of God was “premeditated.” Paul’s ‘awen | fraud was not just “grotesque, unjust, and wicked,” not only “perverted and evil,” it was “intentional.”

Chabaquwq saw what we have seen – “‘amal – the appalling agony” Paul inflicted upon the Chosen People. They would be “horrifically abused, persecuted, suppressed, and stalked” as a result of Pauline Christianity, enduring 2000 years of hateful anti-Semitism. And all the while, the Devil’s Advocate would be insidiously arrogant in his wickedness, lying as if it were his birthright.

Chabaquwq’s dismay over what he was witnessing was a consequence of ‘amal – the distressing misery being inflicted” upon his people. Sha’uwl | Paul brought about “‘amal – an abysmal situation resulting in oppression, subjugation, and harassment.”

But Habakkuk was only witnessing the beginning, just a snapshot in time, of what would emerge to become the man’s greatest menace. We know so much more today, having seen how the pandemic spread across the globe.

There would be haunting reverberations describing the Towrahless One known to the deceived as the “Antichrist.” Some 666 years before Sha’uwl would admit to having become Satan’s shrew, Yahowah revealed that Paul would serve a shod / shed – demonic spirit seeking to be worshiped as God. We know this because shed was used in Deuteronomy 32:17 and then in Psalms 106:37 to speak of the Devil and his Satanic influence over religion. Habakkuk saw what we have seen, and he used the perfect word (borrowing it from Moseh and Dowd) to depict Satan seeking to torch the Towrah and bury Yisra’el, all while composing a religion in which he would be worshiped as the Lord. Turns out, all the Devil had to do was ask Sha’uwl to promote him.

As for us, I thank Yahowah for this insight, one indelibly written into His lexicon thanks to the greatest of the prophets: Moseh | Moses and Dowd | David. Pronounced shod, the word means “havoc and violence, devastation and ruin, oppression and subjugation, looting and plunder.” Paul’s religion would devastate the Chosen People in these ways. And yet that prophetic insight pales in comparison to what we find in the same word, pronounced shed, but spelled identically in the Hebrew text. Shed is “Satan, the Devil,” and is inclusive of his “demons.” Shed is “an evil, demonic spirit seeking to be worshiped as if he were God.” Shed, therefore, describes the demon Satan sent to control Sha’uwl’s unbridled ego – by his own admission.

This diabolical belief system would be “chamas – Towrahless, a destructive terrorizing force lacking moral restraint.” The Devil’s Advocate would “chamas – conspire to pillage” God’s people “by robbing them” of the promises Yahowah had made to them, “plundering them” and then transferring everything to his church.

Not once but twice, Chabaquwq has turned to chamas to describe the “cruel lies and great injustice leading to death” he was witnessing as a result of this “grotesque assault on the Towrah.” Sha’uwl, and the demonic spirit inspiring him, “would be a destructive force operating without restraint.” It was not just that they were wrong, it wasn’t only the widespread cruelty they would impose on Jews, Sha’uwl and Satan would plunder billions of Christians of their souls as well.

One of the untold catastrophes of these Satanically-influenced claims, especially those regarding Christou and the Cross, is that the repugnant stench of their mischaracterizations was so odious to Yahuwdym | Jews that they rejected everything to do with Yahowsha’, including his fulfillment of Pesach as the Passover Lamb. Their lies corrupted a vital truth – one we need to know to avail ourselves of the Doorway to Heaven and Life.

This prophetic denunciation was specifically targeted to a “neged / nagad – conspicuous public pronouncement.” The individual being excoriated would have to have been “exceedingly presumptuous to avow and announce, publish and proclaim” something this unGodly “right out in the open in everyone’s presence.”

The most gut-wrenching implication of Chabaquwq 1:3 is the juxtaposition of shod, chamas, and neged. It reveals something even the most courageous and compassionate dare not say for fear of repercussions. The conspicuous public presence of Satan’s desire to be worshiped as God affirms that he succeeded.

“The demonic spirit seeking to be worshiped as God, who is exceedingly malicious and oppressive, the Devil, himself, is a destructive force, completely Towrahless and lacking restraint, and yet he is now conspicuously before [us], publicly conveying his malicious message right out in the open, avowing and announcing, proclaiming and publishing, it in our faces.” Paul’s Lord, the Christian god, is Satan.

When we consider the full implications of neged, along with chamas, and especially shod, following ‘amal, we are left with only two individuals in history who manifest every aspect of each word in the presence of God’s people: Paul and Muhammad. They were admittedly demon-possessed and their appalling public proclamations are legend. So, we should appreciate the prophet’s specificity.

The Devil and his Advocate would provide a steady diet of “ryb – contentious taunts and quarrelsome insults.” Their every word “would be in conflict” with Yahowah’s testimony. Their “perceptions regarding the proper standard remain in hostile opposition” to the truth.

This is directly analogous to Sha’uwl’s “derisive arguments against the Towrah.” And that is why ryb, speaking of this “insulting dispute and antagonistic disapproval,” was scribed in the third person masculine singular, and thus identified a lone individual man who would be responsible for “harboring a different perception regarding the proper standard which ultimately put mankind in conflict with God.”

Similarly, this “madown – source of contention and dissension regarding condemnation and the means to vindication” was “nasa’ – advocated and advanced” by one solitary soul. Paul’s “madown – contention regarding judgment,” his “contention concerning the means to acquit,” his “argumentative objections with regard to exoneration and condemnation,” are as legendary as they are ludicrous.

It should not be necessary, but alas, let’s be aware that Babylon was a nation of millions. The lone named perpetrator in this prophetic denouncement is Sha’uwl. No one named Sha’uwl reigned over Babylon, not then or ever.

And now that we have completed our review of Sha’uwl’s first letter, we know that Chabaquwq 1:3 is a fitting summation of Galatians. But that is just the tip of the iceberg gouging an irreparable gash in the hull of Christendom.

If Yahowah had taken Chabaquwq to Babylon to view his immediate future, he would not have questioned why he was there. He could have readily warned his contemporaries because so much had already been revealed to explain the justifications behind why Yahowah had Yahuwdym taken from the land. 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 Sha’uwl, it would be natural for Chabaquwq to ask God this question, and then make these statements, realizing that the people who would benefit from this warning would not be born for another six centuries.

That said, Babylon is based upon babel, the Hebrew word for “corruption and confusion by commingling and intermixing.” It is the very place Abraham had to leave before he could engage in the Covenant. And yet, the Yisra’elite captivity in Babylon was not an injustice. The people deserved what befell them. But no one deserves the demonic insult of Pauline Christianity.

With the following, the list of men deserving God’s ire to this extent collapses from two to one solitary soul. The repudiation of the Towrah lies at the heart of Paul’s faith.

“In this regard (ken ‘al – because of this approach), he will consistently seek to incapacitate, invalidate, and paralyze the purpose of (puwg – he will continually strive to nullify, weakening by causing a numbness toward, leading to a perceived cessation of (qal imperfect)) the Towrah | Guidance (Towrah – source from which teaching, instruction, direction, and guidance flow).

Therefore, he will never disseminate or carry forward (wa lo’ yatsa’ – then he will not bring out or extend (qal imperfect)) the everlasting and eternal approach (la netsah – the unending and permanent, eminent and majestic means) to vindicate by justly resolving disputes (mishpat – to exercise good judgment and make rational decisions regarding the adjudication of relational issues).

Instead, by contrast (ky – rather because), wickedness is invasive and injustice encompasses (rasha’ kathar – unrighteousness and evil are pervasive as a result of violating the standard, hemming in and encircling (hifil participle)) the means to be right and become innocent (‘eth ha tsadyq – the way of vindication and acquittal by being correct).

For this reason, that which (‘al ken) he brings forth and disseminates (yatsa’ – he publicizes and carries on about) perverts, distorts, corrupts, and convolutes (‘aqal – he misrepresents and debases, bends and twists) the way to make informed and rational decisions regarding judgment (mishpat – exercising good judgment regarding the means to resolve disputes; a compound of mah – to inquire about and shaphat – how to thoughtfully decide and appropriately judge).” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 1:4)

From his twisted opening stanza to his perverted salutation, Sha’uwl | Paul has sought to “puwg – incapacitate, invalidate, and paralyze the purpose of” Yahowah’s Towrah. Each tormented phrase was scribed to “nullify and bring an end to” God’s “netsah – everlasting approach” to “mishpat – acquit those who exercise good judgment and make rational decisions.” For believers, faith would supersede being “tsadaq – right.” And that is dreadful because being “correct” is part and parcel to “tsadaq – vindication and righteousness.”

Even worse, in the resulting milieu of contradictions, rational fallacies, revisionist history, and replacement theology, Paul perverted, distorting and corrupting, the means Yahowah provided to redeem us. Without the Towrah, its Miqra’ey and Beryth, there would be no hope. This realization is why Sha’uwl, more than any other individual, was targeted for rebuke.

Sha’uwl’s “rasha’ kathar – wickedness was invasive, permeating” people’s minds to the point that billions would no longer even consider “‘eth ha tsadyq – the means to become right” regarding Yahowah, and thereby “tsadyq – become vindicated, and thus saved.”

For those who are wont to see many when Yahowah clearly spoke of one perpetrator, the Babylonians were never a party to the Towrah. The nation did nothing to incapacitate Yahowah’s Guidance nor twist His purpose. But the modern incarnation of Babylon that grew out of Sha’uwl’s relentless assault against Yahowah’s Towrah has done these very things.

If we were to distill Galatians down to its core, we find Sha’uwl attempting to annul the Towrah’s means to vindicate by justly resolving disputes. Paul did so by consistently “‘aqal – perverting and distorting, twisting and falsifying,” Yahowah’s testimony.

Continuing to excoriate the man responsible for inflicting the greatest harm upon God’s people, we find the prophet turning an eye to the future, encouraging us to see what he was witnessing…

“You can witness this (ra’ah – of your own volition you can actually view and consider this (the qal stem denotes reality while the imperative mood expresses volition in the second person)) among the Gentiles (ba ha gowym – within the people from different races and places) if you care to be consistently observant, carefully considering and evaluating (wa nabat – by paying attention and being perceptive, especially concerned (hifil imperative)).

So you should avoid being among those negatively influenced. You should be astonished and astounded, and thereby remain free of these societal influences. You should independently exhibit an exceptionally negative reaction, bewildered and dumbfounded, wondering how it was even possible (wa tamah tamah – on your own recognizance, you will be shocked, independently displaying an extraordinarily adverse response, left puzzled and flabbergasted, wondering how it could have occurred (hitpael imperative qal imperative – indicates that the observer has managed by personal choice to avoid all religious and political pressure and as a result is stunned)).

Indeed, it is true that (ky – surely) a considerable undertaking will transpire (po’al pa’al – an effort will be carried out leading to an enormous accumulation of people, power, and riches as a result of the performance which is perpetrated (qal participle)) in your days (ba yowmym) which you will not find credible (lo’ ‘aman – you will not consider accurate (hifil imperfect)), even when it is properly assessed, written down, and he is held accountable (ky saphar – even if what can be known about him is recorded, reported, and published (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)

When it comes to the ongoing conflict between Yahowah and Paul, the evidence is copious and ubiquitous. Christianity is, as the prophet portends, readily witnessed among the Gentiles. We can choose to consider or ignore it, carefully examine it or turn a blind eye to the resulting carnage.

The challenge for almost everyone today is being able to “nabat – closely examine and carefully consider” Paul’s letters without being “tamah – negatively influenced by them.” This is especially difficult because Christianity has “tamah – bewildered and dumbfounded” the preponderance of people to the point that society reflects Paul’s mantra.

One of the reasons that I affirmed this statement was written for our day is that there has been no other time in which it was possible to compare Sha’uwl’s rhetoric against Yahowah’s testimony and survive the experience. Our challenge today is to avoid being caught up in his net, staying free of his influence, while we evaluate his claims.

As we are aware, Sha’uwl’s crime was committed among Gentiles and against Jews, consistent with this depiction. The consequences have been so severe, so widespread, and so enduring, anyone with the will to “nabat – be observant” will be “tamah – astonished, even horrified.”

Yes, I said “anyone” recognizing that it will be almost “no one” because very few people are willing to contemplate the possibility that a religion with billions of followers could be wrong to such a staggering degree. And that is why Yahowah prefaced the verb tamah in the hitpael mood. It reveals that only those with the will and ability to remain free of religious and political influences will be able to perceive what they are witnessing – no matter how astonishing.

In this regard, tamah was repeated, intensifying the action of the verb. This means that, from God’s perspective, the popularity of Pauline Christianity is exceptionally bewildering. How is it that someone this pathetic, this irrational and condescending, fooled so many into believing the opposite of what is true? And then considering his asinine claims, and that it was literally his word against God and His people, how did he convince the world to turn against Jews and, worse, claim every promise Yahowah had made to Yisra’el for his church?

The exponential effect of tamah is intriguing because it already conveys “an exceptionally negative reaction.” Therefore, based upon what we have read from Sha’uwl’s letters, the most reasonable response is “to be astonished and astounded, bewildered and stunned, that something this exceptionally negative managed to dumbfound the world.

Po’al was also repeated, revealing that Paul’s considerable undertaking, his preaching throughout the Middle East, Asia Minor, Greece, and Rome, along with his fourteen letters, would have a considerable effect on the world. Christianity would indeed be enriching and empowering, accumulating people at a prodigious rate. And make no mistake, this was a “po’al – performance.” Paul knew that what he was preaching and writing was unbelievable, so he compensated by outworking the competition.

There are few things as affirming as seeing a prophetic statement in the Word of God which addresses something we are doing. And while I would encourage a thousand more to go beyond where I have gone, Questioning Paul remains the most systematic written accounting of Sha’uwl’s | Paul’s malfeasance. I have “saphar – evaluated his letters and speeches” and have held him “accountable.” This book is “saphar – easily verified and credible.” Moreover, Questioning Paul is comprehensive. This assessment has grown over the years from 700 to over 2000 pages.

And yet, I realize that no amount of evidence satisfies the faithful. Christianity will survive the obliteration of Paul’s credibility – at least temporarily. Dowd | David, the man Sha’uwl | Paul plundered on behalf of Replacement Theology, will bring an end to this religion immediately prior to Yahowah’s return. It is poetic justice.

I am unaware of any other statement in the Prophets where we read the admission that something will not appear credible even when it is “ky saphar – thoroughly analyzed, methodically scrutinized, and comprehensively evaluated.” That makes this prophecy an anomaly. Chabaquwq is chronicling the most egregious attack on the Almighty ever perpetrated. Therefore, the realization that his condemnation is being leveled at the author of the world’s most popular religion is sobering.

Although every word of Habakkuk’s prophetic denunciation has been directed at Sha’uwl | Paul, he did not conceive his religion out of whole cloth. Instead, he interwove strands from the Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek, Gnostic, and Roman religions into his Faith. The cradle of his Babel | Bible would be Babel | Babylon from which he “babel – confused by commingling and intermixing” misappropriated Towrah citations with pagan lore. This is what we have come to expect from those who are Ba Bel | with the Lord.

Therefore, Yahowah encouraged us to be wary of the Gentiles associated with the Chaldeans – a metaphor for the religious myths which grew out of ancient Babylon.

“For this reason (ky – rather indeed), look to Me, and pay attention (hineh ‘any – look up to Me and behold), standing upright while taking a firm stand (quwm – be resilient and forthright, becoming established, rising up restored (hifil participle)) against (‘eth – regarding) the Chaldeans (ha Kasdym – a synonym for Babylon and its religious influences, addressing sages, wise men, academics, fortune-tellers, astrologers, and theologians), the population of Gentiles (gowy – pagans from different races and places estranged from Yisra’el) who are disagreeable and embittered (mar – poisonous and anguished, pungent and hostile), impetuous and hasty (wa ha mahar – rash and disturbed (niphal participle)).

Through the vast expanses of the region (la merchab ‘erets) he makes his way (ha halak – walking around) acting as if it was his inheritance, taking possession of (la yarash – claiming an authorized agreement to control) inhabited places that are not his to own (mishkan lo’ la huw’). (Chabaquwq / Habakkuk 1:6) He is (huw’ min) terrible and repugnant, exceedingly distressing (‘aym – dreadful and terrorizing) as well as intimidating while demanding respect (wa yare’ – frightening and yet venerated).

And yet his decisions and judgment, his plans and means to resolve disputes (huw’ mishpat – his means to decide and sense of what is appropriate and fair) are his alone (huw’).

His means to be accepted into the relationship and to be forgiven (wa se’eth huw’ – his proposals on his personal esteem, salvation, and acceptance) he brings forth and disseminates (yatsa’ – he angrily expresses, spreads, and broadly and publicly extends (qal imperfect third-person masculine singular)).” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 1:7)

The best way to avoid losing your soul to Sha’uwl | Paul is to listen to God. We ought to be looking up, not down. This is why we have consistently compared Paul’s jargon to Yahowah’s testimony. When he contradicts God, he is wrong, regardless of what anyone believes.

It is by being informed, by observing the Word of God, that we can do as He is asking. Yahowah wants us to “quwm – to take a firm and unwavering stance” against Babel.

Those whom Sha’uwl has beguiled are “mar – disagreeable and embittered,” especially regarding Yahowah, Yahowsha’, the Towrah, Miqra’ey, and Beryth. Christians recoil like snakes ready to strike when encouraged to consider and embrace God’s nature and intent. The religious realize that the God of the Towrah is hostile to their faith. As a result, there is a “mar – pungent stench” about them from Yahowah’s point of view.

I suspect that the reference to being “ha mahar – impetuous and hasty” speaks to the realization that no one thinks his or her way to Paul and thus Christianity. Faith is the product of a rash decision because Paul’s propositions are preposterous. A modicum of thought, a momentary comparison, a quick fact-check, is all it would take to resolve the religious stupor.

We have already explained the principal reason Yahowah cross-referenced Paul with Babylon, just as we have discussed Sha’uwl’s affinity for Gentiles, but there is another possibility. Sha’uwl died an abject failure, thoroughly rejected, completely miserable, and totally alone. Had it not been for what Rome, from which we get the word “gentile,” and the legacy of Babylon, did with his religion, Paulos would have been of little account.

The inclusion of “Kasdym – Chaldeans” puts all of this in perspective for us because, immediately before Yahowah asked Abraham “to walk away from his country,” establishing the Covenant’s lone prerequisite, God told us that Abraham was living in “Ur of the Chaldeans.” Therefore, Yahowah is predicting that, by negating the Towrah’s presentation of the Covenant, Sha’uwl would take believers back to the political and religious milieu He asked His children to leave. And that is why in Yirma’yah / Jeremiah Yahowah pleads with His people to come out of Babylon. The nation is long gone but, thanks to Paul, not its influence.

“Flee out of the midst of Babylon, and deliver every individual’s soul. Do not be cut off in her perverse corruptions. For this is the time of Yahowah’s vengeance. He will render recompence unto her.” (Yirma’yah / Jeremiah 51:6)

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. Both worship a god whom they call “the Lord,” using Satan’s title.

And while there are a handful of nations which could claim to be the 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 hallmarks of Babylonian influence. When we bring these elements together, today one nation stands naked and exposed before God – the United States of America. I say this knowing that Yahowah will denounce the nation in Yasha’yah / Isaiah 17 and 18 – chapters we will dissect at the conclusion of Yada Yahowah.

This known, in addition to political Babylon, there is religious and geographic Babylon represented by the Roman Catholic Church and Islam in the Middle East. Those who are opposed to God are prolific and widespread.

Sha’uwl was a traveling man. He not only walked throughout Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, the Mediterranean, and Rome, he spoke and acted as if the world belonged to him. And yet, according to the prophecy, Yahowah disagrees.

By attacking the Towrah, its Miqra’ey and Beryth, one neuters the effectiveness of the “mishpat – means to exercise good judgment regarding the means to resolve disputes.” And having discarded Yahowah’s methods to reconcile our relationship, Paul created his own. Unfortunately for Christians, God views faith-based salvation and replacement theology as exceedingly distressing and repugnant. Then speaking of the monstrous man behind this dreadful plan, Yahowah said he was “‘aym wa yare’ – repugnant and intimidating, exceedingly distressing while demanding respect, frightening while venerated.” And it would be so.

Throughout this book, readers have been consistently reminded that Paul’s irrational claims regarding the “mishpat – means to condemn and acquit” were his own. He was not inspired by God. His promise of salvation through faith is not only without support in the Towrah, it is unreliable. No one has ever been saved based upon something Paul said or wrote.

While this conclusion has been obvious from the beginning, by using se’eth in the midst of this stinging rebuke, God is revealing that His issues with Sha’uwl include his contrarian means to be accepted into the Covenant relationship and to be saved. And yet, had he not claimed to have been inspired by God, had he not misappropriated and misquoted God’s testimony, Paul would not have earned a dressing down of this magnitude.

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 Sha’uwl | Paul to the warmongering nations and lethal institutions he inspired. God is taking us to our present and future, to the time the “namer – scummy remainder” of Paul’s legacy will deploy “suws – swift airborne weapons” to “chadad – menace” His people. As “‘ereb – the sun sets” on the human experience, Yahowah is pleading with His people, hoping that they will flee the “chadad – predatory nature of this lone wolf.”

“They will be despised as abhorrent so they will fade away (wa qalal – they will be disdained because they are despicable, contemptuous, and vile, regarded as having no value, insignificant and of no account, so they will be humbled and diminished (qal perfect)) as the dregs of a scummy remainder (min namer – as excess scum, a transparent stain from a limpid filtrate, even possibly a panther derived from Nimrod, the first king of Babylon who fought against Yah).

His swift airborne weaponry (suws huw’ – his fast flying machines and airborne cavalry, the horsepower of his military equipment) will be as fierce and menacing as a lone wolf (wa chadad min za’ed – will be harmful, destructive, violent, and slashing, acting as if a single predator; from chad – a singular individual (qal perfect)) as the sun sets (‘ereb – in the gloomy dusk at the approach of night by commingling and intermixing light and darkness, weaving things together while exchanging one thing for another, bartering with the darkness to replace and obscure in league with foreigners).

Their randomly dispersed and widely scattered (puwsh – their spread out and fast moving source of pride (qal perfect)) mobile war machines and accompanying soldiers (parash huw’ wa parash huw’ – mechanized weapons of war which pierce and separate along with military personnel riding battle chariots) will come from afar in the future (min rachowq bow’ – they will arrive from a great distance away, pursuing after a duration of time by (qal imperfect)) flying through the air, even hovering (‘uwph – with wings actually airborne, moving quickly, albeit for a brief moment in time (qal imperfect)), like (ka – similar to) birds of prey (nesher – hawks and eagles), quickly swooping down and ready (chuwsh – moving very rapidly (qal participle)) to consume and destroy (la ‘akal).” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 1:8)

Paul’s Christians would be seen as “qalal – despised and abhorrent” not only by God, but also by His people. And as a result, soon they will be no more. The “namer – dregs of this scummy remainder” will fade away. We can no longer plead ignorance. We have been forewarned.

Six centuries would pass from the time Chabaquwq scribed these words until Sha’uwl’s arrival, and then another nineteen hundred would come and go before this portion of the prophecy would materialize. Today, “suws – airborne weapons” are commonplace. With electronic communications, advanced computer guidance, and global positioning, militaries can coordinate an attack – operating with the efficiency of a lone wolf.

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 America’s immense war machine, particularly its menacing birds of prey, in these words. The nation has been in a continual state of war, 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 country has engaged in fifteen wars in sixty years. None other has a military so enormous, it exceeds the cost of all others combined. Facing east toward perceived trouble, America has fought on behalf of and then supplied twenty-five times more weaponry to Israel’s Islamic foes than to the Chosen People. And that is why the final attack on Yisra’el will come from fighters who are “puwsh – dispersed and widely scattered.”

And come they will as “‘ereb – the sun sets in the gloomy dusk at the approach of night.” It will be the result of “‘ereb – commingling and intermixing light and darkness, weaving things together while exchanging one thing for another, bartering with the darkness to replace and obscure in league with foreigners.”

While this was “rachowq – far into the future” from the prophet’s perspective, this is that time. Even beyond what we have recently witnessed during Israel’s War of Independence, the Six-Day War, and the War on Yowm Kippur, the upcoming battles of an all-Islamic war and the final world war will be far worse. The skies above Yisra’el will rain with “parash huw’ wa parash huw’ – mobile war machines and accompanying soldiers” who “min rachowq bow’ – will come from afar in the future” “‘uwph – flying through the air, even hovering” “ka nesher – like birds of prey.” They will “chuwsh – swoop down, “la ‘akal – ready to destroy.”

Returning to the inception of the madness, the prophet reveals…

“With all of his (kol huw’) devastating plots comprised of cruel lies dedicated to plundering the people of the Towrah (chamas – destructiveness, marauding and despoilation, injustice from Towrahlessness, grievous wrongdoing and unrighteousness leading to terrorism and death; from chamas – that which is wrong rationally and ethically, such that people are violently persecuted), he persistently pursues (bow’ magamah – he keeps coming, perpetrating this again; from ma – to ponder the implications of gam – doing something again).

They appear in the east in confrontational fashion (hem paneh qadym – their presence is antagonistic and hostile and their belligerent claims are combative).

He gathers the victimized (‘asaph – he assembles the estranged who will be exterminated) captives (sheby – populations are captured and controlled) as if they were sand (ka chowl – because they are innumerable and comparatively dense).” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 1:9)

This is now the third time Yahowah has used chamas | devastating plots comprised of cruel lies in association with the dressing down of Sha’uwl. It speaks of Paul’s lack of moral restraint, the plundering of Yisra’el of God’s promises, and his consistent pursuit of Towrahlessness.

Those the Devil’s Advocate inspired have remained exceedingly “qadym – confrontational and antagonistic” toward God and His people. Unable to save anyone, Paul’s “‘asaph – harvest was comprised of victims who he estranged” from God. The souls of those “sheby – captivated” will be exterminated – nary a one entering heaven. And inexplicitly, the populations controlled by Christianity are “chowl – as innumerable and dense as sand.”

Consistent with Paul’s egregious tome to the Romans, religion and politics would be in lock step. Christianity would empower clerics and kings for nearly two millennia.

“And he, along with the rulers (wa huw’ ba ha melek – he with the political and religious leaders) mock and ridicule (qalas – deride and treat with contempt). Those who govern and are empowered (rozen – the elitists and dignitaries, judges and commanders) scoff, as they are haughty and egocentric (mischaq – strut around arrogant and proud) because of him (la huw’ – concerning him).

He, at everything (huw’ la kol) which defends and fortifies and should have remained off limits (mibtsar – which protects and should not have been questioned; from my – to question and batsar – to gather together and withhold, to fortify and restrain, to remain impenetrable and inaccessible), laughs in amusement while degrading Yitschaq (tsachaq – he considers everything associated with Yitschaq, whose name means Laughter, to be a joke to be mocked and disrespected (qal imperfect)).

He piles up a massive amount (wa tsabar – he gathers and accumulates, heaping up (qal imperfect)) of progeny along with their dust and debris (‘aphar – of offspring and their descendants as if coarsely crumbled sand), and he seizes and controls them (wa lakad huw’ – he captures and constrains them in his trap (qal imperfect)).” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 1:10)

It is Paul’s essay on government in the 13th chapter of Romans which made this possible. Roman Emperors began toying with Christianity beginning with Constantine’s infamous, “Under this sign, conquer.” And while the burning cross superimposed on the sun was a myth, as was the voice from the sky, Eusebius, Constantine’s publicist and Roman Catholic polemicist, turned Paul’s pathetic rantings into a formidable religion. General Constantine, of course, knew it was a farce, and simply used the religion to advance his reign and burnish his reputation. But such would not be the case with Theodosius. He was the one who established Christianity as the lone acceptable Roman religion, and with it, the system of serfdom which would enslave Europeans for centuries.

This prophecy is inferring something I have personally verified. Those who profit by promoting Christian myths know that the religion is a sham. With regard to Roman Catholic popes, I will provide proof of this in the concluding volume of Questioning Paul. And as for Protestants, in discussions with many of the most famous of them, when I confronted them with the truth, they all readily admitted that almost everything they preached was untrue. But they went ahead anyway because Paul’s passion has remained a lucrative undertaking.

All the while, the Towrah should have “mibtsar – remained off limits” because it alone “defends, protects, and fortifies.” By tearing it down, Paul rendered salvation “inaccessible.”

Even the centerpiece of the Covenant, the birth of Yitschaq, Sha’uwl managed to convolute and mock. Nothing he could have written would have been more disrespectful or deadly than replacing Yitschaq with Ishmael. In the process, Paul “tsabar – amassed” “‘aphar – progeny from the debris.” Christians would become little more than “crumbing specks of sand” between his fingers. It was all a “lakad – trap, a means to capture and control” the world.

Superficially, the most Pauline nation in world history, and thus the surviving 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. 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 that Sha’uwl would promote the wrong spirit in his attempt to elevate Babylon’s god. What follows is exceedingly indicting…

“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)).

And he will arrogantly travel about, intoxicating and alienating (wa ‘abar – based upon an unjustified and improper opinion of himself, he will give away an inheritance, pass over the sacrifice, and take away the prospect of forgiveness, repealing Passover, doing so in anger (qal imperfect)).

He will be wrong, incur guilt, and will genuinely suffer punishment (wa ‘asham – he is culpable and liable for his wrongdoing and will endure recompense for his acknowledged offenses (qal perfect)).

For this is (zuw – because this is regarded as) his influence (koach huw’ – the extent of his potential and capability, of his reptilian nature, resources, and qualifications, his functionality, performance, authority, and status) on behalf of his god (la ‘elowah huw’ – for his object of worship).” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 1:11)

God was correct. In all of his references to the spirit, Sha’uwl substituted his Lord’s demonic influence for Yahowah’s Set-Apart Spirit. Paul’s new faith would have a new and different spirituality. Catholics would call this beast: the Holy Ghost.

Incidentally, “holy” is based upon the Hebrew “choly,” which is translated: “diseased,” and speaks of “sickness, malady, anxiety, calamity, and grief.” And it gets worse, because the Greek word translated “holy” is hagios, from hagos. It describes “that which originally had denoted something awful being deliberately removed and done away with because its removal was deemed somehow beneficial.”

Paul was “arrogant” to a fault. Rather than create his religion out of whole cloth, he cut, redyed, twisted, and rearranged snippets of Yahowah’s Word, “meddling” with His Covenant. He thereby “alienated” believers from God, “intoxicating” them. Worst of all, he would “‘abar – sacrifice the inheritance by revoking the prospect of salvation through repealing Passover.”

Fortunately, Yahowah is just, so Sha’uwl will be held accountable for all of the souls he has destroyed. His penalty will be an eternity in the place named in his honor: She’owl | Hell. And because Yahowah has already pronounced judgment, we can rest assured that our criticisms are valid and appropriate. ‘Asham on him.

It is also true that Satan will join Sha’uwl in She’owl. They have worked as one and will endure Hell together as a result. Their crime: replacing Yahowah with the Lord such that believers worship Satan as if he were God.

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 to the Towrah observant as “ha Satan – the Adversary.”

Also, while we are addressing this “chalaph ruwach – different and more recently conceived alternative spirit” “la ‘elowah – of his god,” be aware that the perpetrator being prophetically exposed and condemned in these words remains masculine singular. This rebuke is focused upon Sha’uwl because of what he did on Satan’s behalf.

It should go without saying: 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. This solitary individual remains the most infamous in history.

At this point, we find Chabaquwq wondering why anyone would oppose Yahowah, especially by proposing a religion based upon God’s supposed 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 was not the only indicting aspect of this next prophetic revelation. God revealed the pseudonym He would personally give to the individuals He appointed to rebuke Sha’uwl: “Shim’own Kephas – the Rock of Reconciliation who Listens” and to Dowd, the cornerstone of the Covenant.

“Yahowah ( – the pronunciation of YaHoWaH as guided by His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), my God (‘elohym ‘any), my Set-Apart One (qodesh ‘any), are You not eternal, from an unlimited duration of time (ha lo’ ‘atah min qedem)?

Yahowah (Yahowah – written as directed by His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), we will not die (lo’ muwth – we will not be put to death or be absent of life (qal imperfect)) as the means to decide guilt or innocence (la mishpat – as the way to exercise good judgment regarding resolving disputes and rendering justice).

You have actually appointed for him (sym huw’ – You have placed upon him upon examining him (qal perfect)), accordingly (wa) the Rock (tsuwr) which You have assigned and positioned to argue against and rebuke him (la yakach yasad huw’ – You have laid as a foundation to initiate the process to prove that he is wrong, to chide him and judge him, using arguments to demonstrate he was wrong (hifil infinitive)).” (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 Sha’uwl has already been judged and found guilty. There is nothing more offensive to God than billions of people parading around under the symbol of a dead god on a stick.

Yahowah is eternal. He is, He was, and He will always be, existing forever in the past and future. Man did not kill God.

Hypothetically, however, if Jews had the ability to kill the Christian god as Paul protests, then his followers ought to be worshiping Jews. But alas, it was the Romans who tortured and then assassinated the Passover Lamb, and they evolved to become the Roman Catholic Church.

Chabaquwq is affirming that “God’s supposed death,” should it have been possible, would have been immaterial. Salvation is not the result of God dying. The “mishpat – means to decide a soul’s guilt or innocence” is determined based upon our response to the Beryth and Miqra’ey – God’s means to life, not death.

Sha’uwl’s admitted foe was Shim’own, 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. However, “Peter (meaning “rock” in Greek) was not Sha’uwl’s most formidable foe. It is in Dowd’s | David’s Mizmowr | Psalms that we find the most detailed and cogent arguments against Sha’uwl. Therein, Paul is called the “Father of Lies” and the “Son of Evil.” Dowd despises him, and he looks forward to eradicating the stigma of his religion upon his return.

Chabaquwq is now saying something I have long realized: God deserves better. He should not have been subjected to the taunts of such a mindless scumbag, nor the chorus of billions singing his praises. I do not much like him either.

“Too flawless (tahowr – too pure and clean) are eyes to witness (‘ayn min ra’ah – is understanding from observation to see (qal infinitive)) such malignant and displeasing evil (ra’ – such saddening and troubling wickedness, such distressful and miserable impropriety, such disagreeable and unpleasant injustice and sorrow).

You cannot endure nor prevail when (lo’ yakol – since You can neither succeed nor overcome, so there is no point (qal imperfect)) looking upon or responding to (wa nabat – observing or evaluating because there is no solution to (hifil infinitive)) such a perverse and grievous undertaking (‘el ‘amal – oppression of this magnitude, travail this painful, or labor this full of iniquity).

For what reason would (la mah – why would) You look at or consider (mah nabat – why would You pay attention to, attend to, or show any regard for (hifil imperfect)) the treacherous betrayal of an offensive and deceitful trickster and traitor (bagad – the conspirator, one who is disingenuous and disrespectful, especially prone to chicanery (qal participle))?” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 1:13 in part)

This is to say that the founder of the Christian religion was so vile, so “ra’ – malignant and wicked,” that Yahowah was repulsed by his presence and could not bear to look at him. So much for Sha’uwl’s | Paul’s claim to have met with God on the road to Damascus and then to have spent three years in Arabia being inspired.

Paul’s poison would be so debilitating and deadly, God could neither endure it nor prevail against it. And while that may sound extreme, it is actually an accurate assessment of the lone means to reconcile our relationship with Him because Yahowah cannot and will not save the religious. As long as someone remains beguiled by Paul’s faith, there is no antidote for his toxin. The lone prerequisite for becoming part of the Covenant is that we must disassociate ourselves from the confusion and intermixing of religion and politics.

From Yahowah’s perspective, Sha’uwl was “ra’ – the personification of evil, wicked, and thus saddening, troubling and unpleasant, displeasing and inappropriate, a miserable and disagreeable individual who was enormously distressing.”

Addressing the poison which would flow from Paul’s pen, God called it “‘amal – grievous and perverse, exceedingly oppressive, heinously unjust and hideously immoral.” He said that Sha’uwl was “bagad – treacherous” and that he was a “traitor, both offensive and deceitful, especially prone to chicanery.” That is a far cry from “I cannot lie.”

And speaking of traitors, I recall Paul decrying the Galatians as such. Methinks he was looking into a mirror. Those words will come to haunt him.

For every accusation, there is an answer. For every deception, there is a nugget of truth. The thirteenth verse would serve as a warning to those with an affinity for the self-proclaimed 13th apostle…

“Therefore, You will enable an implement to write against this plot while You remain silent and unresponsive, taking no other action for a prolonged period, facilitating an inscribed response by composing an effective demarcation (charash – You will facilitate an inscribed response with ongoing implications, while remaining otherwise silent and unresponsive, taking no other action for a prolonged period (hifil imperfect – Yahowah is enabling an implement as an understudy to write against this plot, doing so in a way that will have unfolding implications over time)) concerning that which is befuddling and confusing besides countering it with effective communication, thereby devouring (ba bala’ – swallowing up those who lead astray by way of disseminating accurate information, destroying (piel infinitive – the guilty suffer the effect in a highly demonstrative manner)) the wicked (rasha’ – those who are evil and unGodly, becoming unrighteous and condemned by transgressing the standard in criminal fashion) more accurate and righteous than him (tsadyq min huw’ – more correct and appropriate than him, less wrong and guilty than him).” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 1:13)

Yahowah would do as He has always done: leave His people without excuse. He would have Chabaquwq convey this prophecy to the world 666 years in advance of Sha’uwl fulfilling it. And then God would deploy and enable a “charash – implement,” reminiscent of the choter (presented in Yasha’yah | Isaiah 11 and meaning: insignificant stem or implement), to translate and “charash – chronicle” this prophetic spectacle for modern readers, combining it with an excoriating analysis of Sha’uwl’s letters. You are reading what Yahowah has had “charash – inscribed” for His people’s edification on the cusp of His return. I have sought to make a clear and unequivocal demarcation between Paul’s claims and Yahowah’s testimony.

God’s intent with this writing is to openly oppose Paul’s “bala’ – befuddling and confusing plot, devouring it through effective communication.” There are many who have been wrong about Yahowah, such as Akiba and Muhammad, but even they were less wicked and twisted than Paul. When it comes to evil, Sha’uwl is the most unGodly of all.

There would be others, however, the likes of Akiba, Hadrian, Muhammad, and Maimonides. Therefore, I have targeted each of them at the proper time.

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 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.

Yahowah warned us in advance and in the aftermath of Sha’uwl’s formidable betrayal. He views that as sufficient because He has otherwise been silent.

However, His silence is not without implication. It means that God did not inspire anything in the Christian New Testament. If He had, He would have said so. And we would have read testimony such as this throughout the Christian “Scriptures.” But we haven’t, so He didn’t.

Paul was fixated upon presenting himself as second to none, as not taking a backseat to anyone, including Yahowah, Yahowsha’, Moseh, Dowd, or the Prophets, not even the disciples. He claimed to be the lone authorized apostle to the Greek and Roman world. He ordered the faithful to follow him and to obey him. And he spoke on behalf of his Lord, the Adversarial spirit who sought to possess and control humankind as if we were slaves.

This is the antithesis of God’s approach. Other than Dowd, He typically disdains kings and clerics. There are no strata in the Covenant family. Therefore, Yahowah had His prophet write...

“Therefore, You will act and engage with (wa ‘asah – You work on behalf of and expend considerable energy and effort to benefit (qal imperfect consecutive)) humankind (‘adam – men and women who have a neshamah / conscience) in a manner which could be compared to (ka – similar to) the fish (dag) of the sea (ha yam – in the water), similar to (ka – like) creatures which move freely about (remes – like the multitude of highly mobile animals) without anyone ruling over them or seeking to control them (lo’ mashal ba huw’ – without anyone claiming dominion or someone who claims to be in charge (qal participle)).” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 1:14)

Fish swim freely in the sea. They do not have lords. Life teems without submitting to governmental authority or religious institutions. They can 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.

As for Paul, in Romans 13 he ordered Christians to submit to governmental authorities. He would have the faithful obeying the despots who claimed that they were either gods themselves or authorized by God. Writing to the Romans, a hideously oppressive and destructive empire, Sha’uwl claimed that even that government was instituted by his god.

Noach was an outcast when Yahowah reached out to him. Moseh was a shepherd, tending to another man’s sheep in the desert. Dowd was an otherwise unappealing young lad. God advances His will through the least of us. If you are impressed with status and credentials, you won’t much like heaven.

It would be appropriate to point out that it is not a coincidence that each and every criticism fits Sha’uwl. And that is because every one of them was written to indict him. It is not perchance that nary a statement has been made that does not apply to the author of and inspiration behind most of the “Christian New Testament.”

Baiting and hooking his audience, and netting vast numbers of souls, Sha’uwl killed everyone who took his bait. Worse, he was so depraved that he rejoiced in what was nothing short of mass murder.

“In everything associated with him (kol huw’ ba), he will use a lure and hook to entice, withdraw, and sacrifice (chakah ‘alah – a small, sharp implement to ambush, snag, bait, and catch the unsuspecting, lifting them up as an offering (hifil perfect)).

When (wa – and also [found in the DSS but not MT]) he catches them, he drags them away (garar huw’ – in a whirling and swirling fashion he grasps hold, pulls them away, and he tears them apart, chewing them up, he destroys them) in his dedicated trap (ba cherem huw’ – with the snare of his devotion and in his destructive net).

And he gathers them together and removes them (wa ‘asaph hem – so he assembles and collects, eradicating them (qal imperfect)) in his dragnets by kindling his victims’ yearnings (ba mikmereth huw’ – in his fishing nets designed to trap and snare while he is emotionally agitated; from kamar – to be mentally and emotionally dysregulated).

And yet, concerning this (‘al ken – so therefore in this way), he is elated (samach – he delights and is pleased, albeit by being intoxicated with himself (qal imperfect)) and he is glad, shrieking and shouting over this outcome (wa gyl – he screams in uproarious fashion as if this were a favorable outcome and beneficial circumstance (qal imperfect)).” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 1:15)

Considering the hundreds of millions of people Islam has slaughtered in religious rage, it is sad to report that Sha’uwl was more murderous still when one considers the number of souls he lured to their demise. Not only does religion constrain our freedom, similar to a net with fish, Paul drew believers away from God. Moreover, 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, Greek for “fish,” where the letters ΙΧΘΥΣ were formed inside the “sign of the fish.” It purports to be an acronym for “Iesous Christos, Theou Yios, Soter – Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior.” In this regard, it is telling that this symbol not only preceded Christianity, it was originally associated with Astarte, the Babylonian Queen of Heaven and Mother of God. As a fertility symbol, it was a vagina. Such is the genesis and evolution of Christianity.

Paul’s faith is a trap, one which uses a person’s devotion as the bait and snare. Paul cast his enormous dragnet over the known world, capturing and killing every unwary soul within his purview. And all the while, he was emotionally and mentally dysregulated, shrieking and shouting while constantly shifting between celebration and agitation – becoming the court jester of the crazymakers.

The realization that Sha’uwl was elated at the demise of his victims demonstrates that he was sadistic – the trait we appropriately associate with his mentor: Satan. Christianity is premeditated murder perpetrated by a heartless serial killer.

As an interesting aside, while dark and dour, your stereotypical psychotic schizophrenic narcissist and psychopath seldom displays the range of discordant emotions we find in Paul’s letters and speeches. Because they lack empathy, they do not actually experience joy or happiness and are compelled to fake it to keep their devotees under their spell.

Throughout this extraordinary prophecy, the perpetrator remains one while his victims are many…

“So therefore in this way (‘al ken – so concerning this), he sacrifices and slaughters (zabach – he butchers, killing as part of his penitence, mollification, and worship (piel imperfect)) his devotees as they approach his net and are ensnared in his trap (la cherem huw’ – mutilating, disfiguring, and destroying in his ruse on behalf of his deity).

And he blows smoke to make illicit worship seem pleasant (qatar – he kindles aromatic incense in a religious setting and encourages offerings which trap; from qatar – to bind and shut in, fumigating a living space to drive out the occupants (piel imperfect)), ensnaring his victims while remaining emotionally agitated and unstable (la mikmereth huw’ – capturing his victims in his dragnet; from kamar – to be mentally and emotionally dysregulated).

For indeed (ky), by them (ba hem) he is enriched and satisfied (shaman – he grows fat, becoming unhealthy while becoming abundantly productive) through seductive words while he claims a share of his persuasive plot (cheleq huw’ – he takes his allotment and leads an easy life as a reward for his influential scheme).

And so what he devours (wa ma’akal huw’ – then his fruit) is contrived, newly fashioned and artificial (barya’ – recently created, entirely new, and synthesized, circumstances and conditions which have been amalgamated).” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 1:16)

Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, the 8HevXII rendering of Habakkuk 1:16 suggests that Sha’uwl’s “consumption grew large.” And if that is what the prophet was inspired to write, it means that his bread was filled with yeast, and thus is rife with the fungus of religious and political corruption. This could well be a rebuke to Paul’s “a little yeast the whole loaf of bread yeasts.”

I have not sought to assess the quantity of souls Paul has extinguished nor the scope of those who have been tormented by his faith, but they number in the billions and millions. The dankest and darkest, most irritating and opaque smokescreen of all has been cultured to hide his complicity.

Fortunately, Sha’uwl has earned his share of the plot he instigated. An eternity in She’owl will be his recompense.

As frustrating and embarrassing as it is for me to admit that the litany of misappropriated statements, contradictions, and rational fallacies Paul contrived was persuasive, he fooled me during my youth. But now, by comparing his claims to Yahowah’s promises, we know better. Paul’s was a “barya’ – artificial edifice, recently contrived by synthesizing and amalgamizing” pagan lore.

The enduring legacy of Pauline Christianity is a tribute to faith over reason…

“So how is it (ha ‘al ken) that he continues to summon into such worthless delusions and then disgorge (ryq – he constantly calls out in vain, advocating meaningless fantasies from such a long distance away, promoting that which is unreal and has never existed and is without any benefit, and then discharges into nonexistence (hifil imperfect – making his victims act similarly with ongoing implications)) believers from his trap (cherem huw’ – the faithful from his net destroying his followers in his ruse on behalf of his deity), only to (wa) eternally and intentionally end the lives (tamyd la harag – continually and with premeditation, kill, murdering with everlasting implications) of Gentiles (Gowym – of people from different races and places, those prone to religious beliefs who are dead men walking estranged from Yisra’el), showing no concern or mercy (lo’ chamal – sparing none while incapable of pity, kindness, 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 in vain to advocate meaningless fantasies from such a long distance away, promoting that which is unreal and has never existed, doing so without any benefit, only to disgorge into nonexistence with ‘his sword which severs and slays (chereb / charab),’ thereby continually and eternally killing the Gentiles without concern or compassion?”

Chereb / charab can be something which “cuts, severs, and destroys.” It is “an implement which lays waste, making life meaningless” as well as “a tool used to attack, smite, and slay.” Pronounced, choreb, it depicts a “dry, hot, and desolate place.”

Should chereb / charab have been intended, then Chabaquwq was likely contrasting Sha’uwl’s lifeless rhetoric to the revelation of the Towrah on Mount Choreb. This possibility is intriguing considering Paul’s false allegation that the Towrah’s Covenant enslaved because it was established through Hagar in this place.

Either way, it remains a provocative question. How is it that Sha’uwl continues to seduce so many with such worthless delusions? His letters are so readily disproven, it is a wonder that anyone believes such ridiculous fantasies. There is no truth nor benefit to anything he has proposed.

Nonetheless, we are reminded that Paul’s schemes were intentionally deadly, which means that he committed premeditated murder. This makes him history’s most deranged serial killer as the souls of believers are disgorged into oblivion.

While Yahowah has affirmed that Sha’uwl’s horrendous intent was premeditated previously, this is the first time that we read that God predicted that he would have no empathy. Paul was unable to feel compassion or concern over the delusion and death of his victims. This confirms that Paul was a psychopath. As a result, he may not be the best option for spiritual advice on living a fulfilling life. Just saying…

There has never been any secret regarding the fact that Sha’uwl | Paul sought to influence and indoctrinate Gentiles or demean and obliterate Jews. He would show no mercy to either. As a result, the means Yahowah provided to save His children would be rejected and replaced with a deadly religion.

There are a number of reasons that we have returned to consider a wider swath of Yahowah’s prophetic pronouncement against Sha’uwl. It serves to forestall the inevitable gymnastics Christian apologetics would otherwise bring to bear against such compelling evidence in opposition to the world’s most popular religion. But in light of what we have learned, Paul’s devotees have no hope of refuting the universal condemnation that Yahowah has leveled against Sha’uwl, especially as we transition out of the first and into the second chapter of Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk.

Christianity’s only hope is to dissuade believers from considering Yahowah’s prophetic pronouncement 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 Paul’s number – a wrong and disconnected number out of touch with the truth.

With this in mind, let’s reconsider the specificity of God’s prediction as He lowers His sights and takes direct aim at the world’s single most hideous person. Even the prophet’s name, Chabaquwq | Embrace This, is telling when considered next to Sha’uwl | Question Him.

“This is the prophetic pronouncement (ha masa’) which, for the benefit of the relationship and to show the way to get the most enjoyment out of life (‘asher), was received as a revelation by way of witnessing a prophetic vision of the future by (chazah) Chabaquwq | Embrace This (Chabaquwq), the prophet who proclaims the message of God (ha naby’). (Chabaquwq / Habakkuk 1:1)

For how long and to what extent (‘ad ‘an), Yahowah (), shall I plead for relief during this desperately horrible and dangerous situation (shawa’) because (wa) You will not actually listen for a prolonged period of time (lo’ shama’) to my anguished appeal and summons (za’aq)?

Toward and against You (‘el ‘atah) there is a devastating plot comprised of cruel lies regarding being Towrahless, plundering of people without moral restraint (chamas), and as a result (wa) You must continuously withhold salvation (lo’ yasha’). (Chabaquwq 1:2)

For what reason, for whom and why (la mah) are You having me witness (ra’ah ‘any) this grotesque corruption and deliberate fraud (‘awen) along with (wa) the distressing misery and abysmal situation being inflicted that (‘amal) You are having me consider (nabat)?

The demonic spirit seeking to be worshiped as God, who is exceedingly malicious and oppressive, the Devil, himself (shod / shed), is a destructive force, completely Towrahless and lacking moral restraint (wa chamas), and yet he is conspicuously before me, publicly conveying this message right out in the open (la neged / nagad ‘any).

He has been and continues to be (wa hayah) contentious and conflicting, taunting and quarrelsome, harboring in hostile opposition a different perception regarding the proper standard (ryb). He brings forth and continuously advocates (nasa’) dissension regarding condemnation and vindication (wa madown). (Chabaquwq 1:3)

In this regard (ken ‘al), he will consistently seek to incapacitate, invalidate, and paralyze the purpose of, striving to nullify, while bringing an end to (puwg) the Towrah | Teaching and Guidance (Towrah).

Therefore, he will never disseminate or carry forward (wa lo’ yatsa’) the everlasting and eternal approach (la netsah) to vindicate by justly resolving disputes or to exercise good judgment by making informed and reasoned decisions regarding the adjudication of relational issues (mishpat).

Instead, by contrast (ky), wickedness is invasive and injustice encompasses (rasha’ kathar) the means to be right and become innocent (‘eth ha tsadyq). For this reason, that which (‘al ken) he brings forth and disseminates (yatsa’) perverts, distorts, and convolutes (‘aqal) the way to make informed and rational decisions regarding judgment (mishpat). (Chabaquwq 1:4)

You can witness this (ra’ah) among the Gentiles (ba ha gowym) if you care to be consistently observant, carefully considering and evaluating (wa nabat).

So you should avoid being among those negatively influenced. You should be astonished and astounded, and thereby remain free of these societal influences. You should independently exhibit an exceptionally negative reaction, bewildered and dumbfounded, wondering how it was even possible (wa tamah tamah).

Indeed, it is true that (ky) a considerable undertaking will transpire (po’al pa’al) in your days (ba yowmym) which you will not find credible in spite of it being truthfully and reliably verified (lo’ ‘aman), even when it is properly assessed, written down, and he is held accountable (ky saphar). (Chabaquwq 1:5)

For this reason (ky), look to Me, and pay attention (hineh ‘any), being upright while taking a firm stand (quwm) regarding (‘eth) the Chaldeans and the religious influence of Babylon (ha Kasdym), the population of Gentiles (gowy) who are disagreeable and embittered (mar), impetuous and hasty (wa ha mahar).

Through the vast expanses of the region (la merchab ‘erets) he makes his way (ha halak) acting as if it was his inheritance, taking possession of (la yarash) inhabited places that are not his to own (mishkan lo’ la huw’). (Chabaquwq 1:6) He is (huw’ min) terrible and repugnant, exceedingly distressing and terrorizing (‘aym) as well as intimidating while demanding to be venerated (wa yare’).

And yet his decisions and judgment, his plans and means to resolve disputes (huw’ mishpat) are his alone (huw’). His proposals on being accepted into the relationship and to be forgiven (wa se’eth huw’), he brings forth and disseminates (yatsa’). (Chabaquwq 1:7)

They will be despised as abhorrent so they will fade away (wa qalal) as the dregs of a scummy remainder (min namer).

His swift airborne weaponry (suws huw’) will be as fierce and menacing as a lone wolf (wa chadad min za’ed) as the sun sets in the gloomy dusk at the approach of night by commingling and intermixing light and darkness, weaving things together while exchanging one thing for another, bartering with the darkness to replace and obscure in league with foreigners (‘ereb).

Their randomly dispersed and widely scattered (puwsh) mobile war machines and accompanying soldiers (parash huw’ wa parash huw’) will come from afar in the future (min rachowq bow’) flying through the air, even hovering (‘uwph), like (ka) birds of prey (nesher), quickly swooping down and ready (chuwsh) to consume and destroy (la ‘akal). (Chabaquwq 1:8)

With all of his (kol huw’) devastating plots to plunder the people of the Towrah comprised of cruel lies and great injustice (chamas), he persistently pursues (bow’ magamah).

They appear in the east in confrontational fashion, antagonistic and belligerent (hem paneh qadym). He gathers the victimized (‘asaph) captives (sheby) as if they were sand, innumerable and comparatively dense (ka chowl). (Chabaquwq 1:9)

And he, along with the religious and political rulers (wa huw’ ba ha melek) mock and ridicule (qalas). Those who govern and are empowered (wa rozen) scoff, as they are haughty and egocentric (mischaq) because of him (la huw’).

He, at everything (huw’ la kol) which defends and fortifies and should have remained off limits (mibtsar), laughs in amusement while degrading Yitschaq (tsachaq).

He piles up a massive amount (wa tsabar) of progeny along with their dust and debris (‘aphar), and he seizes them (wa lakad huw’). (Chabaquwq 1:10)

Then at that time (‘az), he will actually go with a new and completely different spirit, discarding the Spirit, sweeping Her aside, and actually exchanging the existing Spirit for a totally dissimilar spirit (chalaph ruwach).

And he will arrogantly travel about, intoxicating and alienating based upon an unjustified opinion of himself, sacrificing an inheritance while revoking the prospect of salvation by repealing Passover (wa ‘abar).

He will be wrong, incur guilt, and will genuinely suffer punishment for his acknowledged offenses (wa ‘asham). For this is (zuw) his influence (koach huw’) on behalf of his god (la ‘elowah huw’). (Chabaquwq 1:11)

Yahowah (YaHoWaH), my God (‘elohym ‘any), my Set-Apart One (qodesh ‘any), are You not eternal, from an unlimited duration of time (ha lo’ ‘atah min qedem)? Yahowah (Yahowah), we will not die (lo’ muwth) as the means to decide guilt or innocence (la mishpat).

You have actually appointed for him (sym huw’), accordingly (wa) the Rock (tsuwr) which You have assigned and positioned to argue against and rebuke him (la yakach yasad huw’). (Chabaquwq 1:12)

Too flawless (tahowr) are eyes to witness (‘ayn min ra’ah) such malignant and displeasing evil (ra’). You cannot endure nor prevail when (lo’ yakol) looking upon or responding to (wa nabat) such a perverse and grievous undertaking (‘el ‘amal).

For what reason would (la mah) You look at or consider (mah nabat) the betrayal of an offensive and deceitful trickster and traitor engaged in chicanery (bagad)?

Therefore, You will enable an implement to write against this plot while You remain silent and unresponsive, taking no other action for a prolonged period, facilitating an inscribed response by composing an effective demarcation (charash) concerning that which is befuddling and confusing besides countering it with effective communication, thereby devouring (ba bala’) the wicked (rasha’) more accurate and righteous than him (tsadyq min huw’). (Chabaquwq 1:13)

You act and engage with (wa ‘asah) humankind (‘adam) in a manner which could be compared to (ka) fish (dag) of the sea (ha yam), similar to (ka) creatures which move freely about (remes) without anyone ruling over them or seeking to control them (lo’ mashal ba huw’). (Chabaquwq 1:14) And yet with everything associated with him (kol huw’ ba), he will use a lure and hook to entice, to withdraw and then sacrifice (chakah ‘alah). When (wa) he catches them, he will drag them away (garar huw’) in his dedicated trap (ba cherem huw’). And he will gather them together and remove them (wa ‘asaph hem) in his dragnets by kindling his victims’ yearnings while emotionally agitated and mentally dysregulated (ba mikmereth huw’).

And yet, concerning this (‘al ken), he is elated, being intoxicated with himself (samach), and he is glad, shrieking and shouting over this outcome (wa gyl). (Chabaquwq 1:15)

So therefore in this way (‘al ken), he sacrifices and slaughters (zabach) his devotees as they approach his net and are ensnared in his trap (la cherem huw’). And he blows smoke to make illicit worship seem pleasant (qatar), ensnaring his victims while remaining emotionally agitated and unstable (la mikmereth huw’).

For indeed (ky), through them (ba hem) he is enriched and satisfied (shaman), through seductive words while he claims a share of his persuasive plot (cheleq huw’).

In this regard, what he devours (wa ma’akal huw’) is contrived, newly fashioned and artificial, recently created, entirely new, and synthesized, comprised of circumstances and conditions which have been amalgamated (barya’). (Chabaquwq 1:16)

So how is it (ha ‘al ken) that he continues in vain to advocate such worthless fantasies and delusions from so far away, promoting that which is unreal and has never existed, doing so without any benefit, only to disgorge into oblivion (ryq) believers from his trap (cherem huw’), thereby (wa) eternally and intentionally ending the lives (tamyd la harag) of Gentiles (Gowym) while showing no concern, compassion, or mercy (lo’ chamal)?” (Chabaquwq / Habakkuk 1:17)

I do not suppose that it would be possible for a rational person who has carefully considered these words to think that this was all about Babylon, as if the empire was comprised of a single individual, circa 609 to 538 BCE instead of Sha’uwl’s ongoing influence commencing in 52 CE. But if you are predisposed to see this as God’s fixation on the short-lived 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 Yisra’el 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 Yisra’el’s 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 | Judah, King Chiziqyah | Hezekiah found a copy of the Towrah. After reading it, he decided that destroying all vestiges of religion while observing Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children would be the best 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. 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 somewhat sovereign. But just a decade later, Yahuwdym | Jews revolted against Babel | Babylon. So, in 599 BCE, they picked the fight that ultimately led to their demise, just as Rabbi Akiba and the warlord Bar Kochba 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 prominent Yahuwdym were taken to Babylon.

Then, against the warnings Yahowah made through the Prophet Yirma’yah | Jeremiah, King Tsidqyah | Zedekiah entered into an alliance with Pharaoh Hophra of Egypt and pushed for independence 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 Babel along with many other Yahuwdym. Yahuwdah became Yahuwd Medinata (the Aramaic word for “province”) in 587 BCE, briefly losing its sovereignty.

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 Sha’uwl’s influence is still being felt 1,969 years after he penned his first letter.

Moreover, when Yahowah had an issue with a Chaldean king, He called him out by name. And yet the only individual named in this prophecy is Sha’uwl. No one by that name ever ruled over any Mesopotamian nation. In addition, Yahowah devoted most of Yirma’yah | Jeremiah, a man much closer to the scene, to presenting His overt condemnation of Babylon. And the Prophet Zephanyah | Zephaniah was better positioned to tell its story.



Questioning Paul

Devil’s Advocate

…Plague of Death

12

Sha’uwl | Question Him

The Prophecy…

While we reached the conclusion of the first chapter of Chabaquwq, as we discovered early in Questioning Paul, Yahowah was just getting warmed up. God’s haunting prediction regarding Sha’uwl continued by telling us that He is not about to alter any of the requirements to participate in His Covenant or change the approach that He has taken to facilitate our reconciliation – no matter what Paul has led billions to believe.

“Upon (‘al – on this) My requirements and responsibilities and what I observe (mishmereth ‘any – My mission which functions and serves as a safeguard to watch over, protect, and preserve the observant; from my – to ponder the implications of shamar – to observe, closely examining and carefully considering, retaining My focus), I have decided of My own volition that I will literally and continually stand (‘amad – I will always choose to be present, actually standing and thereby genuinely enabling others to consistently stand, enduring and sustaining while being properly positioned and accountable (scribed in the qal stem which addresses actual events which are to be interpreted literally, imperfect conjugation which reveals that God’s presence here will continue throughout time, and in the cohortative which expresses volition and desire in first person)).

And (wa) I will choose to always stand firm and present Myself (yatsab – I will consistently serve, providing assistance by prominently appearing and presenting Myself (the hitpael stem tells us that God alone is taking this stand, and that He will not be influenced by anyone or anything, the imperfect conjugation reveals that His stand is consistent, continual, and enduring throughout time, and the cohortative conveys volition, making this God’s will)) upon (‘al – on the Almighty’s) that which strengthens, protects, and fortifies (matsowr – the defensive stronghold which safeguards, preventing a successful attack by the adversary).

Therefore (wa), I will be on the lookout (tsapah – I will continually keep watch and be on guard, surveying the situation (scribed in the piel stem where the object of the verb suffers its effect, imperfect conjugation which reveals that God is constantly observant)) in order to see (la ra’ah – so as to observe, consider, and perceive) what he will say about Me (mah dabar ba ‘any – posing a question concerning what he will communicate regarding Me and what message he will convey in association with Me).

So then (wa) how can I be expected to change My attitude, thinking, or response (mah shuwb – why should I reverse course and mislead) concerning (‘al – during and upon) My disapproving rebuke (towkechath ‘any – My complaint, correction, reproof, and strong disapproval, My rational arguments in response and subsequent chastisement and punishment; from yakach – to adjudicate and correct).” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:1)

God is never going to change. He has always been perfect, consistently trustworthy and reliable, continually compassionate and fair, always capable and willing. After creating the universe and conceiving life, He began to interact with us and guide us, teaching us what we should know to get the most out of life. His instructions remain valid, effectively revealing what Yahowah is offering and expecting in return.

The Covenant is a family relationship. Mom and Dad have responsibilities as do their children. Our Heavenly Father is not going to shirk His and we should not ignore ours. And should you be foolish enough to do so, do not expect God to accommodate your preferences. You and I are invited into His home and we are welcome to join His family, but we are not at liberty to destroy either or replace them.

By using two different words for stand, ‘amad and yatsab, we can be assured that Yahowah has chosen to take a stand and remain upright and firm on His and our behalf. He will be accountable, present when needed, right where He said He would be, firmly established, and ready to lift us up so that we can stand with Him.

The God of the “Old Testament” has not walked away. He has not changed His position on any relevant issue. As such, He most certainly did not condone Paul to contradict Him.

When God announced that He would be on the lookout for the likes of Sha’uwl, ready in advance to rebuke him for falsely testifying that He had changed His plans, it should have stopped Paul dead in his tracks. Even if he were not explicitly named and meticulously described in the prophecy, Sha’uwl’s | Paul’s house of cards has been toppled. There is no possibility whatsoever that Yahowah sanctioned the dissolution of His Towrah or its replacement with a “New Testament.” The Chosen People have not been replaced, nor has the Covenant or Invitations to Meet.

Yahowah’s commitment to His requirements and responsibilities is steadfast, making this a general affirmation of His Towrah. This known, God’s indictment remains singular and specific. No one other than Sha’uwl | Paul fits this prophecy. He not only tried to change God’s requirements for participation in His Covenant relationship, he sought to replace God’s conditions and provisions with his own. Worse, he claimed to speak for the God he was contradicting and undermining.

As a direct and inevitable result, Yahowah is committed to rebuking and then punishing Paul. He is on record saying that His unyielding response will be to provide rational arguments which demonstrate His disapproval. We are considering them in this prophecy, and you have read them in this book. Should you have been squeamish over the unrelenting and derogatory approach I have taken toward Sha’uwl | Paul, you now know that it was God’s desire to do so.

Since there has never been another book which systematically rebukes Paul by comparing and contrasting his words against Yahowah’s, and since Yahowah has promised to provide His disapproving rebuke through rational arguments, and since we are running out of time – you are reading the fulfillment of God’s promise. That is, up to the point of punishment. Yahowah will handle that on His own. It is why Sha’uwl | Paul and She’owl | Hell are synonymous in the Hebrew text.

Yahowah has infused this prophecy with an affirmation that He is not going to replace His specific requirements for participating in the Covenant with something as nebulous as faith, especially in Charis | Grace. He did not evade His own commitment to provide the Passover Lamb, nor suffer through UnYeasted Bread. As such, we can become His Firstborn Children and be enriched and empowered during the Promise of the Shabat. He will stay the course, fulfilling Trumpets, Reconciliations, and Shelters – thereby bringing His people home. And this is why, we have consistently and concurrently shared Yahowah’s solution as the lone antidote to the Plague of Death.

Rest assured, that which was established by the Spirit in the flesh will lead us back to the Spirit. We have God’s word on it…

“Then (wa) Yahowah (Yahowah – God’s name transliterated as guided by His towrah – instructions on His hayah – existence and His role in our shalowm – reconciliation as ‘elowah – Almighty God) answered me, approaching me (‘anah ‘any – responded to me, testifying by providing useful information).

And He said (wa ‘amar), ‘Write down (kathab – use the alphabet to inscribe, describing in writing) this revelation (chazown – this communication from God regarding the agreement), and then (wa) expound upon and reiterate it using those letters (ba’ar – teach others its significance by plainly and clearly declaring it using large and distinct alphabetic characters) upon (‘al) writing tablets (ha luwach – engraving it in stone or inscribing it on a panel or screen such that it is enduring and memorable) so that (la ma’an – for the express purpose and intent that), by reading or reciting this (qara’ by huw’ – by proclaiming this and making it known), he might run and go away (ruwts – he might flee).’ (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:2)

By using ‘anah, Yahowah is encouraging us to capitalize upon the ‘anah | answers He has provided in His Towrah | Teaching, to ‘anah | respond to His Beryth | Covenant, and ‘anah | reply to His Miqra’ey | Invitations. ‘Anah is one of the Towrah’s most enriching terms, playing a pivotal role during the Miqra’ey. They are Invitations to Meet which God hopes we will answer.

Yahowah’s strong preference is for the written word. It is more enduring and enriching, in addition to being easier to validate and understand. The written word survives the test of time unaltered. This is especially true regarding Hebrew, the language of Divine revelation. It is perfectly suited to describe the nature of the relationship Yahowah intends for His family. Every verb is relational in nature and infinite in time.

By asking Chabaquwq | Habakkuk to memorialize this prophecy in writing 666 years before its fulfillment, we have every reason to recognize that Yahowah is God and that we can trust His witness. He was right.

And while that is encouraging, even empowering and enriching, there is a sad note to this prophecy. Yahowah revealed that should we have done as He requested and read and recited this prediction during Sha’uwl’s | Paul’s lifetime, he would have run away, abandoning his claims. This remains true today. All one has to do to remove Paul’s stench from our lives is to read this prophecy.

And speaking of “running,” it was Paul’s claim to have not “run in vain” which brought us to this prophecy. He would cite from it twice more in his letters following the one we referenced in Galatians 2.2, these occurring in Philippians 2:16 and 1 Corinthians 9:26. And had the Devil’s Advocate not flirted with his own indictment, we may have missed one of the most compelling prophecies ever written.

The lines of demarcation have been established, 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 let’s 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 the criteria that has been provided – and he is a perfect fit, right down to his propensities, peculiarities, and personal and proper name. Sha’uwl deceived billions during the “mow’ed – meeting times.” He was in Yaruwshalaim, studying to be a rabbi when Yahowsha’ was fulfilling the “Mow’ed Miqra’ey – Invitations to be Called Out and Meet.” And as a rabbi, he did an about-face to attack God from an entirely new direction. Sha’uwl even admitted to being conceited, to being demon-possessed, to being preoccupied with Gentiles, and to being opposed to circumcision – things which will loom large in a moment.

Since it would be six centuries before Sha’uwl would question God’s Word earning His disapproval, Yahowah encouraged those who first read these words to be patient. This warning was for another day...

“Still indeed, the subsequent realization of (‘owd ky – so therefore and nonetheless, the expectation regarding) this revelation from God (chazown – this divine communication) is for the Mow’ed | Appointed Meeting Times (la ha mow’ed – for the designated season for celebrating the festival feasts).

It provides a witness to and speaks, pouring out evidence (puwach – it reveals facts which condemn and malign, trapping and ensnaring, even censuring the puffery from the blowhard) in the end (la ha qets – toward the conclusion of the process concerning the last days regarding limit of the ordinary flow of time; from qatsats – to tear asunder and cut off, casting away).

Should it seem slow to develop, the extended period of time required for this question to be resolved (‘im mahah – if hesitant, question him, because no matter how long it takes; from mah – to ponder the who, what, why, when and how of this question) shall not prove it false (lo’ kazab – this revelation shall not deceive, delude, nor fail).

Expect him in this regard (chakah la huw’ – be certain concerning this and regarding him) because indeed (ky), he will absolutely come (bow’ bow’ – he will certainly arrive upon the scene and make his appearance), neither being delayed nor lingering (lo’ ‘achar – not take longer than expected nor live for a protracted duration of time).” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:3)

The first four “Mow’ed – Meeting Times” – Pesach, Matsah, Bikuwrym, and Shabuw’ah – were fulfilled by Yahowsha’, Yahowah, and the Set-Apart Spirit in year 4000 Yah, more commonly known as 33 CE. They enabled the Covenant’s promises. Sha’uwl was in Yaruwshalaim at this time training to be a rabbi. Shortly thereafter, he began undermining the Mow’ed, beginning with this letter to the Galatians around 52 CE. So, I find it interesting that now, in 2021, just twelve years shy of Yahowah’s return, we are finally studying this prophecy and identifying it with Sha’uwl. 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).

Yahowah seems to enjoy providing hints which facilitate understanding among those who are observant and which also make the process of learning more rewarding. In this case, the “mahah – question to be resolved” was to “sha’uwl – question him.” If we think about it, we can appreciate why God has to be a bit reserved. He does not want casual, superficial readers who are not genuinely interested in getting to know Him and becoming part of His family ascertaining something that they might exploit to their detriment when considered out of context. Celebrating Pesach without Matsah, without being part of the Covenant, or knowing where it leads, is an ideal example.

Many of the insights we have derived along the way are the result of the breadth and depth of our study. We are rewarded when we consider everything in context, maintain the proper perspective, and yet still dig deep, turning over and examining every facet of each word we encounter along the way. In this regard, we should be cognizant that Yahowah’s message had to resonate with everyone willing to diligently listen, from the beginning to the end. For example, eagles and hawks existed 2600 years ago, but not the warplanes named after them.

Dating is similar. The calendar we use today had its genesis with the Roman Republic. And while they stole it from the Greeks who borrowed it from elsewhere, that system did not exist when this revelation was provided. Thankfully, however, dating the timing of events is straightforward. Yahowah provided us with His timeline from Bare’syth | In the Beginning to the conclusion of Sukah | Camping Out, with major fulfillments and minor occurrences dated and documented along the way.

That said, His timeline is His own. While it can be verified using outside sources, God never writes something like “one hundred years before the Classical Hellenistic Period began.” He would not write that several centuries before the Roman Republic started to use and modify the Roman Catholic calendar in use in 2021 CE, a religion named ‘Christianity,’ which is a transliteration of a Greek word for ‘christos – drugged,’ would sweep in like a virus as a result of some letters scribed by a Jewish man who changed his Hebrew name from ‘Sha’uwl’ to the Roman, ‘Paulos,’ in 52 CE. He would say all of this, but not in this way.

And yet by interweaving His prophetic timeline alongside His documentation of Yisra’el’s history, and then providing the kind of specificity we have witnessed, we are able to ascertain the appropriate timing while deriving useful insights. In this way, God provided copious and convincing clues as to the identity, character, scheme, and consequence of the perpetrator delineated in this prophecy for those who treasure His Word sufficiently to closely examine and carefully consider each word, while not altering the course of history by revealing His hand to those insufficiently informed to understand. It 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 who stumble their way through life or bow down to false gods.

As bad as Chabaquwq’s revelation has been thus far for Sha’uwl | Paul and Christianity, it is about to get much worse. What follows strongly suggests that Yahowah baited Sha’uwl, tempting him to include a portion of this prophecy in his letters – epistles which dominate the “Christian New Testament.” It is how we learned of it.

Above all else, the wannabe Apostle was egotistical, irrational, and manipulative. He took the bait and ran with it...

“Pay attention (hineh – behold, look up and consider the details because), he will be audacious and oblivious, puffed up with false pride (‘aphal – his head will swell and he will be daring, becoming an oozing sore and pain in the butt, haughty and arrogant, he will be lifted up for being boldly presumptuous heedless of the truth, reckless, hemorrhoidal, and foolhardy).

His soul (nepesh huw’ – his attitude and personality, and thus his character), it is neither 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 huw’).

And so (wa – as a result, it follows) through trust and reliance (ba ‘emuwnah – by being firmly established, confirmed and upheld by that which is dependable and steadfast, always truthful and reliable, as well as being honest and truthful; from ‘aman – to be supported and confirmed by upholding the truth), he who is correct and thereby vindicated (tsadyq huw’ – he who is right and thus acquitted) shall live (chayah – he will be restored to life and kept alive by being nurtured and growing).” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:4)

While explicitly describing Sha’uwl 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 Paul’s Faith.

In Galatians 3:11, in the midst of his initial assault against the Towrah, Sha’uwl misquoted this prophecy, 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, writing… “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, Sha’uwl 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) Sha’uwl and Satan were taunting God. In this way, their collective arrogance is unmatched.

It may be my twisted sense of humor, or Yahowah sharing His disgust, but ‘aphal, when written the same way but pronounced ‘ophel, speaks of a “hemorrhoidal abscess.” In other words, Sha’uwl | Paul was a pain in the butt. More fully developed, it is translated as “a boil on the anus due to a disease or stool problem.” While graphic, ‘ophel provides an interesting euphemism.

This is especially so when we consider the consequence of the uncircumcised Philistines absconding with Yahowah’s Ark of the Covenant – tangibly foreshadowing what Paul would do symbolically. God struck the men of Ashdod, then Gath, followed by Ekron, with a nasty case of hemorrhoids. That story is tellingly chronicled by Shamuw’el (1 Samuel 4:7 through 5:10). He is the Judge and Prophet who introduced us to the original conflict between the wannabe-King Sha’uwl and Dowd, which would serve as a harbinger of the wannabe-Apostle Sha’uwl a thousand years thereafter. He addresses the people’s preference for Sha’uwl over Yahowah and of Yahowah’s overwhelming preference for Dowd.

After revealing that the appalling man described in the opening chapter of Chabaquwq would appear during the fulfillment of the Mow’ed, we learn that he would be as we found him. Paul was overwhelmingly audacious and oblivious, reckless and foolhardy. He was arrogant and presumptuous, puffed up with a false opinion of himself. If any man could be properly depicted as hemorrhoidal – a genuine pain in the ass – it was Sha’uwl.

For the numbskull Christian apologists attempting to exonerate their favorite hemorrhoid, Babylon, for all of its failings, lacked a “nepesh – soul.” Sha’uwl | Paul, however, had one, albeit twisted and difficult. His character, attitude, and personality were deplorable. He was never on the level nor straightforward and remained circuitous and convoluted. His life’s mission revolved around misappropriating and perverting the Word of God.

Moving on, there are six specific details in this next prophetic statement from Yahowah, all of which implicate Sha’uwl 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 and be forewarned: Yahowah is addressing a “mortal man” with a “soul,” not a place, and as such, God is condemning Sha’uwl, not She’owl.

“Moreover (wa ‘aph – in addition and much more), because (ky) the intoxicating and inebriating spirit (yayn – the consequence of the naturally processed and fermented wine and resulting drunkenness) of the mortal man (geber – the individual human being) of deceptive infidelity and treacherous betrayal (bagad – who is untrustworthy, unprincipled, unfaithful, and unreliable, of adulterous and offensive behavior, a traitor handing people over to the influence and control of another without justification through chicanery, trickery, and deceit) is an overbearing moral failure of unwarranted self-importance (yahyr – is an arrogant, meritless, and presumptive, high-minded and conceited individual aggrandizing himself), he will not rest, find peace, nor live, nor will he find appropriate words (wa lo’ nawah – then he will not succeed, achieve his aim, or reach his goal, nor will come home or be beautifully adorned, he will not camp out or abide because there is no laudable, honorable, nor beneficial message for (qal imperfect)), whomever is open to the broad path (‘asher rachab – when one is receptive to the wide open, broadened and expanded, public and limitless, albeit contrived, opportunistic, and improper, way) associated with (ka – according to) Sha’uwl (Sha’uwl – the personal and proper name of the individual in question, but also the name of the place of separation, the realm of the dead, the dominion of questioning: She’owl [she’owl and sha’uwl are written identically in the Hebrew text (consider Strong’s H7585 and H7586)]).

He (huw’) and (wa) his soul (nepesh huw’ – his essential essence, consciousness, character, attitude, inner nature, and personality) are like (ka – can be compared to) the plague of death (ha maweth – the pandemic disease that kills a large population of people).

And so (wa) those who are gathered in and brought together by him, accepting him (‘asaph ‘el huw’ – those who associate with and join him, those who are removed and withdrawn by assembling with him, moving toward him and thereby victimized by him) will never be satisfied (lo’ saba’ – he will not find contentment nor fulfillment [based upon 8HevXII among the Dead Sea Scrolls (‘he will not be satisfied’ versus ‘and will not be satisfied’)]).

Most every gentile ethnicity (kol ha gowym – those of every race and place estranged from Yisra’el) he will claim as his own and gather together unto himself (qabats ‘el huw’ – he will grasp hold of, obtain, assemble, and collect for himself), all such people will be among his followers (kol ha ‘am – including the nations).” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:5)

The oldest extant copy of this text from the caves above Qumran states that “he cannot be satisfied.” This not only reveals that Sha’uwl, like all chronically insecure megalomaniacs, was never fulfilled or satisfied, those who believe him will never find contentment. There is never enough adulation or prestige, never enough power or devotees.

Also interesting, should a Christian be allowed to peek through a window into heaven, they would find it unfulfilling. Nothing they had become accustomed to and familiar with would be found inside. There would be no worship services, no prayers, no praise, no bible studies, no crosses or churches, no believers or trinity, no pastors or priests, no Lord, Jesus Christ, or Holy Ghost, no Queen of Heaven or Mother of God, no baptism or communion, no Christmas or Easter – and a lot more Jews than Gentiles. They would see Yahowah, Moseh, and Dowd, the Towrah, Beryth, and Miqra’ey, and hear Hebrew – individuals and concepts unfamiliar to them.

And speaking of the Dead Sea Scrolls, most of Chabaquwq is extant, including the specific reference to Sha’uwl. His identification cannot, therefore, be dismissed to subsequent scribal exuberance.

In 1 Corinthians 11:20-21, Sha’uwl | 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 Yahowah’s instructions regarding the narrow path He provided to salvation. Attacking the heart of Yahowah’s plan in this way is the epitome of presumptuousness and immorality. Those who ascribe to such lies die. Those who promote them will find themselves in She’owl along with Sha’uwl. And yet, Pauline Doctrine is popular, providing those who are open to it, man’s broadest path to destruction.

Yahowsha’ 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 Yahowah’s prophecy at the outset of his Instruction on the Mount, so it is hard to miss.

Sha’uwl promises the gift of life, but his religion, the most popular ever conceived, is the plague of death. Sha’uwl 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 Yahowah’s assurances in the Towrah, Sha’uwl’s hallow promises will go unfulfilled. And that means that the people Sha’uwl claimed as his own, the Gentiles – individuals from many different races and places – will suffer the consequence of his New Testament.

Even if Sha’uwl had not been condemned by name, with the specter of the Gentiles being raised twice, it is 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 Yahowah’s testimony. And the means to this madness is consistent with Yahowah’s 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.

The spirit Sha’uwl promoted as the alternative to the flesh, and thus to circumcision, the Covenant, and the Towrah, was “yayn – intoxicating and inebriating.” It also infers that the “gerber – mortal man” we know as “Paul” may have been a drunkard. His inarticulate and discombobulated musings, his foolhardy and grandiose attitude, his loss of short- and long-term memory, and his inability to control his outbursts and emotions, all suggest bouts of alcoholism.

This is the second time Yahowah has used bagad in conjunction with Sha’uwl | Paul. We can therefore be assured that the Devil’s Advocate was an “unprincipled, untrustworthy, and unreliable” individual engaged in “treacherous betrayal.” These are not attributes that one would normally select for a spiritual advisor.

While we have already derived this assessment from the tone of Paul’s letters, Yahowah verified that Sha’uwl was “yahyr – overbearing and conceited,” and that his self-appraisal was “unwarranted.” Rather than being an “Apostle,” the self-proclaimed messenger of God was “yahyr – self-aggrandizing.”

As a result of Sha’uwl’s | Paul’s erroneous assessment of himself and deceptive claims, those foolish enough to believe him will “lo nawah – never enter God’s home, nor will they ever be satisfied.” There is no “eternal life” for Christians.

Yahowsha’ specifically warned all who would listen about the Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing who would seek to invalidate the Towrah. He would label Paul’s approach “‘asher rachab – the broad and popular way” to death. Turns out, he was quoting from Chabaquwq 2:5.

There are many wonderful names presented in the Towrah and Prophets. These include: ‘Adam | Man, Chawah | Gives Life, Noach | Trustworthy Guide, ‘Abraham | Merciful Father, Yitschaq | Laughter, Moseh | Draws Out, Dowd | Beloved, Shamuw’el | Listen to God, Yasha’yah | Yahowah Saves, Zakaryah | Remember Yah, ‘ElYah | Yah is God, and even Chabaquwq | Embrace This, but Ha Maweth | the Plague of Death isn’t among the most coveted of them.

The pandemic Paul spread, known as Christianity, is unlike the Coronavirus. It is 100% fatal. And that is a “lo’ saba’ – unsatisfying” result.

The concluding statement of Chabaquwq 2:5 is there to explain the spread of the virus. Christianity infected Gentiles who, like zombies, attacked Jews, devouring them as if their lives depended upon it.

In spite of the fact that Sha’uwl means “Question Him,” nary a Christian considers the irresolvable conflicts between Paul’s letters and God’s Word. So, while the following continues to identify the culprit, most Christians remain oblivious to Yahowah’s prophecy regarding them or him...

“They do not ask questions, any of them, about him (ha lo’ ‘eleh kol hem ‘al – why are none 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 (clichés, 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, even that which is undecipherable).

There are hard and perplexing questions which need to be asked of him (chydah la huw’ – 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 Sha’uwl claimed to be)),’ neither of which apply to him (lo’ la huw’ – which is not his).

In the meantime, for how long (‘ad mathay – until when) will they make pledges (‘abtyt – will they be in debt) based upon his significance (kabed ‘al huw’ – 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.”

Sha’uwl’s 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 “clichés.” He even claimed to bear “offspring,” experiencing birth pangs to deliver the descendants of his belief system. In this regard, Sha’uwl was fixated on “misapplying” the connotations and “significance” of the Hebrew word for “offspring,” zera’, claiming that it gave rise to salvation through 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.

Sha’uwl 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, Muslims were never able to refute anything in Prophet of Doom so they dismissed the best documented, most comprehensive, contextual, and chronological presentation of Muhammad’s words and deeds by profane attacks on my character. A thousand pages of evidence were thereby discarded with a flippant: “the author is a satanically-inspired Jew.”

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 God’s 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 people’s attention from it. For example, rather than deal with Paul’s admission that he was insane, a person deploying this fallacy will say something like: “You can’t tell me that I don’t have a relationship with Jesus or that Christ isn’t my savior.”

And finally, as the straw man fallacy implies, rather than attempt to refute the case which has been presented, the apologist will errantly convey their opponent’s 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 averse 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 believer’s 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 Sha’uwl, Yahowah revealed...

“Upon (‘al) My requirements and responsibilities and what I observe, My mission which functionally serves as a safeguard to watch over, protect, and preserve the observant (mishmereth ‘any), I have decided of My own volition that I will literally and continually stand (‘amad).

And (wa) I will choose to always stand firm and prominently present Myself, consistently serving by providing assistance (yatsab) upon (‘al) that which strengthens, protects, and fortifies, preventing a successful attack by the adversary (matsowr).

Therefore (wa), I will be on the lookout and on guard (tsapah) in order to see (la ra’ah) what he will say about Me (mah dabar ba ‘any).

So then (wa) how can I be expected to change My attitude, thinking, or response (mah shuwb) concerning (‘al) My disapproving rebuke including rational arguments in response and subsequent chastisement and punishment (towkechath ‘any). (Chabaquwq / Habakkuk 2:1)

Then (wa) Yahowah (Yahowah) answered me, responding by approaching me and providing additional testimony (‘anah ‘any).

And He said (wa ‘amar), ‘Write down (kathab) this revelation (chazown), and (wa) expound upon it, reiterating it using these alphabetic letters to teach others its significance (ba’ar) upon (‘al) writing tablets, inscribing it on a panel or screen such that it is enduring and memorable (ha luwach) so that (la ma’an) by reading or reciting this, proclaiming it and making it known (qara’ by huw’), he might run and go away (ruwts).’ (Chabaquwq 2:2)

Nonetheless, the subsequent realization of and expectation regarding (‘owd ky) this revelation from God (chazown) is for the Mow’ed | Appointed Meeting Times (la ha mow’ed).

It provides a witness to and speaks, pouring out evidence, censuring the puffery from the blowhard (puwach) in the end, addressing those who are cut off and cast away (la ha qets).

Should it seem slow to develop, the extended period of time required for this question to be resolved (‘im mahah) shall not prove it false (lo’ kazab).

Expect him in this regard (chakah la huw’) because indeed (ky), he will absolutely come (bow’ bow’), neither being delayed nor lingering (lo’ ‘achar). (Chabaquwq 2:3)

Pay attention because (hineh) he will be audacious and oblivious, puffed up with false pride, heedless of the truth and thus arrogant, reckless, and foolhardy, a genuine pain in the butt (‘aphal).

His soul, and thus his attitude, personality, and especially his character (nepesh huw’), is neither right nor straightforward in him because he does not consider anything appropriately, is circuitous in his reasoning, wandering away by twisting and convoluting the teaching, such that nothing is on the level with him (lo’ yashar ba huw’).

As a result, it follows (wa): through trust and reliance, by being firmly established, confirmed and upheld by that which is dependable and steadfast, always truthful and reliable, as well as being honest and truthful (ba ‘emuwnah), he who is correct and thereby vindicated (tsadyq huw’) shall live (chayah). (Chabaquwq 2:4)

Moreover (wa ‘aph), because (ky) the intoxicating and inebriating spirit (yayn) of the mortal man (geber) of deceptive infidelity and treacherous betrayal, this traitor who is untrustworthy, unprincipled, unfaithful, and unreliable (bagad) is an overbearing moral failure of unwarranted self-importance, conceited and aggrandizing himself (yahyr), he will not rest, find peace, nor live, nor will he find appropriate words to achieve his goal of coming home (wa lo’ nawah), whomever is open to the broad path, anyone receptive to the expanded and improper way (‘asher rachab) associated with (ka) Sha’uwl (Sha’uwl).

He (huw’) and (wa) his soul (nepesh huw’) are like (ka) the plague of death, a pandemic disease that kills a large population of people (ha maweth).

And so (wa) those who are gathered in and brought together by him, accepting him (‘asaph ‘el huw’) will never be satisfied (lo’ saba’).

Most every gentile ethnicity (kol ha gowym) he will claim as his own and gather together unto himself (qabats ‘el huw’), all such people will be included among his followers (kol ha ‘am). (Chabaquwq 2:5)

They do not ask questions, any of them, about him (ha lo’ ‘eleh kol hem ‘al). Terse references to the Word they lift up as taunts to ridicule, simplistic and contrived equivalencies, clichés, and adages which become bywords to exercise dominion through comparison and counterfeit (mashal nasa’), along with (wa) allusive sayings and mocking interpretations, derisive words wrapped in enigmas arrogantly spoken (malytsah).

There are hard and perplexing questions which need to be asked of him (chydah la). And (wa) they should say (‘amar), ‘Woe (howy) to the one who claims to be great so as to increase his offspring, acting like a rabbi, to the one who thrives on numbers and who considers himself exceedingly great (rabah),’ neither of which apply to him (lo’ la huw’).

In the meantime, for how long (‘ad mathay) will they make pledges (‘abtyt) based upon his significance, pursuant to the weight and burden of his testimony, and the grievous honor afforded him (kabed ‘al huw’)?” (Chabaquwq 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:

“Since (wa) he loads himself down (ta’an – he burdens himself) with (‘eth) thick (‘aphelah – dark and wicked) mud (tyt – dirt and dust to be swept away [from 8HevXII because the MT has ‘abtyt – ‘heavy debt’ and the LXX reads ‘loads his yoke’]), why not (ha lo’) quickly, even if only for a short period of time (peta’ – instantly and all of a sudden), rise up and take a stand (quwm)?

And (wa) those of you who are smitten and under his influence, perhaps making payments to what he represents (nashak ‘atah – those showing interest, earning money, or becoming indebted to him), wake up from your stupor (wa yaqats – stop being so sedentary, take action, and alter your state of awareness) such that you move away in abhorrence (zuwa’ ‘atah – fleeing in dread of him, terrified of vexing nature).

Because otherwise (wa) you will be (hayah) considered (la) plunder and be victimized by them (mashisah la hem – as booty, spoiled by them).” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:7)

God is saying that the only thing “kabed – weighty and significant” about Sha’uwl is that he has covered himself and others in muck. Methinks Yah was poking fun at Sha’uwl’s 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 our knees and take a stand.

We cannot say that we were not correctly counseled by God. He even told us how to respond to this horrible individual. He wants us to stand up against all forms of corruption: political, religious, military, conspiratorial, 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. Therefore, Yah is trying to rouse his victims before it is too late.

“Indeed, because (ky) you (‘atah – as a single individual) have plundered and impoverished, victimizing (shalal – you have looted and wronged, seizing and preying upon) 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 seize, harass, and diminish you (shalal ‘atah – appropriate, impoverish, and victimize this singular individual being addressed).

For all (kol) of the remaining (yether – of the remnant of, including the residue of the wealth of) people (‘am – populations, nations, or families), as a result of (min – from and because of) the blood (dam) of humankind (‘adam – mankind), and also (wa) the violent and cruel destructive forces terrorizing (chamas – the immoral maiming and murdering which oppresses) the Land (‘erets – the Promised Land, singular, and thus Yisra’el), Yah’s 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), and all (wa kol) who dwell in her (yashab ba hy’ – who inhabit and live in her (Yaruwshalaim)), (Chabaquwq 2:8), this is a warning (howy – woe) to one who coveted ill-gotten gains and would do anything to take advantage, but now, as an extension of the dead, is cut off and finished soliciting (batsa’ batsa’ – to one who was manipulative and divisive, unjust and dishonest, greedy and deadly) evil (ra’ – that which is harmful and immoral, maligning and malignant, improper and injurious) to approach his house and temple (la beyth huw’ – concerning the establishment of his familial covenant).

He sets it on high (la sym ba ha marowm – he places and appoints it in the heights of heaven, exalting its lofty position) to spare (la natsal – for delivering and saving the plunder associated with) his elevated abode (qan huw’ – his nest) from the paws (kaph – hands and palms, the reach and control) of corrupt coconspirators and perverted associates (ra’ – of the evil residing in close proximity).” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:9)

Yahowah is affirming that Sha’uwl | Paul will be held accountable for the abuse he has perpetrated against his victims. The gentiles who have elevated him to the patron saint of their religion will turn on him in the end – especially when they come to realize he impoverished them by leading them away from God. This may be nothing more than Christians disavowing their New Testament upon Yahowah’s return as they realize Paul plundered them of their souls. Or, perhaps Yahowah will spare the souls of Sha’uwl’s victims long enough to allow them to witness his trial. Either way, it will be a long way down.

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 God’s Chosen People that boiled over seventy years later with the destruction of Yisra’el and Yaruwshalaim by the Empire’s 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, Yisra’el was salted, and those not murdered by Rome were hauled off into slavery.

But the carnage is not over. There will be a final assault against the Promised Land and Yah’s city, Yaruwshalaim. Christians, backing and arming Muslims, and then Communists, will seek to destroy Jerusalem and decimate Jews in the waning hours of the Time of Ya’aqob’s Troubles. There will be “chamas – violent cruelty and terrorism.”

We have read how Paul pretended to be whatever was deemed expeditious to gain an advantage over others. Such is the implication of “batsa’ batsa’ – taking advantage of others in the process of soliciting ill-gotten gains.”

As a result, Sha’uwl will be “cut off” which, according to Yahowah, means to be severed from the Covenant. In death, he will still have his own familial edifice, but its considerable wealth won’t do him much good in She’owl. I don’t suspect a billion dollars will buy a cold beverage or pack of smokes.

One of the problems of instituting a cult following, and of inspiring them to plunder others on one’s behalf, is that, in the end, the hired help is neither reputable nor trustworthy. Swords swing both ways and thieves are prone to steal from the most convenient source. Sha’uwl’s feeble attempts to keep the grubby paws of his “ra’ – corrupt coconspirators and perverted associates” at bay will ultimately fail.

Oblivious to their rendezvous with destiny, 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 stolen plunder, they have positioned themselves as having sole possession of the keys to heaven. It is interesting, however, that recently they have had to return billions of dollars to the families of children their priests have molested, priests following the Pauline mandate not to marry – bankrupting archdioceses.

Yahowah’s next line is a succinct, unambiguous, and damning summation of Galatians and the consequence of Pauline Christianity. God’s 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 (ya’ats bosheth – you (masculine singular) after consultation, 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; bosheth – shameful, lowly, and confusing is from bashan – the serpent, associating this adversarial scheme with Satan, with whom Sha’uwl admittedly consulted) those who approach your house (la beyth ‘atah – those who enter and are associated with your household and your covenant construct), ruining and reducing by cutting off (qatsah – severely injuring, maiming, decreasing, and destroying by scraping away and ending the existence of) many (rab – a multitude of) people (‘am).

And in the process (wa), you have forfeited (chata’ – you bear the loss by impugning guilt through missing the way, surrendering) your soul (nepesh).” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:10)

This provides yet another answer to the question I am often asked: did Paul deliberately perpetrate this fraud or was he misled. It also affirms the now obvious connection between Sha’uwl 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 Sha’uwl’s “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 Yahowah’s Covenant, the Covenant Sha’uwl condemned in Galatians, is to die with one’s soul ceasing to exist. Therefore, while the soul of the perpetrator of this crime will be lost forever in She’owl, the souls of his victims are reduced to nothing, their lives squandered as a result of Sha’uwl’s shameful scheme.

Since God has a lot more to say about Sha’uwl, while I would like to move on to other tests and prophetic statements, let’s linger here a while longer and see if Yah has anything more to add which 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,” which is to Dowd, the cornerstone, and to the disciple Yahowsha’ prepared, established, and named to publicly question and confront Sha’uwl.

“Indeed (ky – surely and truly), the Cornerstone and Rock (‘eben), as part of the structure of the home (qyr – as the walls and ceiling which provide protection for a family), will issue a proclamation (za’aq – will issue a summons for an assembly meeting and will cry out (qal imperfect)).

And (wa) that which makes a connection (kaphys – the rafter and the beam comprising the finished structure of a home) from (min) the timber (‘ets – the carpenter’s work, the tree, and gallows, the wooden plank), he will answer and respond (‘anah huw’ – making a public declaration, providing a contextual reply (qal imperfect)).” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:11)

Dowd, the Cornerstone of the Covenant, issued many a proclamation against Sha’uwl in his Mizmowr | Psalms. And Shim’own Kephas, the man Yahowsha’ personally named the Rock, “summoned” Sha’uwl to Yaruwshalaim and issued a “proclamation” against him.

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 Passover’s doorway. And that is why Yahowah uses “‘anah – to answer and respond” in this context. It is the operative word of the Miqra’ey, 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 establishes (banah – the one who builds a family and constructs (qal participle)) a terrorist shrine, an anguishing place of incitement (‘iyr – a haunt for asses, and a temple complex in a city which is exposed and where violence is incited; ‘uwr – to provoke, inflame, goad, and stir up by blinding and rendering the chaff exposed while laying the skin bare in a popular place (may be serving as a metaphor for Roman Catholicism’s Vatican City)) in blood (ba dam – through death; from damam – to destroy by making deaf and dumb).

And he conceives and forms (wa kuwn – he proposes, prepares, establishes, and supports (the polel stem reveals that the subject suffers the effect of the verb’s action and the perfect conjugation indicates that the process was completed in a finite amount of time)) a populated institution promoting (qiryah – a place to meet; from qarah and qary’ah – to encounter and meet, a building and its furnishings as part of an institution where people congregate for preaching) that which is unrighteous and incorrect, invalid and harmful (ba ‘awlah – in wickedness with evil intent, unjustly damaging others through perversity).” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:12)

Here, banah is being deployed to warn readers against participating in Sha’uwl’s “banah – construct,” whereby he “established” his covenant family on faith. But his construct was anything but benign. From the perspective of the millions of Jews who were robbed and raped, maligned and murdered by the institutions Paul conceived, his was an “‘iyr – an anguishing place where terror was incited.” A river of “dam – blood” would flow out of Sha’uwl’s caustic epistles.

The institutions conceived by the Devil’s Advocate were the epitome of “‘awlah – all that is wickedly invalid, perversely incapacitating, and universally unrighteous.”

This known, 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 Yahowah’s 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 problem of religion, “blinding believers such that they are unable to perceive the failures of their faith even when clearly exposed.” This root reveals how Christians have been “incited to perpetrate terrorist acts” upon Jews, “anguishing them.”

Also, in that qiryah is a derivative of qarah and related to qary’ah, in this word’s history we “encounter the foundation and furnishings of a popular institution where many people congregate to listen to preaching.” These are loaded terms with Pauline implications.

Blood is of the flesh. A miniscule amount is shed during circumcision but gushed out in great abundance when Paulos’ Romans, and then Roman Catholics, sought to annihilate those who were different. And make no mistake, it was Paul’s violent and condemning tone, his anti-Semitism and Replacement Theology which incited these villains.

Sha’uwl’s testimony is “‘awlah – invalid and harmful, perverse and damaging, unjust and evil,” leading to “unrighteousness.” And while that was Paul’s intent, it is Yahowah’s to “howy – warn us” about him.

There is a much better choice...

“Why not pay attention (ha lo’ hineh – why not look up and consider this) as part of an association with (min ‘eth – by means of approaching and in accompaniment with) Yahowah ( – a transliteration of YaHoWaH as instructed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence) of the spiritual implements (tsaba’ – of the vast array of heavenly envoys who serve as effective and compliant tools)?

But instead (wa), the people (‘am – the family) expend their energy and grow weary (yaga’ – they toil and labor, growing tired for lack of rest (qal imperfect)) amidst a profuse conglomeration (ba day – amongst a great excess and abundance) of worthlessness, trifling with a dangerous flame (‘esh – of that which is combustible and consuming and has no value).

So, the people, united by a single individual in an antiquated system (wa la’om – the peoples who congregate under a common cause), exhaust and then destroy themselves, falling (ya’eph – are worn out, fatigued and weakened, and fall) into excessive emptiness and extravagant delusions (ba day ryq – into endless fantasies and an overabundance of vain misrepresentations).” (Chabaquwq 2:13)

I appreciate Chabaquwq. After witnessing Sha’uwl’s blasphemy and resulting carnage, he interrupts the flow of his nauseating presentation of human malfeasance with a simple question: “Why not pay attention to Yahowah and build a relationship?”

Here, ‘am can mean “people, family, or nation,” although it typically speaks of Yisra’el. Therefore, due to the rules Paul has imposed on Christians, and those rabbis have sanctioned against Jews in their Talmud, the people toil for nothing.

La’om addresses “large populations which gather or congregate together under an antiquated system following a religious or political leader.” It is often used in conjunction with Rome. This addresses the origins of Pauline Christianity, where Babylonian myths were interwoven beside misappropriate citations from the Towrah and Prophets to create the illusion that his delusions were credible. But no matter how fervently one believes in fantasies, it is all for naught.

As an interesting aside, ‘esh, the word translated “dangerous flame,” also speaks of “lightning,” addressing the “flashing light” Sha’uwl 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 – 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 where the subject is fulfilled and the imperfect conjugation addresses ongoing effects of edifying)) the land (ha ‘erets – realm, region, and world) to approach, to actually know, to become genuinely familiar with, and understand (la yada’ ‘eth – to move toward, discover, and acknowledge, coming to understand and appreciate becoming friends in association with (qal infinitive)) Yahowah’s (Yahowah – written as directed by His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence) manifestation of power, glorious presence, and abundant value (kabowd – splendor, honor, respect, status, and reward).

This should be similar to (ka) the waters (maym – the various forms of water, including ice, snow, liquid, humidity, clouds, and steam) providing a covering (kasah – spread over and adorning (piel imperfect)) upon the sea (‘al yam – upon a lake).” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:14)

Water is inseparable from the sea. They are one and the same. This is how our relationship with Yahowah ought to be. Our knowledge of Him should transform our lives so that we reflect His nature, approach, attitude, and light.

They are my favorite words – Yada’ Yahowah – but you probably knew that already after twenty years of radio programs and writing under this name. I want everyone who is interested to Yada’ Yahowah | Know and Understand Yahowah. So does Chabaquwq.

“She” refers to the maternal manifestation of God’s light, 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 the Miqra’ey, She enriches and empowers the Covenant’s 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 Paul’s spirit weakens and destroys while Yah’s Spirit enlightens and edifies. Paul’s spirit poisons while Yah’s Spirit heals. And that is because Yahowah’s promises are all fulfilled by His Spirit while Sha’uwl’s promises are all in vain, as worthless as the spirit which possessed him.

“‘Erets – land” and “kasah – to cover” are initially brought together in the story of the flood, where Yahowah washes away the 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 “kasah – covering” in the sense of the Garment of Light adorning the Covenant’s 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 Sha’uwl 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 Volume One of Questioning Paul. It not only warns us about Sha’uwl’s profuse venom and his perverted sexuality, it addresses Paulos’ “little and lowly reputation” in addition to his animosity toward circumcision. So, from Sha’uwl 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 man’s tragic legacy.

This is our third woe, and woes are never good. This time, however, Paul’s sexual deviance is particularly appalling. The Plague of Death condemned homosexuality, but was himself a homosexual. And while a person’s sexual orientation is irrelevant, even to God (both contrived condemnations of homosexuality are mistranslated), Paul was intoxicating and drugging his victims.

Paul’s sexual orientation became immediately apparent, even obvious when, after railing against circumcision in Yaruwshalaim, on the way out of town (in Acts 16:1-3) he personally circumcised Timothy – his future life partner and likely his lover. It was a stunning admission and insanely hypocritical. But what I did not know, at least initially, is that Yahowah affirmed what I had perceived, not to out Paul for being a homosexual but, instead, to reveal the fact that the father of Christianity was a sexual predator, pervert, drunkard, and manipulative hypocrite.

In the midst of Yahowah’s scathing reprimand of Sha’uwl | Paul, this gets very personal for Chabaquwq. He goes from condemning the Devil’s Advocate in third person, “he,” to second person, “you,” as if judging Sha’uwl directly.

“Woe to (howy – a strong warning to) the one who is responsible and then who partakes, pouring out for (shaqah – the one who appoints and then associates with (hifil participle – in an explicit and demonstrable manner he causes his victims to be like him)) his corrupt companions and evil countryman (ra’ huw’ – his wicked coconspirators and inept associates) that which causes them to join together and be exposed to (saphach – he encourages them to share in (piel participle – the object suffers the effect in dramatic fashion)) your debilitating poison, intense passions, antagonizing venom, and serpentine toxin (chemah ‘atah – your poisonous and injurious rage, indignation, and debilitating rancor, while being all worked up emotionally with your life in turmoil).

And much more than this (wa ‘aph), becoming drunk and then intoxicating others to the point of incapacitation (shakar – being under the influence while causing others to drink such that they become weakened and giddy such that their judgment is impaired) for the express purpose of (la ma’an – for no other reason than) gazing upon while demonstrating a preference for (nabat ‘al – to look at and consider, showing a favorable regard for (hifil infinitive – he is trying to convert his victims such that they share his highly demonstrative affinity for)) their genitals (ma’aowr hem – their male genitalia, the private parts of a man’s or boy’s body, specifically being naked and exposed either publicly to shame and embarrass or privately for sexual activity; from mah – to question and ‘uwr – being exposed, bared, and made to be naked).” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:15)

The realization that God called Sha’uwl | Paul a homosexual, a drunkard and drug dealer, a sexual pervert and predator, will likely make Christians apoplectic. And while four of these five behaviors are decidedly bad, it’s Paul’s duplicitous and manipulative hypocrisy, his lack of character and morals, his inability to show empathy for others, that is the bigger issue.

In this way, Paul reminds us of Muhammad, another self-admitted victim of demon possession, who said one thing and did another. They are the two least qualified and most inappropriate individuals to be considered spokesmen for God. Their perverted and immoral messages were as twisted and corrupted as the men who issued them and claimed them to be Divine.

Anyone who deliberately intoxicates others, incapacitating them to have sex with them, is scum. And while such despicable behavior is individually criminal, the problem with Sha’uwl | Paul is infinitely more egregious. He not only convinced billions to denounce and disregard the Towrah | Guidance of Yahowah, he turned Gentiles against Jews, fanning the flames of anti-Semitism.

Calling Sha’uwl | Paul the deadliest and most damning, deceitful and despicable man who ever lived is appropriate since God holds the same view…

“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, insults befitting such a lowly individual (qalown – dishonor and disgrace, scorn and contempt, along with a humbling, degraded and discredited reputation), instead of (min) honor and glory (kabowd – the manifestation of the power and presence of God which rewards and empowers).

You choose to be inebriated yourself in addition to intoxicating others (shathah gam ‘atah – you decide to consume and experience large quantities of alcohol yourself and to become a drunkard while also inebriating others (qal imperative – of your own freewill, actually desiring intoxication)), and then (wa) you want them to be unacceptable because of your choice to not become circumcised (‘arel – you choose to expose them, making them unacceptable and unredeemable by remaining uncircumcised for religious reasons (nifal imperative – the subject of the verb both carries out and suffers from the action based upon his choices and desires)), encompassing them from all angles with circular reasoning (sabab – going round about in circles, on and on, ad infinitum, with this alternative direction (qal imperfect – literally with ongoing implications)).

Upon you is (‘al ‘atah – before you is) the binding cup (kows) of Yahowah’s (Yahowah – a transliteration of , our ‘elowah – God as directed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence) right hand (yamyn – serving as a metaphor for judgment and as a reference to yamyny – being a Benyamynite | Benjamite).

Therefore (wa), public humiliation and an ignominious reputation as a result of being dishonorable and disgraceful (qyqalown – insults befitting a lowly and little individual of degraded status who is sleazy, disreputable, and contemptible; from qalown – being scorned and humbled with a discredited reputation) will be your reward (‘al kabowd ‘atah – 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)

Should whiney Christian con artists and moneygrubbers like Jimmy Swaggart, who tossed the first edition on Questioning Paul aside, claim as he did, that this book should be rejected because it besmirches Paul’s reputation, they would be wise to consider God’s assessment first. It is only fair. But then again, Jimmy may be too busy with prostitutes to pay attention long enough to appreciate its relevance.

Paul sought notoriety and has earned infamy. He sought honor but has been deemed contemptible. He promoted grace and will be disgraced.

Pauline Doctrine is an intoxicating poison, venom from the vilest of serpents. But more indicting still, Sha’uwl, 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, Sha’uwl so craved recognition and status, he heaped it upon himself.

However, God is saying that Sha’uwl’s 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 God’s exclusive apostle to the Gentiles has become the man of infamy: “Paulos – Little and Lowly.”

I dare say, in the whole of Yahowah’s prophetic testimony, no prediction is as dire as this one. But that is because no one ever did what Paul has done. Such a rebuke was not required of anyone else.

Yahowah has provided His evaluation of Paul and His assessment of his followers. In this light, the only way to view the predominant author and inspiration behind the Christian New Testament and resulting 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 provide some encouragement in the midst of this overwhelming condemnation of Sha’uwl and his demonic associate, Yahowah reaffirms His promise...

“Indeed and by contrast (ky – this is reassuring because), He will constantly keep you covered and continually protected (kasah ‘atah – He will always provide a covering by which He adorns you, clothing and forgiving you (the piel imperfect jussive energic nun affirms that we, as those being clothed, receive continuous and enthusiastic protection by choice)) from this grievous injustice and blatant wrongdoing in opposition to (chamas – this unrighteous and unrestrained campaign of error and of towrahlessness in destructive conflict with) that which purifies, empowers, and enriches (labanown – that which cleanses and whitewashes, becoming morally pure and white as snow, typically transliterated Lebanon, but from laban – purifying, cleansing, and whitening” and ‘own – being substantially empowered, growing vigorously, while becoming enormously enriched).

And as for (wa) the destructive and demonic influence of the Devil seeking to be worshiped as God (shed / shod – Satan’s devastating and ruinous, plundering and oppressive) beasts (bahemah), He will shatter and separate them (chathath hem – He will astound them, causing them to wane as they experience something truly dreadful) because of (min – as a result of) the blood (dam – death) of humankind (‘adam), and also (wa) this grievous injustice against and blatant wrongdoing in opposition to (chamas – this unrighteous and unrestrained campaign of error and towrahlessness in destructive conflict with) the Land (‘erets – realm, region, or earth), the city (qiryah – to encounter, meet and be present with Yah), 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)

Some four decades ago when I was a Christian, I recall speculating on what Paul meant when he spoke of the “thorn in my side.” As a consequence of my faith at the time, I was oblivious to the fact that Paul 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 would have been this frank with us. And yet right here God said that the most hideously destructive man in human history perpetrated his great crime against humanity in association with a demonic spirit seeking to be worshiped as God.

While Paul and Satan have had their run, and their way with humankind, their dominion is about to implode. Babylon and the Beast will soon be shattered. Their power will wane and they will be separated unto She’owl. And when that happens, when the unrighteous campaign against the Towrah is snuffed out, those who remain under God’s 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 Yahowah’s Invitations to be Called Out and Meet. 4) And we will have arrived at this place and time because we devoted the energy to observe His Torah and Prophets.

The rewards are priceless, but they do not come without a significant investment. This verse is a classic example. Chamas could have been superficially defined as “violence against” instead of “this grievous injustice 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 chamas communicates: “injustice and wrongdoing in opposition” to God and His Towrah. To be chamas is “to oppress and to be unrighteous, to be an unethical and false witness against the standard.”

Labanown could have been transliterated “Lebanon” instead of being defined by its component parts. And as we now know, laban means: “purifying, cleansing, and whitening.” And ‘own speaks of “being substantially empowered and 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.

Kasah 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 kasah 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 demonic spirit seeking to be worshiped as God.” But by choosing the former, we would have to ignore the fact that, prior to the Masoretic diacritical marks, the Hebrew word written Shin Dalet was equally comfortable being rendered “demon and devil” or “destructive.” And since there is no valid justification for selecting “demonic” over “destructive,” it is incumbent upon us to search Yahowah word for other uses of shed. As I have mentioned previously, both times it appears in the Towrah and Psalms it depicts Satan using religion to elicit worship. Therefore, when trying to communicate the whole truth, the only responsible and sensible approach is to include both definitions, prioritizing the one which God has previously defined.

Bahemah, rendered “beasts,” draws our attention to the prophecy in Daniel. Therein, the Beast evolves from Babylon to Persia to Greece, and then to Rome where it becomes the Roman Catholic Church.

Also, chathath could have been translated “He will frighten and dismay them” instead of “He will shatter and separate 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, in addition to his religious, political, economic and militaristic system known as the Whore of Babylon, why not render the word accordingly?

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 evaluate each term 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.

As we turn to the conclusion of Chabaquwq 2:17, keep in mind that during the all-Islamic war, Satan’s little helpers, motivated by their religion, will annihilate more than half of the world’s 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 Yisra’elite population. Before they are shattered and separated, there will be 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 Yisra’el and the “qiryah – city” is Yah’s City, Yaruwshalaim. It is the place where we “encounter and meet with Yah.”

Yahowah’s next insight is breathtaking. God correctly assessed the essence of Paul’s replacement theology. Sha’uwl did not only replace the disciples with himself, the Towrah with “but I say,” Yisra’el with Gowym, he replaced Yahowah with himself. The reason God is misrepresented and misquoted, and that Yahowsha’ is never cited saying anything, is that Paul speaks for his god. The gods themselves are silent because Paul is the only one allowed to communicate for them. And to succeed with this illusion, Sha’uwl had to create a caricature of Yahowsha’, modeling his Iesou Christo after Dionysus.

“How does he succeed with a caricature (mah ya’al pesel – why does he benefit with a false representation of God, what is the value of a religious deity, and how can one profit with a created image (hifil perfect))?

Indeed (ky), he will construct him (pasal huw’ – he will shape it), fashioning him (yatsar huw’ – he will devise, form, and ordain him (qal perfect)) by concealing the association with the representation of the pagan god (masekah – by forming an alliance which covers over and veils the connotation with the false god, hiding and covering up the true identity of the idolatrous image (qal perfect)) and by becoming a teacher of lies (wa yarah sheqer – tossing out deceptive instructions and misleading directions, along with mistaken and useless guidance for no reason or benefit (with the hifil stem the subject, Sha’uwl, is putting the lies which reflect his nature into action while the participle is a verbal adjective, making Paul a deceiver)).

Thereby (ky), he adds credence to and encourages reliance upon (batach – he makes credible and believable, even preferable that which causes believers to stumble and the unsuspecting fall as a result of their penchant and fondness for trusting and depending upon) the one who created the construct of himself (yatsar yetser huw’ – the one who was motivated to devise, plan, prepare, and form such idolatrous thoughts and inclinations regarding himself and his desires by fashioning himself into someone to be venerated and worshiped (qal participle)).

For he, himself, performs to make (‘al huw’ ‘asah – he personally acts and engages to fabricate and profit from) worthless gods who do not speak (‘elyl ‘ilem – references to imagined and ineffectual religious deities to worship who are silent, speechless, mute, and 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 Sha’uwl. First, God is asking us to “mah – question” what Sha’uwl is proposing, knowing that if we are informed and rational, we will reject him.

Second, Sha’uwl created a “pesel – caricature” of Yahowsha’, one which was inconsistent with reality. Paul’s “Iesou” was not only a human “pasal – construct,” he was contrived to “masekah – conceal the association with a pagan god,” in this case, the beloved god of the Greeks, Dionysus. Therefore, his “Christou” was “yatsar – devised” to “masekah – misrepresent the true identity” of the Pauline god. He would even “masekah – cover up the connection with his own ambitions and persona, hiding the fact” that Iesou Christo “represents” Sha’uwl, right down to his character and purpose.

It is so obvious, it’s a wonder Christians are oblivious to this realization. Yahowsha’ no longer exists and there is no Passover Lamb in Paul’s epistles. Instead, we find a false and dying god with a pagan varnish masquerading as Paul’s alter ego.

Third, each time the Pauline “caricature” is presented, we find the third person masculine singular suffix. His false god is, therefore, devised in the image of a man. And there is only one of “him” in the condemning prophecy.

Fourth, since “yarah – teaching, instruction, direction and guidance” is the verb upon which the title, Towrah, is based, we find Sha’uwl promoting his own variation of the Torah, one which is “sheqer – deceptive, misleading, mistaken, and useless.” It’s the combo platter from hell: a false god with a false teacher.

Fifth, the full implications of batach are especially Pauline. It reveals that Paul’s deceptive guidance regarding the caricature he devised “batach – would cause the unsuspecting and naïve to stumble and fall.” They would be beguiled into “batach – believing that they could trust and rely upon” the messenger of god who said he could not lie. Paul actually usurped the infused credibility he gave his false god to convince believers that he was credible.

And this leads us to the combination of yatsar yetser following batach, which is translated “the one who created the construct of himself such that his inclinations would be venerated and worshiped.” 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 God’s statement is saying that Sha’uwl’s false characterization was created to make Sha’uwl appear laudable, worthy of veneration and worship, not Yahowsha’ or Yahowah. His phony construct was devised because Sha’uwl wanted readers to believe him.

And let’s be clear: the way this is worded, Yahowah is accusing Sha’uwl | Paul of creating a god in his image such that the false god and false messenger would be esteemed and deified. And what makes this especially revolting is that there is very little distinction between Sha’uwl and Satan.

This pervades a preferred insight into Paul’s admission that Satan possessed him to control his ego. Satan wanted to be the Christian god and have Sha’uwl serve as his Apostle. However, Sha’uwl wanted to have their roles reversed. Turns out, the Devil and his Advocate didn’t play nicely together because they both wanted full credit and top billing.

Lastly, ‘elyl ‘ilem brilliantly depicts the outcome of this fight for supremacy. Sha’uwl’s father and son gods were both impotent, unable to save, their testimony ranging from irrelevant to irritating. There isn’t a single word accurately conveyed from either of them. This is actually unique, in that even the gods of mythology have speaking roles in their celestial dramas – but not Paul’s. Therefore, one or both of two options is possible: Paul, knowing that his gods were contrived pulled their strings and spoke for them in the fashion of a ventriloquist with a dummy or there was no distinction between Paul and the Lord of Christianity.

Yahowah spoke to us so that we might know that He did not want to be worshiped. The Kurios Iesou Christo was speechless in order to engender worship. It is little wonder Paul told believers to pray without ceasing. They would never be the wiser that their god was speechless.

If you like the idea of a dumb god, what about a dying god, too?

“Woe to the one who says (howy ‘amar – this is a warning to him because he will state) with regard to the Wood (la ha ‘ets – approaching the upright pillar, timber, wooden planks, and tree), ‘Awaken and become alive (quwts – be roused from lifelessness and become alive again after death; from the verbal form which addresses the idea of abruptly starting something after having been asleep). Arise while precluding further observation by providing false testimony (‘uwr – rouse oneself and rise up, choosing to be angry over the malicious misfortune, becoming unknowable in body in skin, blinding the observant so that they are unjustly deprived of an accurate recollection of what was witnessed (qal imperative)),’ silencing the Rock by depriving him of life, thereby muting (‘eben duwmam huw’ – as if the Cornerstone was an inanimate object, muzzling) his desire to guide and teach (yarah – his decision to instruct and direct, showing the way and making it known (hifil imperfect jussive)).

Behold (hineh – pay attention), it (huw’) has been seized and overlaid (taphas – has been grasped hold of and held as an object signifying victory, dealt with and manipulated such that it wields considerable influence when adorned (qal passive – having this actually done to it)) with gold (zahab) and silver, becoming extremely valuable and desirable (wa keseph – gilded in silver so as to be yearned for and desired), but completely devoid of (wa kol ‘ayn) the Spirit (ruwach) in its midst (ba qereb huw’ – associated with it so as to animate its existence).” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:19)

Sha’uwl has repeatedly stated that “the wooden pillar or post,” 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” being “aroused abruptly and then rising” to meet Iesou. This statement is, therefore, an allusion to Paul’s fixation on the wooden cross from which he promotes resurrection from the dead.

With quwts scribed in the hifil stem, imperative mood, and paragogic form, Yahowah is revealing that Sha’uwl will “show his desire to control this wooden construct, commanding it into action, demanding that this symbol perform based upon his inclinations.”

The addition of ‘uwr indicates that Sha’uwl was predicted to go a step further regarding the implied power of this inanimate object to impart bodily resurrection. He is wielding it “‘uwr – to provide false testimony which obscures vision, precluding further observation.” Further, ‘uwr reveals the angst Paul aroused between the cross and Israel, between Iesou and Jews, by “choosing to be angry over this malicious misfortune.” It implies that, rather than celebrate his Passover sacrifice, Paul would have “Jesus” become hateful of Jews for having allegedly put him through the ordeal of crucifixion, killing him.

In addition, ‘uwr addresses Paul’s “desire to obscure” his alleged “bodily resurrection in the flesh and with skin, blinding the observant so that they are unjustly deprived of an accurate recollection or understanding of what transpired.”

This excoriating exposé continues with the desire to “duwmam – silence” the “‘eben huw’ yarah – the Rock whose will is to teach and instruct.” The testimony regarding the life of Dowd, representing the Cornerstone, and Shim’own Kephas, as the Rock, are thereby muzzled.

Sha’uwl | Paul was the first to seize upon and wield the “cross” as if it were something valuable and desirable. An inanimate object – indeed a Roman torture device – was afforded life-saving properties by this moron. Passover was swept aside, vanishing as the Doorway to Life and of Heaven. The symbol of Paul’s Faith – the religion of Christianity – would be that of a Dead God on a Stick – lifeless, Spiritless, silent, and deadly.

If there was ever a time to see Dowd | David, Yahowah’s Lyricist, Prophet, Shepherd, Son, Messiah, and King as the Cornerstone of the Covenant of which Chabaquwq is addressing, it is now. He was the lone eyewitness to what occurred on Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym in year 4000 Yah (33 CE), and he described what transpired in the 22nd and 88th Mizmowr | Psalms. It is why Sha’uwl | Paul sought to silence Dowd | David.

We will not let that occur. Volume 4 of Questioning Paul will feature Dowd’s role in exposing and condemning Sha’uwl and his religion. God would slay more than just an uncircumcised giant with the stone Dowd wielded.

If I may add my two shekels worth at this juncture. I am grateful to Yahowah for His commitment to keep us out of harm’s way by keeping us properly informed. With this prophecy, there was never any excuse for Christianity. God negated the credibility of the faith, its creator, his spirit, their rhetoric, and their cross 666 years before the religion was thrust upon the world.

“All the while (wa) Yahowah ( – a transliteration of YaHoWaH as instructed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence) is in His Set-Apart (ba qodesh huw’) Temple, His brilliant and illuminating Source of Light (heykal – His capable and empowering residence; from yakol – enabling and prevailing, overcoming and enduring, powerful and everlasting): Be silent and stop speaking (has – hush, hold your tongue, and be quiet, ceasing this troubling talk) before His presence and appearance (min paneh huw’ – before 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. And yet sadly, every time a Christian opens his “New Testament” to one of Paul’s revolting 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. He is not impotent as Sha’uwl has cast him.

Moreover, the word following “heykal – brilliant, prevailing, enduring, capable, empowering, and enlightening” in most every Hebrew lexicon and dictionary is Heylel, which is Satan’s God-given name. The Adversary’s moniker means “Bears Light,” confirming that as a spiritual messenger he would appear to glow – just as Paul saw him on the road to Damascus. 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...

“This is a request for intervention (taphilah – this is an earnest plea and petition for justice; from palal – to intervene) regarding erring and going astray (‘al shigayown – concerning the consequence of ignorance regarding the story about the one who intoxicates the foolish and leads them away, including the significance of being mistaken as a lament or dirge; from shagah – to go astray, to err, to mislead and inebriate by way of ignorance and own – that which pertains to the preceding) by (la – concerning) Chabaquwq | Embrace This (Chabaquwq – grasp hold of this), the prophet (ha naby’ – the one who speaks for God regarding the past, present, or future). (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 3:1)

‘Yahowah (YaHoWaH – an accurate presentation of the name of ‘elowah – God as guided by His towrah – instructions regarding His hayah – existence), I have actually listened to the entirety of (shama’ – I have literally heard during this finite period of time (qal perfect)) Your announced message (shema’ ‘atah – the testimony You have reported to be recited and thus heard).

I respect and revere (yare’ – I am in awe and inspired by) Your work (po’al ‘atah – what You have done and the energy You have expended to accomplish so much), Yahowah (Yahowah – a transliteration of , our ‘elowah – God as directed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), throughout the years (ba qereb shanahym), choosing to renew and restore life (chayah huw’ – with the desire to nurture and preserve life, causing life to flourish and grow (piel imperative)) in the midst of those years (ba qereb shanahym).

Your love, mercy, and compassion (racham –Your affection, desire for an endearing relationship, and genuine concern and devotion (qal imperfect)) You make known (yada’ – You reveal and acknowledge (hifil imperfect)) so that it is remembered (zakar – it is recalled, recognized, and invoked (qal imperfect)) in turmoil (ba rogez – in time of hardship and trouble, of anxiety and agitation (qal imperfect)). (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 3:2)

Prophets are people, unique only in their special relationship with Yahowah. Knowing God, they have the utmost respect for Him. Therefore, they are exceptionally perturbed when the God they love is disrespected. They want the perpetrators held accountable and their victims to know the truth. And that is precisely what is occurring here with Chabaquwq petitioning Yahowah for justice. Having listened to Yahowah, he is concerned that so many have been intoxicated and led astray by Paul and his religion.

From beginning to end, Yahowah has been merciful, doing what was needed to restore and renew our lives. Yahowah worked six days to create the universe and conceive life and then He celebrated the result on the seventh. These six plus one days represent the six-thousand-year history of mankind from the Garden and back to it, followed by a one-thousand-year celebration of Sukah. 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 Miqra’ey: Pesach, Matsah, Bikuwrym, and Shabuw’ah. Noting that His work began in 0 Yah and concludes in 6000 Yah, 2000 Yah and 4000 Yah are the middle years.

One of the reasons the Covenant’s children exhibit such supreme confidence is that we know well in advance of entering troubled waters that Yahowah will place the wind at our back and help us chart a course to safety. Those who wait until they are in the midst of the storm to seek help surviving it are typically too distracted and agitated to find the help they need in the Towrah.

A clear and comprehensive, consistent and cohesive, explanation of what Yahowah is offering and expecting in return has been available to us for the better part of 3500 years. Man’s reluctance to capitalize upon His mercy by observing His guidance is inexcusable and befuddling.

“God (‘elowah) came (bow’ – arrived and returned, entering the scene (qal imperfect)) from (min) the south (tyaman), and (wa) the Set-Apart One (qodesh) from (min) Mount (har) Pa’ran (Pa’ran – where one is glorified (from pa’ar); denoting the route of the Exodus and the mountain upon which the Towrah was revealed). Pause a moment to weigh the uplifting implications (selah).

He adorns (kasah – He covers) the spiritual realm (shamaym – the heavens) in His splendor and glory (howd huw’ – with His majestic countenance and vigorous vitality, efficacy and authority).

So (wa) with His love and renown (tahilah huw’ – with His shining brilliance and commendable nature, even manifestation of awe-inspiring power), She fills up and completely satisfies (male’ – She abundantly furnishes and completes (qal perfect)) the Land (‘erets – the material realm).” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 3:3)

Mount Choreb, also known as Sinai and Paran, is due south of Yaruwshalaim specifically and Yisra’el generally. It is the place where the Chosen People met with God and received His Guidance and Teaching. It is where those who seek Him go to find Him. It is a very long way from Damascus, so far, in fact, that the road to Damascus leads in the wrong direction, and thus away from God.

The Land the Set-Apart Spirit of Yahowah abundantly furnishes and fulfills, satisfies, is Yisra’el. It is not Greece nor Rome, neither Europe nor America.

It is also interesting to note, that Pa’ran, which is south of Yisra’el, 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 30 miles inland from the eastern shore.

Yahowah’s Towrah, like the Set-Apart Spirit, is feminine, necessitating the pronoun: “She.” It is in this way that Yahowah’s Spirit supplies God’s love, reveals His glory, adorns us in a Garment of Light, fills our needs, and completely satisfies. It is through the Towrah that we walk away from men like Paul so that we can meet with God.

The Set-Apart Spirit in conjunction with the Towrah serves to enlighten us...

“And also (wa) knowledge and enlightenment (nagah – brilliance and radiance) consistent with (ka) the Light (ha ‘owr) exists as (hayah – She was, is, and always will be (qal imperfect)) dazzling and vivid shining rays of illumination (qeren – the power, authority, and strength symbolized by the ram’s horn, being reinforced and strengthened, a signaling showphar, or trumpet, conveying brilliant illumination from a supernatural source on the summit of the mount) coming forth from His hand (min yad huw’) to approach Him (la huw’).

And here, at this place, namely (wa shem), His fortification and might (‘oz huw’ – His power and dependable nature, and His empowering, unchanging, and necessary) lovingly covers and withdraws (chebyown – envelops the cherished while protecting the adored; 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)

It is all ours for the asking: knowledge and enlightenment, the brilliance of Yahowah’s Light, His power and authority, being reinforced and strengthened, enveloped in love, cherished and adored, all while being out of harm’s way. It is a lot to give up just to believe Paul.

This has been an amazing and enlightening voyage through Yahowah’s prophetic witness. God answered every important question we should have been asking about Sha’uwl. His perspective on Paul matters – and His verdict is conclusive, irrefutable, and damning.

This summation of Yahowah’s public rebuke of Sha’uwl | Paul is among the most important prophecies ever recorded. God said…

“Upon (‘al) My requirements and responsibilities and what I observe, My mission which functionally serves as a safeguard to watch over, protect, and preserve the observant (mishmereth ‘any), I have decided of My own volition that I will literally and continually stand (‘amad).

And (wa) I will choose to always stand firm and prominently present Myself, consistently serving by providing assistance (yatsab) upon (‘al) that which strengthens, protects, and fortifies, preventing a successful attack by the adversary (matsowr).

Therefore (wa), I will be on the lookout and on guard (tsapah) in order to see (la ra’ah) what he will say about Me (mah dabar ba ‘any).

So then (wa) how can I be expected to change My attitude, thinking, or response (mah shuwb) concerning (‘al) My disapproving rebuke including rational arguments in response and subsequent chastisement and punishment (towkechath ‘any). (Chabaquwq / Habakkuk 2:1)

Then (wa) Yahowah (Yahowah) answered me, responding by approaching me and providing additional testimony (‘anah ‘any).

And He said (wa ‘amar), ‘Write down (kathab) this revelation (chazown), and (wa) expound upon it, reiterating it using these alphabetic letters to teach others its significance (ba’ar) upon (‘al) writing tablets, inscribing it on a panel or screen such that it is enduring and memorable (ha luwach) so that (la ma’an) by reading or reciting this, proclaiming it and making it known (qara’ by huw’), he might run and go away (ruwts).’ (Chabaquwq 2:2)

Nonetheless, the subsequent realization of and expectation regarding (‘owd ky) this revelation from God (chazown) is for the Mow’ed | Appointed Meeting Times (la ha mow’ed).

It provides a witness to and speaks, pouring out evidence, censuring the puffery from the blowhard (puwach) in the end, addressing those who are cut off and cast away (la ha qets).

Should it seem slow to develop, the extended period of time required for this question to be resolved (‘im mahah) shall not prove it false (lo’ kazab).

Expect him in this regard (chakah la huw’) because indeed (ky), he will absolutely come (bow’ bow’), neither being delayed nor lingering (lo’ ‘achar). (Chabaquwq 2:3)

Pay attention because (hineh) he will be audacious and oblivious, puffed up with false pride, heedless of the truth and thus arrogant, reckless, and foolhardy, a genuine pain in the butt (‘aphal).

His soul, and thus his attitude, personality, and especially his character (nepesh huw’), is neither right nor straightforward in him because he does not consider anything appropriately, is circuitous in his reasoning, wandering away by twisting and convoluting the teaching, such that nothing is on the level with him (lo’ yashar ba huw’).

As a result, it follows (wa): through trust and reliance, by being firmly established, confirmed and upheld by that which is dependable and steadfast, always truthful and reliable, as well as being honest and truthful (ba ‘emuwnah), he who is correct and thereby vindicated (tsadyq huw’) shall live (chayah). (Chabaquwq 2:4)

Moreover (wa ‘aph), because (ky) the intoxicating and inebriating spirit (yayn) of the mortal man (geber) of deceptive infidelity and treacherous betrayal, this traitor who is untrustworthy, unprincipled, unfaithful, and unreliable (bagad) is an overbearing moral failure of unwarranted self-importance, conceited and aggrandizing himself (yahyr), he will not rest, find peace, nor live, nor will he find appropriate words to achieve his goal of coming home (wa lo’ nawah), whomever is open to the broad path, anyone receptive to the expanded and improper way (‘asher rachab) associated with (ka) Sha’uwl (Sha’uwl).

He (huw’) and (wa) his soul (nepesh huw’) are like (ka) the plague of death, a pandemic disease that kills a large population of people (ha maweth).

And so (wa) those who are gathered in and brought together by him, accepting him (‘asaph ‘el huw’) will never be satisfied (lo’ saba’).

Most every gentile ethnicity (kol ha gowym) he will claim as his own and gather together unto himself (qabats ‘el huw’), all such people will be included among his followers (kol ha ‘am). (Chabaquwq 2:5)

They do not ask questions, any of them, about him (ha lo’ ‘eleh kol hem ‘al). Terse references to the Word they lift up as taunts to ridicule, simplistic and contrived equivalencies, clichés, and adages which become bywords to exercise dominion through comparison and counterfeit (mashal nasa’), along with (wa) allusive sayings and mocking interpretations, derisive words wrapped in enigmas arrogantly spoken (malytsah).

There are hard and perplexing questions which need to be asked of him (chydah la). And (wa) they should say (‘amar), ‘Woe (howy) to the one who claims to be great so as to increase his offspring, acting like a rabbi, to the one who thrives on numbers and who considers himself exceedingly great (rabah),’ neither of which apply to him (lo’ la huw’).

In the meantime, for how long (‘ad mathay) will they make pledges (‘abtyt) based upon his significance, pursuant to the weight and burden of his testimony, and the grievous honor afforded him (kabed ‘al huw’)? (Chabaquwq 2:6)

Since (wa) he loads himself down (ta’an) with (‘eth) thick (‘aphelah) mud (tyt), why not (ha lo’) quickly, even if only for a short period of time (peta’), rise up and take a stand (quwm)?

And (wa) those of you who are smitten and under his influence, perhaps making payments to what he represents (nashak ‘atah), wake up from your stupor (wa yaqats) such that you move away in abhorrence (zuwa’ ‘atah).

Because otherwise (wa) you will be (hayah) considered (la) plunder and be victimized by them (mashisah la hem). (Chabaquwq 2:7)

Indeed, because (ky) you (‘atah) have plundered and impoverished, victimizing (shalal) an enormous number of (rab) Gentiles (gowym), so (wa), they shall seize, harass, and diminish you (shalal ‘atah).

For all (kol) of the remaining (yether) people (‘am), as a result of (min) the blood (dam) of humankind (‘adam), and also (wa) the violent and cruel destructive forces terrorizing (chamas) the Land (‘erets), Yah’s city (qiryah), and all (wa kol) who dwell in her (yashab ba hy’), (2:8), this is a warning (howy – woe) to one who coveted ill-gotten gains and would do anything to take advantage, but now, as an extension of the dead, is cut off and finished soliciting (batsa’ batsa’) evil, that which is improper and injurious (ra’) to approach his house and temple (la beyth huw’).

He sets it on high (la sym ba ha marowm) to spare (la natsal) his elevated abode (qan huw’) from the paws and reach (kaph) of corrupt coconspirators and perverted associates (ra’). (Chabaquwq 2:9)

You have deliberately decided upon and conspired at the advice of another to promote a shameful plot to confuse in association with the Devil (ya’ats bosheth) those who approach your house and covenant construct (la beyth ‘atah), ruining and reducing by cutting off, ending the existence of (qatsah) many (rab) people (‘am).

And in the process (wa), you have forfeited (chata’) your soul (nepesh). (Chabaquwq 2:10)

Indeed (ky), the Cornerstone and Rock (‘eben), as part of the structure of the home (qyr), will issue a proclamation (za’aq).

And (wa) that which makes a connection (kaphys) from (min) the timber (‘ets), he will answer and respond (‘anah huw’). (Chabaquwq 2:11)

Woe to (howy) the one who establishes (banah) a terrorist shrine and anguishing place of incitement (‘iyr) with blood (ba dam).

And he conceives and establishes (wa kuwn) a populated institution promoting (qiryah) that which is unrighteous and incorrect, invalid and harmful (ba ‘awlah). (Chabaquwq 2:12)

Why not pay attention and consider this (ha lo’ hineh) as part of an association with (min ‘eth) Yahowah (YaHoWaH) of the spiritual implements (tsaba’)?

But instead (wa), the people (‘am) expend their energy and grow weary (yaga’) amidst a profuse conglomeration (ba day) of worthlessness, trifling with a dangerous flame – that which is combustible and all-consuming (‘esh).

So the people, united by a single individual in an antiquated system (wa la’om), exhaust and then destroy themselves, falling (ya’eph) into excessive emptiness and extravagant delusions, endless fantasies and an overabundance of misrepresentations (ba day ryq). (Chabaquwq 2:13)

Indeed (ky), She will fulfill, edify, and completely satisfy (male’) the land (ha ‘erets) to approach, to actually know, to become genuinely familiar with, and understand (la yada’ ‘eth) Yahowah’s (Yahowah) manifestation of power, glorious presence, and abundant value (kabowd).

This should be similar to (ka) the waters (maym) providing a covering (kasah) upon the sea (‘al yam). (Chabaquwq 2:14)

Woe, this strong warning regarding (howy) the man who is responsible and then who partakes, pouring out to expressly influence (shaqah) his corrupt companions and evil countryman, his wicked coconspirators and inept associates (ra’ huw’), with that which causes them to join together with him and to be exposed to, suffering the effect of (saphach) your debilitating poison and intense passions, your antagonizing toxins and debilitating rancor, while being all worked up emotionally with your life in turmoil (chemah ‘atah).

And much more than this (wa ‘aph), becoming drunk and then intoxicating others to the point of incapacitation such that their judgment is impaired (shakar) for the express purpose of (la ma’an) gazing upon while demonstrating a preference for (nabat ‘al) their genitals, to publicly embarrass them and to have sex with them (ma’aowr hem). (Chabaquwq 2:15)

You will get your fill of (saba’) shame and infamy, insults befitting such a lowly individual with a discredited reputation (qalown) instead of (min) honor and glory (kabowd).

You choose to be inebriated yourself in addition to intoxicating others, becoming a drunkard by consuming excessive quantities of alcohol while also inebriating others (shathah gam ‘atah).

And then (wa) you want them to be unacceptable, indeed unredeemable, because of your choice to not become circumcised (‘arel) encompassing them from every direction with circular reasoning (sabab).

Upon you is (‘al ‘atah) the binding cup (kows) of Yahowah’s (Yahowah) right hand (yamyn). Therefore (wa), public humiliation and an ignominious reputation as a result of being dishonorable and disgraceful (qyqalown) will be your reward (‘al kabowd ‘atah). (Chabaquwq 2:16)

By contrast (ky), He will constantly keep you covered and continually protected (kasah ‘atah) from this grievous injustice and blatant wrongdoing in opposition to (chamas) that which purifies, empowers, and enriches (labanown).

And as for (wa) the destructive and demonic influence of the Devil seeking to be worshiped as God as satanic (shed / shod) beasts (bahemah), He will shatter and separate them (chathath hem) because of (min) the blood (dam) of humankind (‘adam), and also (wa) this grievous injustice against and blatant wrongdoing in opposition to (chamas) the Land (‘erets), the city to encounter and meet Yah (qiryah), and all (wa kol) of her inhabitants (ba yashab). (Chabaquwq 2:17)

How does he succeed with a caricature? Who benefits from a false representation of God? What is the value of a religious deity (mah ya’al pesel)?

In actuality (ky), he will construct him (pasal huw’), fashioning him (yatsar huw’) by concealing the association with the representation of the pagan god, and by forming an alliance which covers over and veils the connotation with the false god, hiding and covering up the true identity of the idolatrous image (masekah), and by becoming a teacher of lies, tossing out deceptive instructions and misleading directions, along with mistaken and useless guidance for no reason or benefit (wa yarah sheqer).

Thereby (ky), he adds credence to and encourages reliance upon, making more credible and believable that which causes the unsuspecting to stumble as they come to trust and rely upon (batach) the one who created the construct of himself such that his inclinations would be venerated and worshiped (yatsar yetser huw’).

For he, himself, performs to fabricate (‘al huw’ ‘asah) worthless gods who do not speak, imagined and ineffectual religious deities to worship who are silent, speechless, mute, and dumb (‘elyl ‘ilem)! (Chabaquwq 2:18)

Woe to the one who says (howy ‘amar) with regard to the Wood (la ha ‘ets), ‘Awaken and become alive, be roused from death and become alive again (quwts).

Arise while precluding further observation by providing false testimony, choosing to be angry over this malicious misfortune, blinding the observant to what is occurring bodily so that they are unjustly deprived of an accurate recollection or understanding of what transpired (‘uwr),’ silencing the Rock by depriving him of life, thereby muting (‘eben duwmam huw’) his desire to guide and teach (yarah).

Behold (hineh), it (huw’) has been seized and overlaid, manipulated to signify victory and wield considerable influence when gilded (taphas) with gold (zahab) and silver, becoming extremely valuable and desirable (wa keseph), but completely devoid of (wa kol ‘ayn) the Spirit (ruwach) in its midst (ba qereb huw’). (Chabaquwq 2:19)

All the while (wa) Yahowah ( | YaHoWaH) is in His Set-Apart (ba qodesh huw’) Temple, His brilliant and enduring, illuminating Source of Light (heykal). Be silent and stop speaking, ceasing this troubling talk (has) before His presence and appearance (min paneh huw’) all on the earth (kol ha ‘erets). (Chabaquwq 2:20)

This is a request for intervention and an earnest petition for justice (taphilah) regarding erring and going astray and therefore concerning the consequence of ignorance regarding the story about the one who intoxicates the foolish and leads others away, including the significance of being mistaken as a lament (‘al shigayown) by (la) Chabaquwq | Embrace This (Chabaquwq), the prophet (ha naby’). (Chabaquwq 3:1)

‘Yahowah (YaHoWaH), I have actually listened to the entirety of (shama’) Your announced message (shema’ ‘atah). I respect and revere (yare’) Your work (po’al ‘atah), Yahowah (Yahowah), throughout the years (ba qereb shanahym), choosing to renew and restore life (chayah) in the midst of those years (ba qereb shanahym).

Your love, mercy, and compassion (racham) You make known (yada’) so that it is remembered (zakar) in turmoil (ba rogez). (Chabaquwq 3:2)

God (‘elowah) came onto the scene (bow’) from (min) the south (tyaman), and (wa) the Set-Apart One (qodesh) from (min) Mount (har) Pa’ran, denoting the route of the Exodus and the mountain upon which the Towrah was revealed (Pa’ran). Pause a moment to weigh the uplifting implications (selah).

He adorns (kasah) the spiritual realm (shamaym) in His splendor and glory, with His majestic countenance and vigorous vitality, His efficacy and authority (howd huw’).

So (wa) with His love and renown, His shining brilliance and commendable nature, even His manifestation of awe-inspiring power (tahilah huw’), She fills up and completely satisfies (male’) the Land (‘erets). (Chabaquwq 3:3)

And also (wa) knowledge and enlightenment (nagah) consistent with (ka) the Light (ha ‘owr) exists as (hayah) dazzling and vivid shining rays of illumination to reinforce and strengthen (qeren) coming forth from His hand (min yad huw’) to approach Him (la huw’).

And here, at this place, namely (wa shem), His fortification and empowerment (‘oz huw’) lovingly covers and withdraws the cherished, protecting and enriching the adored (chebyown).’” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 3:4)

This is among the most important and little appreciated prophecies ever revealed. How you respond to this information will profoundly change your life.



Questioning Paul

Devil’s Advocate

…Plague of Death

13

Lo’ Shama’ | Do Not Listen

False Prophet…

In the Towrah, and specifically in Dabarym 13, Yahowah tells us that if a self-proclaimed prophet stands up, independently establishing himself, as Paulos has done, he is a false prophet. If he claims to have performed miracles as proof of his calling, as Paul 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 Paul sponsored, he is a false prophet. If he encourages religious worship, which is the legacy of Paul’s letters, he is a false prophet.

If his writings do not affirm our love of Yahowah, the God whose words and plan Paul 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 redemption, 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 to show the way to benefit from the relationship (‘asher – to reveal the path to get the most out of life) 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’ yasaph ‘al – never increasing it (through a New Testament, for example)) and not subtracting from it (wa lo’ gara’ min – reducing or 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)). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 12:32)

Indeed, if (ky) a prophet (naby’ – a person who claims to proclaim the message of a deity to explain the past 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 nathan) a sign (‘owth – an omen via a consent decree (thereby claiming to be authorized to speak for God as Sha’uwl did)) or (‘o) miracle (mowpheth – something which appears marvelous or wonderful, inspiring awe (as Sha’uwl 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).

Indeed, this is because (ky) the test (nasah – the means to learn if something is true) of Yahowah (Yahowah – a transliteration of , our ‘elowah – God as directed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), your God (‘elohym), accordingly (‘eth) is for you to know, understand, appreciate, and acknowledge (la yada’ – to recognize and comprehend) whether this affirms your (ha yesh) love (‘ahab – relationship with and affection) for Yahowah ( – the pronunciation of YaHoWaH as guided by His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), your God (‘elohym), with all (ba kol) your heart (leb – your thinking and judgment) and with all (wa ba kol) your soul (nepesh – conscious awareness, character and persona).

After (‘achar – following) Yahowah (Yahowah – the proper pronunciation of YaHoWaH, our ‘elowah – God as directed in His ToWRaH – teaching regarding His HaYaH – existence and our ShaLoWM – restoration), 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 be genuinely 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)).

Also (wa – in addition), in concert with (‘eth – in association with and concerning) His terms and conditions (mitswah – His directions and prescriptions of His binding covenant contract and His instructions regarding the relationship), you should continually 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 literally listen (shama’ – you should make a habit of continually hearing (qal imperfect)) so that (wa), with Him (‘eth), you can consistently engage and serve (‘abad – always work alongside as a productive associate (qal imperfect)).

And (wa) to Him (ba – with Him), you should 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), a 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 are those listening to him, to participate in the action which is to die)) if by contrast (ky – if by comparison), he has spoken (dabar – that which he has communicated is (scribed in piel stem whereby the object suffers the effect of the action and the perfect conjugation, which addresses the limited scope of the pontificator’s existence)) rebellious renunciations (sara’ – revolting disassociation, turning away and departing, of defection and withdrawal, or of being removed) against (‘al) Yahowah (Yahowah – written as directed by His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), 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 Oppression Egypt (mitsraym – of human religious, political, economic, and military control and subjugation) 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 leads to the relationship (‘asher – which fortuitously reveals the proper, narrow, and restrictive path to) Yahowah ( – the pronunciation of YaHoWaH as guided by His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), 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 these existing directions are totally complete)) for you to walk in (la halak ba).

And so (wa) you should choose to remove (ba’ar – as an expression of freewill, you can purge that which should no longer exist (scribed in the piel stem, perfect conjugation, and consecutive mood telling us that all things displeasing to Yahowah are to be removed from us when we choose to follow His Towrah directions, including)) that which is disagreeable, displeasing, and incorrect (ha ra’ – that which is wrong and thus wicked, no good and therefore 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 13:1-5)

The intent of Galatians was not just to subtract from God’s advice on how to participate in His Covenant, or regarding the importance of its sign, circumcision, it was also to negate the purpose of the Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God. Paul strove to counteract and vilify the Towrah’s entire purpose – diminishing its status to the point that it would be considered a liability rather than an asset.

Paul’s condescending and antagonistic dismissal of Yahowah’s Towrah | Teaching and its Beryth | Covenant would not 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.

Yahowah says that no one has been or will be authorized to add to or subtract from His Towrah. Therefore, if we witness the Towrah’s role in our lives being diminished, or if we find a writer adding something new, like a New Testament, be careful because such a person is not 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. Paul’s letters are the antithesis of Yahowah’s Towrah, and for that reason alone it would be wholly ignorant and irrational to believe him.

God revealed that the best way to know who is not speaking for Him is to be observant, distinguishing between His testimony and that of the self-proclaimed prophet. If they differ, when they differ, the man is a liar. Therefore, knowing and understanding God’s Towrah comes first. Then, compare what Yahowah said to what the prophet is claiming. If the Towrah is devalued, condemn the false prophet and encourage others to disassociate themselves from him.

Simultaneously, act upon God’s guidance. If you have not already done so, contemplate the benefits of the Covenant and then engage based upon the terms God stipulated.

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 are God’s secondary means to determine the veracity of a witness...

“Surely (‘ak – indeed, emphasizing the point, and to establish a contrast), the person who proclaims a message on behalf of a deity (naby’ – a prophet) who (‘asher – relationally) oversteps their bounds and speaks arrogantly, presumptuously, defiantly, and contemptuously (zyd – has an inflated sense of self-worth, demonstrating self-reliance while taking liberties to defy, who conceitedly 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 and rude while insolently promoting their plans (the hifil 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 verbally or in writing (piel infinitive construct – by design and intent)) a statement (dabar) in (ba) My name (shem ‘any – My proper designation, 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 huw’ – 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 (‘acher – different and additional, even subsequent) gods (‘elohym), indeed, then (wa) that prophet (ha naby’ ha huw’ – 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)

And if you say (wa ky ‘amar) using your best judgment (ba lebab ‘atah – in your heart), ‘How (‘eykah – in what way) can we know (yada ‘eth – will we be able to recognize and understand, to appreciate) the statements (ha dabar – the message) Yahowah (Yahowah – God’s name transliterated as guided by His towrah – instructions on His hayah – existence and His role in our shalowm – reconciliation as ‘elowah – Almighty God) has not spoken (lo’ dabar huw’ – that is not His Word), (18:21) when a prophet speaks (‘asher dabar ha naby’) in the name, reputation, and designation (ba shem – using the notoriety and status) of Yahowah (YaHoWaH – an accurate presentation of the name of ‘elowah – God as guided by His towrah – instructions regarding His hayah – existence), if the statement (wa ha dabar) did not occur (hayah – did not happen as claimed (qal imperfect – literally and actually from the beginning to the present time and beyond)) or (wa) does not come to be (lo’ bow’ – does not happen (qal imperfect)), his is a message (huw’ ha dabar – his are words) that (‘asher) Yahowah (Yahowah – the proper pronunciation of YaHoWaH, our ‘elowah – God as directed in His ToWRaH – teaching regarding His HaYaH – existence and our ShaLoWM – restoration) has not spoken (lo’ dabar – has not communicated).

The person who claims that his message is on behalf of a deity (naby’ – the prophet) has an inflated view of himself, he is self-motivated, immoral, and insolent and should be held in contempt and disrespected (ba zadon – he should be scorned and rebuked for being wrong, he is presumptuous and haughty; from zuwd – defiant and rebellious) for having said it (dabar huw’). You should not fear him nor revere him (lo’ guwr min huw’ – you should not respect him or show any anxiety toward him).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 18:22)

Based upon this, an informed and rational individual would list Paul’s epistles as the prime example of a deadly, arrogant, presumptuous, defiant, and disrespectful, self-serving fraud. He epitomizes everything Yahowah encouraged us to avoid.

Yahowah’s second test is a relatively simple one. It contains six elements (with six being the number of man):

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. Paul’s 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 God’s test. And yet, he has already failed the first codicil. And that is because the preponderance of Paul’s 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 God’s agent. So, it is strike one. (Where one strike is deadly.)

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? Sha’uwl has insulted Shim’own, Ya’aqob, and Yahowchanan, in addition to Yahowah and Yahowsha’. His claim to the world as if it were 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 was conceited in the extreme. He has been rude to the Galatians and disrespectful of most everyone, consistently misquoting God’s Word and then twisting it. And he has routinely shown great contempt for the Towrah, consistently demeaning it. Strike two.

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. However, 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 Paul’s 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 God’s, puts a bull’s eye on Paul. Strike three.

Is the person’s 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, Paul’s letters represent the most extreme breach of Yahowah’s fourth test. The only thing worse than advocating ideas which are extraneous to God’s witness is to promote things which contradict His testimony. Paul’s repudiation of the Torah, combined with his replacement theology (which is essentially comprised of believing him), is therefore an egregious and deadly violation of God’s 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.

Does the person dabar ba shem ‘acher ‘elohym: speak in the name of gods other than Yahowah? Paul’s Gospel of Grace (Charis/Gratia) elevates the Greek and Roman pagan goddesses above Yahowah. And in his parting comment, Paul excludes Yahowah’s 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.

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? Paul’s absurdly deviant portrayal of Yahowah’s Covenant discussions with Abraham is a prime example of failing this test. His errant portrayal of the Yaruwshalaim Summit is another undeniable breach of the hayah clause – as 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 a failure to meet the bow’ clause of this requirement. Therefore, since Paul’s demonic source of inspiration was incapable of properly guiding his false prophet, it is: Strike six. Therefore, it is off to She’owl for Sha’uwl. And if you believe him, your soul will be destroyed at the end of your mortal life. Providing all of us with fair warning is why this test exists.

Yahowah, as we know, proved that He inspired the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms by punctuating His words with prophetic predictions – all of which came true, or are coming true, just as He had revealed. Since only God has seen the future, He is not actually “predicting” it, but instead reporting in advance what He has witnessed will occur. That’s why He is always right, and it’s why He uses prophecy to demonstrate that His testimony is reliable.

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. That’s not my opinion. It is an undeniable conclusion based upon Yahowah’s 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 evolved from Babylonia through Greece. It is also being steeped in Greek Gnosticism. To this, Constantine’s and Theodosius’ Roman Catholic Church integrated their affinity for Mithras. The resulting religion remains disgusting.

Without the Towrah, there is no call for Abraham to come out of Babylon – to flee man’s religious and political schemes. And worse, Paul’s epistles call believers in the opposite direction, back to Babylon, which is why the faithful remain mired in mankind’s religious muck.

Then speaking of the Word personally delivered by Yahowah on Mount Choreb, and of the reason God would speak through the likes of Moseh, Shamuw’el, Dowd, Yasha’yah, and Chabaquwq, Yahowah inspired and then spoke…

“A Prophet (naby’ – a person who communicates the word of God and is accurate regarding past and future events) from among your midst (min qereb ‘atah – out of your innermost nature), from your brethren (min ‘ach ‘atah), similar to me (kamow ‘any – in accord with me and who can be compared to me), Yahowah (Yahowah – a transliteration of , our ‘elowah – God as directed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), your God (‘elohym ‘atah), will raise up and position to take a stand which establishes and affirms you (quwm la ‘atah – He will validate and confirm, elevating his status to encourage and restore you, enabling you to approach and rise). To him, I want you to actually and continually listen (‘el huw’ shama’ – it is My will that you genuinely and literally hear him with ongoing implications over time (qal imperfect paragogic nun)). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 18:15)

Consistent with everything (ka kol) which to show the way to the benefits of the relationship (‘asher) you asked for while questioning (sha’al min ‘im – you requested while inquiring about) Yahowah (Yahowah – written as directed by His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), your God (‘elohym ‘atah), in Choreb (ba Choreb) during the day of the assembly (ba yowm ha qahal – in the time everyone in the community congregated together), when you said (la ‘amar – requesting), ‘Never again let me hear (lo’ yasaph la shama’ ‘eth – no more, not even one additional time, do I want to listen to) the voice (qowl – the sound) of Yahowah ( – a transliteration of YaHoWaH as instructed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), my God (‘elohym ‘any). Nor let me see and witness (wa lo’ ra’ah – nor be visibly shown or perceive) this intense fire (‘eth ha ‘esh ha gadowl ha zo’th – this massively powerful, extensive and important, astonishing and great, growth enabling and magnifying, brilliantly glowing flame of light) anymore (‘owd – again, now or in the future), or that notwithstanding, I die (wa lo’ muwth).’ (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 18:16)

Therefore (wa), Yahowah (YaHoWaH – an accurate presentation of the name of ‘elowah – God as guided by His towrah – instructions regarding His hayah – existence) said to me (‘amar ‘el ‘any – responded to me), ‘They have properly and successfully conveyed their preference (yatab ‘asher dabar – they have responded as expected under the circumstances, communicating what they want regarding the relationship). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 18:17)

I will raise up (quwm – I will take a stand and establish, confirming) a Prophet (naby’) for them (la hem – to approach them and be near them) from among their brothers (min qereb ‘achy – from the innermost part of their brethren and relatives (and thus from Yahuwdah)) similar to you (kemow ‘atah – in accord with you). And I will put (wa nathan – I will give, provide, and bestow) My words (dabarym ‘any – My message) in his mouth (ba peh huw’) and he will convey to them (wa dabar ‘el hem) everything, which for the benefit of the relationship (‘eth kol ‘asher), I instruct him (tsawah huw’ – I direct of him). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 18:18)

And it shall come to be (wa hayah – it shall exist) that an individual who (ha ‘iysh ‘asher – that a person, who for the benefit of the relationship, who) will not listen (lo’ shama’) to My words (‘el dabarym ‘any), which he shall declare (‘asher dabar – which he will share to show the way to the benefits of the relationship and to get the most enjoyment out of life) in My name (ba shem ‘any), I, Myself, will seek it of him and hold him accountable for it, requiring it of him (‘anoky darash min ‘im huw’ – I, individually, will inquire about it regarding him and will conduct an investigation to have him accept responsibility concerning it).’” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 18:19)

Sometimes what we read is disappointing. It is a shame that the Yisra’elites chose not to listen to Yahowah and, indeed, to never again hear directly from God. Many of us feel otherwise and would enjoy hearing these words conveyed in His voice while basking in His light. But this was their choice, and Yahowah honored their decision. Moseh would be the first of many Prophets who would be asked to communicate the message Yahowah conveyed through them. It was fine with God because He has always preferred working with and through individuals like Moseh rather than alone. And it has worked well for us because, by writing down what Yahowah shared with His prophets, it’s like we were there with them, listening in on these conversations. God does not have to repeat Himself, but we can repeatedly turn to Him. He is always there for us.

Of course, this is the reason that, in the same chapter of Dabarym, Yahowah provided us with the means to know if someone was speaking for Him or just making it up as they went along. It is how we recognize that Sha’uwl | Paul was a fraud.

There are only two potential prophets whom Yahowah could have been addressing in His Towrah. If you are a Christian and believe that this is prophetic of “Jesus Christ” you would be wrong. First, you cannot credibly claim validation from a book your religion negates – as Paul has done. This is one of many reasons Paul did not cite this prophecy to promote Iesou Christo.

Second, the Christian caricature of Yahowsha’ cannot concur with Moseh without disavowing the religion he is believed to have founded. Moseh and the Towrah are inseparable. In fact, most of Dabarym is in Moseh’s voice.

Third, if Yahowah’s words were in Yahowsha’s mouth, we have no way of knowing them. There is no extant record of anything Yahowsha’ said in Hebrew – not a word. This would negate the intent of the prophecy, because there is no way of knowing them. As we will prove in the next volume, the Greek text of the Christian New Testament was fraudulently conceived, deliberately manipulated, and carelessly maintained. Yahowah cannot hold us accountable for knowing anything Yahowsha’ said, only for what he did as the Passover Lamb.

Fourth, without exception, Yahowah asked His prophets to memorialize what He was revealing to them in writing. We are the beneficiaries of God’s preference for the written word. And as a special gift, we have access to scrolls comprising the majority of the Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms predating Yahowsha’s arrival. This makes it exceptionally telling that the Passover Lamb did not write anything for us to read. Nothing!

And fifth, speaking of nothing, we have no proof that Yahowsha’ spoke in Yahowah’s name. This would further disqualify him.

Sixth, there was someone who was in perfect accord with Moseh. Like Moseh, he was a prolific writer. His most important Psalm – the 119th – explains how to effectively observe Yahowah’s Towrah. Beginning with Aleph, it systematically devotes eight stanzas to each of the twenty-two letters which comprise the Hebrew alphabet, each revealing profound insights.

This man was also a Ra’ah | Shepherd, a Zarowa’ | Powerful and Protective Ram Leading the Flock, a Naby’ | Prophet of the highest order. Moreover, he was specifically “quwm – raised up and positioned” by God to “take a stand” on behalf of Yisra’el, “establishing” the nation and people for the first time.

His name is Dowd | David, and he was Yahowah’s Mashyach | Messiah, Ben | Son, and Melek | King. Yahowah put His words in his mouth, and we can listen to him by reading and reciting his Mizmowr | Psalms and Mashal | Proverbs. There are more extant copies of what Dowd wrote among the scrolls and fragments found along the shore of the Dead Sea than even the Towrah. Moreover, Dowd is returning with Yahowah, and will rule over the Earth. As such, it would make perfect sense for Yahowah to hold us accountable to know what He revealed through him. Living with him will be harmonious and inspiring during the Millennial Shabat and beyond, making his words the ideal screening test for entry.

While it is obvious, the fact remains that Paul didn’t listen to Yahowsha’ or speak Yahowah’s 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 God’s testimony, he purposefully twisted Yahowah’s message.

And let’s never forget God’s position on His people and family: “Yahowah will lift you up and establish you as a people for Himself, as a set-apart family, to show the way to the benefits of the relationship. He has made a sworn promise to those of you who observe, closely examining and carefully considering, the instructive conditions of the relationship agreement 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 become part of His Family. Salvation is a byproduct of that relationship, making the Covenant and its children perfect and enduring.

Moseh inscribed the Towrah on behalf of Yahowah, not Hagar nor Ishmael. In it, there is only one Covenant, and that the Covenant and the Towrah in which it is presented, are inseparable...

“Just as it came to be that Moseh finished writing the words of the Towrah on the written scroll, completing it, Moseh instructed the Lowy who carry Yahowah’s Ark of the Covenant, saying, ‘Grasp hold of this written documentation of the Towrah and place it beside Yahowah, your God’s, Ark of the Covenant, existing there for you as an everlasting witness and eternal testimony.” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 31:24-26)

This is an unequivocal refutation of Sha’uwl’s claims that Yahowah’s Towrah and Covenant are obsolete and unrelated. God’s position and Paul’s are irreconcilable and mutually exclusive. And that means Sha’uwl lied when he claimed that he spoke for God. As a result, absolutely nothing he said or wrote should be considered trustworthy.

The Towrah’s message, its purpose, and its ongoing place in the lives of those who seek to live with God remains incongruous with what Sha’uwl has written.

“Moseh instructed them, providing directions by 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 Sukah | Shelters, when all Yisra’el comes to appear before and experience the presence of Yahowah, your God, at the place which relationally He chooses, you should actually and consistently read and recite this Towrah | Teaching and Guidance before all Yisra’el so that they can listen to it.’” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 31:10-11)

It is God’s hope that we answer His Invitations and choose to Camp Out with Him. Therefore, this might be an opportune time to consider Yahowah’s guidance regarding Sukah. He revealed...

“And Yahowah spoke to Moseh, for the purpose of saying, ‘Speak to the children of Yisra’el, to say, “On the fifteenth day of the seventh month is the Festival Feast of Sukah Shelters for seven days for you to be near Yahowah. ...For seven days approach and draw close to the Maternal manifestation of the light to be with Yahowah.

On the eighth day, there exists, and will always be, a set-apart Miqra’ | Invitation to be Called Out and Meet, 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 God’s spiritual representative.

These Godly and specific designated meetings times of Yahowah, which relationally and beneficially you are invited to attend as set-apart Miqra’ey, as Invitations to be Called Out and Meet, for 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 celebrate and reflect on the relationship with Yahowah, and as part of your contribution to the relationship, of expressing your freewill and commitment to choose to beneficially give 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 Shabatown for the promise of empowerment and enrichment, and on the eighth day, a Shabatown for reflecting upon and celebrating 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 obvious, at least for those who are informed and rational, two questions may remain for the most ardent New Testament advocates. Is the entirety of the nine other epistles (1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Hebrews), the four personal letters (1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon), and the plethora Paul’s speeches throughout Acts as thoroughly 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 Paul’s 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 Sha’uwl 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 stated, or if the rest of his rhetoric didn’t contradict that lone affirming statement, 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 even though he was not. (1 Corinthians 9:19-23)

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. With Paul, strands of truth have been few and far between.

Christian apologists might cite the “Gifts of the Spirit” in 1 Corinthians 12 as evidence that Paul was inspired by God. And yet, most everything he included in his list was inconsistent with Yah’s teaching. Others will protest that the next chapter in Corinthians, which was dedicated to love, could not possibly be errant, but it is nonetheless. What Paul wrote is the antithesis of God’s perspective on the same subject. The evidence behind these conclusions is provided as the subject arose in other volumes of Yada Yahowah (Observations, Volume 5 – Understanding, Chapter 7 – Wanting to be Worshiped).

It should be obvious to everyone that Sha’uwl was a living contradiction – routinely displaying behaviors which contravened his own testimony. Consistency was never his strong suit.

Recognizing that the preponderance of Galatians has been overtly opposed to God’s revelation, for there to be any hope of finding some beneficial testimony in the letters to the Thessalonians, Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, or Hebrews, Christian apologists would have to propose that they were written by someone other than the author of Galatians. 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.

Therefore, the odds Galatians was written by someone other than Paul, the man depicted in Acts, and the author of the other thirteen epistles and letters is remote in the extreme. Consider the required makeup of an imposter, and the circumstances under which a con man would have had to operate under to perpetrate such an astonishing fraud…

The Galatians’ ghostwriter would have to have convinced the Disciple Shim’own Kephas that Paul wrote this letter to the Galatians. And that means the Pauline imposter would have had to have perpetrated his fraud during the height of Paul’s fame, and while Shim’own | “Peter” 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 Shim’own | “Peter,” the imposter would have had to have been exceedingly persuasive.

This charlatan, should one have existed, 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 wouldn’t have had a conniption fit over someone pretending to be him and writing a falsified letter in his name.

There is no way to credibly push out the timeline on Galatians beyond Sha’uwl’s and Shim’own’s lives (which terminated around 65 CE) because these men left a lasting legacy of their reactions to people around them. Especially relevant, it’s apparent that Galatians was written between 51 and 52 CE, and that it was Paul’s 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 imposter – something Paul would have done had there been one.

There are a score of reasons to acknowledge that Galatians was Paul’s first letter. It is the only one which details his life story from birth to the Yaruwshalaim Summit. It uniquely strives to validate his calling. It even details the inception of his preaching. In his salutation, Paul uncharacteristically greets the Galatians alone, having been recently separated from Barnabas (Paul’s 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 Thessalonica – in that these hurried and defiant replies were written to the three most rebellious assemblies Sha’uwl encountered – and he rebuked and demeaned them for it. 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, it’s instructive to know that the timeline which can be deduced from the book of Acts places Paul and Barnabas in Lystra, Galatia in 48 to 49 CE.

Moreover, this con man would have had to fool Barnabas and Timothy, and then Luke as well. But knowing Luke’s penchant for detail that would have been unlikely. If Luke smelled a fraud, his suspicions would have been chronicled in Acts.

But there is more to consider. A potential impostor would have to have studied the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. In Galatians, and again in Romans, the author cited (albeit misquoted) Habakkuk, a book most people don’t even know exists. He identified a 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-1st century would have been nil. In fact, there was just one: Paul himself.

Should there have been a pretender, the con man would have to have been schooled sufficiently in Rabbinical Law to pass himself off as a former Pharisee who trained under Gamaliel – the most esteemed religious teacher of his day. And yet, he would have to have hated Judaism sufficiently to demean the religion and condemn Jews – positioning them as the faith’s foe. And while it is not uncommon, even today, to find Jews who are self-destructive and self-loathing, Paul’s condemnation of his own people in 1st Thessalonians 2:14-16 is a league apart – uniquely qualifying Sha’uwl as the anti-Semite who wrote Galatians and then inspired most of the Christian New Testament.

Should Galatians have been penned by a mystery writer, the perpetrator would have had to have received some training in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, as well as in classic literature and mythology, at a time when just being literate was rare. Keep in mind, while Paul’s message has been hard to decipher, that’s 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 letter’s 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 then somehow benefit from such animosity.

The Galatians’ imposter would have had to be willing to perpetrate a fraud to artificially elevate Paul’s status above Yahowsha’s 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, had not 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 would have been vastly more influential.

Pseudo Paul would have had to have been a party to the Yaruwshalaim Summit because, rather than coming up with an entirely different story, he was clever enough to twist what actually occurred such that it would serve the wannabe apostle’s peculiar agenda. Thereafter, he would have to have been in the room when Sha’uwl condemned Shim’own for hastily leaving a meal – and to have had a reason for demeaning one of Yahowsha’s Disciples. And why, if this person wasn’t Paul, was he so obviously angry and so emotionally involved in Paul’s affairs?

What’s more, this imposter would have had to be skilled at impersonating Paul’s handwriting, because the last half of the last chapter of Galatians claims to have been penned in Paul’s hand. And that would have been especially challenging since it is obvious that this is the first letter Paul wrote – such that he would have been matching handwriting no one save Paul had seen. Moreover, the charlatan would have had to have had Paul’s 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 Paul’s 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 Paul’s original before replacing it with his own, and to have done so without anyone noticing. I say this because the time interval is not sufficient for an authentic Galatians epistle to have arrived, been circulated, and then been forgotten, so that the imposter’s letter could have replaced it without anyone noticing that they were different.

And lastly, Paul’s letter to Rome reprises the climax of Galatians – the existence of two covenants, one of the flesh, the other of the promise. This was Paul’s amazingly clever, albeit devastatingly deadly, means to circumvent the Torah, bypassing it by going from Abram to Iesou, with nothing in between. It is the crowning achievement of Pauline Doctrine, his signature. Therefore, the man who wrote Romans, also wrote Galatians.

As we have discovered, 2nd 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 approach conveyed throughout the Thessalonian letters is consistent with what we have read in Galatians.

But even if someone could pull off the greatest fraud in history, why would they? Who in the 1st 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 “Sha’uwl” and Yahowsha’ refer to him as “Lowly and Little” if it was actually someone else?

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 lie – themes which are echoed in the other epistles attributed to him. So, if Paul didn’t 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 Paul’s epistles: Papyrus 46? There we find in the order of their appearance: Romans, Hebrews (which was either written by Paul or one of his disciples), 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1st Thessalonians. And since P46 is dated to the 2nd century, 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 Sha’uwl was long since dead.

With Galatians, Paul 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 Sha’uwl knew the Torah, that he was an expert in Judaism, that he was a spirited debater, 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, Hebrews, 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 soberer perspective, he would have thrown away. But, then again, Paul’s ego was way too big for sober reflection.



You do not need me to tell you that Sha’uwl was the Plague of Death... Yahowah affirmed this in no uncertain terms in Chabaquwq / Habakkuk – 666 years in advance no less.

You do not need me to tell you that Paul was a false prophet… We now know that he failed all of Yahowah’s tests in Dabarym / Deuteronomy 13 and 18.

You do not need me to tell you that Sha’uwl lied… His testimony regarding our means to become part of God’s family was in complete conflict with Yahowah’s Towrah.

You do not 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 Satan’s 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 underfoot, 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 Adversary’s (tou echthros – the hated and odious hostile enemy’s) 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, let’s compare that to Paul’s 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)

Paul’s depiction was eerily similar to the way Yahowsha’ had described the fall of Satan. Paul even used the same words. As such, it is remarkable that Christians 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) How’s that for an admission of guilt?

You do not need me to tell you who Sha’uwl 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), ‘Sha’uwl, Sha’uwl (Saoul, Saoul – a transliteration of the Hebrew name, Sha’uwl, meaning “Question Him,” a designation synonymous with She’owl – 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)? It’s hard (skleros – it’s 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 popular pagan proverb into the aberration’s mouth in the third of his three depictions of his conversion experience in Acts 26:14. In this instance, he was defending himself before King Agrippa.

Paul’s citation 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, Dionysus, on the kingdom if someone refused to worship him. But before we consider why Dionysus was chosen by Paul (or Satan), please note the intersection between the “scorpions” in Yahowsha’s demonic reference and Sha’uwl’s quote. This too is telling.

When we examine the myths which grew out of Satan’s religious counterfeits, we find that the Grecian mythology regarding Dionysus provides the closest counterfeit to Yahowsha’, which is why it was usurped to make the Christian Iesou Christo appear divine. Just as Yahowsha’s blood is represented by wine, Dionysus (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 – akin to the Christian Easter. Held over the course of five days each Spring, the Dionysia set the stage for the Christian replacement of Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children, with Palm Sunday (“Passion Sunday”), Maundy Thursday (“institution of Communion”), Good Friday (“death and burial of Jesus”), Holy Saturday (where “Jesus rested in the grave” during the last day of the Babylonian festival of Lent, where there was great weeping for Tammuz – the son of the sun), and Easter Sunday – named after the Babylonian Queen of Heaven and Mother of God, Astarte | Ishtar.

Just as Yahowsha’ is alleged to have had a divine father and a mortal mother, Dionysus’ father was said to be Zeus (the father of the gods)), whereas his mother was mortal (Semele). And by his death and resurrection, Dionysus 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 Paul’s Gospel. Also intriguing, Paul’s beloved Charis, the Roman Gratia, were the progeny of Dionysus and Aphrodite according to some Greek myths (although more commonly of Zeus and Eurynome). Paul was likely 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 do not 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’ (ΙΣ), 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), ‘It’s 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)). (Matthew 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 Yaruwshalaim Summit? And if not him, who? If not then, when?

Recognizing that Yahowsha’ communicated in Hebrew, and that this citation was plagiarized by an imposter around 90 CE using a now extinct copy of what he had shared, then was copied in Alexandria a century later in a religious scriptorium, there is considerable uncertainty regarding what the placeholder may have represented…

“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) Ma’aseyah (ΧΣ – a placeholder could have been used to convey Chestus or Christos). And so (kai) many (polys) they will mislead (planaomai – they deceive and delude, causing to go astray).’” (Matthew 24:5)

I would count the billions of Christians who have been led away from Yahowah and His Towrah, who have been deceived and deluded by Paul’s 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 Ma’aseyah (o ΧΣ – this placeholder could have been used to convey Chestus or Christos),’ or (e), ‘In this case, over there (hode),’ you should not think that this is trustworthy or reliable (me pisteuo)” (Matthew 24:23)

Paul claimed to have seen his Christos 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 Yahowsha’s audience – the Disciples. Therefore, the sandal still fits Paul, and him alone.

“Because (gar) those pretending to be useful implements Doing the Work (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 – 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).’” (Matthew 24:24)

This is obviously predictive of when Paulos took his stand against God and rose up before Yahowsha’s Disciples in Yaruwshalaim. He tried to impress them by bragging about the “signs and wonders” he had performed using the exact same phrasing Yahowsha’ had warned them about. Therefore, they should have remembered this conversation and responded appropriately. And so should we. Paul continues to fail every test: Yahowsha’s and Yahowah’s.

Yahowsha’ would be even more specific regarding Paul, tailoring his prophetic prediction to reflect the wannabe Apostle’s boast that he would meet with Yahowsha’ in Arabia – the ultimate wilderness – and then report this myth to the Disciples...

“Pay close attention (idou – indeed look, being especially observant, encouraging the listener to focus upon this subject), I’ve 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 everyone’s 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).” (Matthew 24:25-26)

Juxtapose this with Paul’s claim to have encountered Iesou Christo on the road to Damascus, and then to meeting with him in Arabia, and we discover, 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 Yahowsha’s audience. Either Yahowsha’ erred in this prophecy, or he was warning us not to trust Sha’uwl’s claims.

You do not 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 troubling 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 haven’t 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 inquiry, 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, it’s a wonder Paul’s reputation survived it. Especially relevant in this regard is that Ephesus was the only city listed among the seven described in Yahowsha’s 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, Yahowsha’s 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 Sha’uwl wrote his letter to the Ephesians, and within close proximity to Sha’uwl’s lonely and isolated death. 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 Sha’uwl 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 desirable investments of your time, works and deeds, or else I will suddenly remove your lampstand from its place unless you reconsider, changing your thinking and your attitude (metanoeo).” (Revelation 2:4-5)

The proof that Paul and his associates preached in Ephesus, that they presented a contrarian view to that of Yahowsha’s 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, when it comes to knowing the truth, a little reinforcement is always a good idea – especially when myths are prevalent and the consequences are this significant.

Corrected and amplified modestly from the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear’s presentation, here is the testimony which demonstrates conclusively that Paul and his disciples represented the false apostles of whom Yahowsha’ spoke:

“But it became opportune for Apollos to be in Corinth, so Paulos, having gone through the uppermost parts, came down to Ephesus so as to find some disciples. (Acts 19:1)

But he said against and regarding them, ‘If conditionally, the holy spirit you received having trusted the ones but not him, then not the holy spirit there is we heard.’ (Acts 19:2)

He said, ‘But into what then were you immersed?’ And they said, ‘Into Yahowchanan’s immersion.’ (Acts 19:3)

But Paulos said, ‘Yahowchanan immersed an immersion to change the minds of the people, saying to those coming after him that they might believe this is in the Iesous.’ (Acts 19:4)

So having heard, they were immersed into the name of the Lord Iesou. (Acts 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 prophecies. All men were as the twelve.” (Acts 19:6-7)

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 Yahowsha’s 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 Shim’own | “Peter” or Yahowchanan | John, Sha’uwl 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 Paul’s 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 Yahowchanan’s message. Paul immediately claimed that Yahowchanan had instituted unauthorized changes. He then questioned the nature of the Spirit they had received. After listening to Paul’s contrarian view, a dozen Ephesians were 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 Sha’uwl’s 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 Yahowchanan’s technique was wrong and Sha’uwl’s 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 Yisra’el. They were not baptized, there was no laying on of hands, they knew nothing of Sha’uwl, they did not speak in tongues, and they did not prophesize.

Unfortunately, Paul was just warming up. His hypocrisy was in full bloom as he presented his “Gospel of Grace” as the alternative to observing Yahowah’s Towrah, which he mislabeled as an onerous set of laws. And while there is no Hebrew word for “obey,” and while Torah does not mean “law,” Sha’uwl routinely demanded that his audience obey him...

“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)

But some were being stubborn (sklerynomai – were being hardheaded 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 badmouthing, 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. (Acts 19:9)

And this took place for two years so that everyone residing in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Judeans and Greeks.” (Acts 19:10) (We are continuing to rely on the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds English Interlinear to recount Paul’s 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 Paul’s own words. And while Yahowsha’ praised the Ephesians for rejecting the liar and his lies, Sha’uwl saw them differently. The very people Yahowsha’ commended, Sha’uwl 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.” That’s almost funny considering the source.

Sha’uwl 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 does not get your attention, 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 Yahowsha’ 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. Sha’uwl turned instead to the “Tyrannos Schole,” where Tyrannos denotes “the Lord is a Tyrant.” There should be no mistaking that Paul’s Lord was indeed a despot seeking supremacy. And Paul was lecturing on his behalf.

It is a fact little known, but if Paul’s 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 the connection between his fulfillment of Passover and the Covenant, albeit taking his testimony completely out of context while misquoting him. So rest assured, when Sha’uwl claims that everyone in Asia heard him “preach the word of the Lord,” he was preaching Satan’s mantra. Reinforcing this reality, Yahowah consistently refers to the Adversary as “ba’al – lord” because Satan craves supremacy, mastery, control, obedience, subordination, enslavement, and ownership.” Sha’uwl’s predilection for these very same things is revealing.

Yahowsha’ is routinely translated telling us that “dunamis – ability, inherent power, miracles, signs, and wonders” typify braggadocious false prophets. But since Christians do not listen to him in deference to Paul, they typically associate such things with their 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 God’s 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. 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 that is indicting, by turning to tygchano’s 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 Paulos.

And his legend grew with these fanciful claims...

“Also, 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 today’s 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, Yahowsha’s most beloved Disciple, was the one rejected by Sha’uwl and replaced by another of his choosing during the baptism. Therefore, 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 Paul’s own testimony is considered as a legacy of Yahowsha’s 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 Timothy 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 Timothy 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 1:3)

As clearly as words allow, Paulos was confessing to the crime Yahowsha’ told us had been committed in Ephesus. Sha’uwl admitted that Ephesus was the primary battleground in his war against Yahowsha’s teaching as it had been conveyed through Yahowchanan – their first love. Having fought for years against both, Paul would deploy every resource to keep God’s emissaries at bay.

Seeking to undermine the Towrah 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 Timothy 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 Timothy 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. (1 Timothy 1:8)

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, (1 Timothy 1:9) 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 (1 Timothy 1:10) in accord with the beneficial message of the brilliant and glorious, the blessed and fortunate god which was entrusted to me, myself.” (1 Timothy 1:11)

With this confession, Yahowsha’s warning regarding the false apostles operating in Ephesus becomes nearly as incriminating as Yahowah’s prophetic revelation in Chabaquwq | Habakkuk.



Questioning Paul

Devil’s Advocate

…Plague of Death

14

Harpax | Self-Promoting

It Was Obvious…

Paul, to the exclusion of all other individuals, became the living embodiment of what Yahowsha’ warned Shim’own Kephas | “Peter” about just prior to the fulfillment of Shabuw’ah | the Promise of the Shabat. His advice appears to have fallen on deaf ears, and it has remained unheralded ever since…

“This was already the third time Yahowsha’ | Yahowah Saves was revealed and seen with the Disciples who were Learners, having been aroused, restored, and equipped to stand up out of lifeless separation. (Yahowchanan / John 21:14)

As a result, while they ate breakfast, Yahowsha’ | Yahowah Saves said to Shim’own Kephas, ‘Shim’own of Yahowchanan | He who Listens to Yahowah’s 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.’ (Yahowchanan / John 21:15)

He said to him again, a second time, ‘Shim’own 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.’ (Yahowchanan / John 21:16)

He said to him a third time, ‘Shim’own 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’ | Yahowah Saves said to him, ‘Feed, tend to, guide, and care for My sheep.” (Yahowchanan / Yahowah is Merciful / John 21:17)

Yahowsha’, whom it appears Shim’own Kephas of Yahowchanan thoughtfully and appropriately addressed as “Yahowah” in His post-Bikuwrym state based upon the Divine Placeholder, wasn’t talking to His pupil about grazing sheep or about animal husbandry. The “sheep” were a reference to Yahowah’s “Covenant children.” It is why Yahowah is called “My Shepherd” in the 23rd Psalm, and is credited with guiding, nurturing, and protecting His flock. Their “food” is “the Towrah.” As a “shepherd,” Yahowah through Yahowsha’ was asking the Rock “to guide and protect” the flock, keeping His sheep out of harm’s way, while keeping the wolves at bay. And never forget, they were and remain “His” sheep, not “Peter’s,” and especially not Paul’s, not a pope’s or a pastor’s.

“Tending” to Yahowah’s Covenant children requires a shepherd to be “properly prepared,” which means Shim’own would have to diligently study Yahowah’s Towrah so that he would be able to teach our Heavenly Father’s children what they need to know to survive and grow, and to be properly nourished and guided.

To tend the most highly valued sheep on Earth, “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 God’s flock. And the best way to do that would be to nurture Yah’s children on the merits of the Towrah, so that they would be equipped to care for their children for generations to come, keeping all of His sheep out of harm’s 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.’ (Yahowchanan / Yahowah is Merciful / John 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 Sha’uwl] will attribute to Yahowah (doxasei ton ΘΝ – 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 21:19)

One individual in Shim’own’s | “Peter’s” future dedicated himself to dragging “the Rock” away from his God-given responsibilities. Sha’uwl forced Shim’own out of Antioch in the midst of feeding and protecting God’s children, and then drove him back to Yaruwshalaim. Sha’uwl’s rhetoric and force of personality caused Shim’own to cower as he had before, and even retreat, leaving the flock to be devoured by a Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing.

Even Shim’own’s comments regarding Paul’s epistles have been used in a way he never intended. Rather than being seen as an overt warning to God’s sheep to be on their guard lest Paul leads them to their own demise, Christendom twisted what the Rock wrote to infer that Paul’s letters were “Scripture.” Thereby, Shim’own was taken to a place he did not intend to go.

You do not need me to tell you that the second most indicting statement God made against Paulos was delivered during Yahowsha’s Sermon on the Mount… In light of what we have read, Yahowsha’s every word specifically and comprehensively undermines Paul’s credibility and, with it, the foundation of Christianity.

In that we considered Yahowsha’s initial and also longest public proclamation in the first volume of Questioning Paul, I’ve 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 invalidate or to abrogate, to abolish or dismiss, any implication or its influence but, instead, to completely fulfill, proclaim, and complete, conveying the true meaning and thinking, rendering it totally and perfectly. (Matthew 5:17)

Because 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 takes place, becoming a reality. (Matthew 5:18)

As a result, whoever may at any time dismiss or attempt to do away with, seeking to toss aside, invalidate or abolish, one of the smallest and least important of these prescriptions and instructions which are enjoined, these authorized directions and teachings, expounding 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)” 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, this will properly be referred to as great and important, astonishingly valuable and sensible among those who reign within the heavens.” (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 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 someone when their message contradicts his.

The notion of a “New Testament” is torn asunder because God’s original testimony remains valid. So based upon this statement, Paul’s letters, which seek to invalidate the Towrah, must be discarded.

A Christian cannot discount this testimony without simultaneously renouncing Yahowsha’s 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 Yahowah’s prophecies, including His return and His ultimate renewal and restoration of the Covenant with Yisra’el and Yahuwdah, have not yet occurred, and the heavens and earth remain. Therefore, the Torah still stands. Now that’s something for Christians to think about, especially considering the subject and speaker. Therefore, as a Christian reading this, what do you suppose the merits might be of believing in something which is invalid?

Since we are now undeniably aware of Yahowsha’s 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 Paul’s purpose for writing Galatians, which was to demean and devalue the Towrah, favorably. So how is it that Sha’uwl convinced the world that God had authorized him to do precisely what Yahowsha’s 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 Sha’uwl, 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 your righteousness, integrity, and standing in the relationship is abundantly superior to and eminently 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 Jews who coveted authority and established religious rituals and traditions), you will absolutely never move into nor experience the realm of the heavens.” (Matthew 5:20)

The mythos of Christendom was rendered moot by Yahowsha’ at the inception of his Instruction on the Mount. And yet still, he had a lot more to say which 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 God’s home, Yahowsha’ provided a set of instructions which are dismissive of blind faith...

“You should ask (aiteo – at the present time it is desirable for everyone to 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 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 recognizance to physically demonstrate and announce their presence at the door desiring acceptance and admittance) and it will be opened to you. (Matthew 7:7)

For then the one asking receives, the one seeking, earnestly trying to obtain information through personal interaction, actually finds by participating in the discovery, and for the one knocking, announcing his or her presence at the door desiring acceptance, it will be opened.” (Matthew 7:8)

Yahowsha’s statement is wholly consistent with Yahowah’s 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 Paul’s proposition which is salvation through faith. God’s method requires us to learn and then engage. But with faith, both the process and response would be unnecessary, even counterproductive.

Yahowsha’s next statement undercuts Christianity because Yahowsha’ is directing our attention, not to himself, but instead to Yahowah, to our Heavenly Father. His reference is to the Father’s 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 Yahowah’s 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? (Matthew 7:9)

Or should you be considering a logical contrast between opposites, when he asks for a fish, will he hand him a snake? (Matthew 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 by personally responding, bestowing something good, generous, and beneficial to those asking Him?” (Matthew 7:11)

Paulos is offering faith in him and Yahowah is offering the benefits of the Covenant. Which offer do you suppose might be more life-sustaining, enriching, and empowering? 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 Sha’uwl manage to convince them that the Towrah was anything but generous, capable, and beneficial?

The moral of the story is that, since we do not 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 Yahowah’s generous and beneficial gift, we ought to offer our fellow man access to God’s gift – providing them with the offer found in our Heavenly Father’s 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 Towrah and the Prophets: (Matthew 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 to be firmly established, and to be upheld).

Because broad, manmade, and crafted to be wide open (platys – molded, malleable, plastic, and easily 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”) into utter destruction (apoleia – needlessly squandering and ruining the valuable resource of one’s 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. (Matthew 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).” (Matthew 7:14)

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 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, but they also lead to destruction, needlessly squandering countless souls.

While this statement has negative implications regarding Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, and Islam, as well as Socialist Secular Humanism, when Yahowsha’s 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 legalized the Christian religion throughout 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 it’s popular, but only that the path to life is unpopular. Christianity is deadly because it is based upon Sha’uwl’s manmade and artificial path.

I am not trying to rub salt into an open wound, but I would be remiss if I did not remind Christians that in Chabaquwq | Habakkuk, Yahowah specifically revealed that there would be a “broad path,” a “duplicitous and improper way, associated with Sha’uwl that would be the plague of death.”

You do not need me to tell you that Yahowsha’ popped Paul’s balloon twenty years before the Devil’s Advocate began spewing hot air because he was not yet finished warning Christians about the consequence of disregarding the Towrah. 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, and thus from the same race and place, by dressing up in sheep’s clothing, yet they actually are 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.” (Matthew 7:15)

While the combination of God’s warnings and Paul’s admissions are devastating, leaving Sha’uwl and his associates as the only viable and known potential culprits, there was a subtlety in Yahowsha’s 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 sheep’s clothing.

God is into the details. In His Towrah, He revealed: “Benyamyn | 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.” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 49:27)

Confessing, Sha’uwl 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 from the tribe of Benjamin, there is only one man known to have publicly proclaimed to have been a descendant of Benjamin who was present in Yaruwshalaim during the time Yahowsha’ delivered his Instruction on the Mount. Beyond this, Sha’uwl, who was studying to be a rabbi at the time, also admitted to faking his true identity, which is the very essence of a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Proof of Paul’s 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. (1 Corinthians 9:20)

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. (1 Corinthians 9:21)

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 9:22)

I don’t 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 Paul – and those who have allied themselves with him.

One would have to be naïve not to see Paul in Yahowsha’s statement telling us to “Be alert and turn away from false prophets who come to us from within dressed in sheep’s clothing who are actually self-serving and self-promoting wolves.” By examining Yahowah’s 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 his Iesou Christo, he never quoted Yahowsha’. As such, he “dressed himself up as” one of Yahowah’s “sheep” when he appointed himself Yahowsha’s 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 through Yahowsha’ predicted would savage His 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 Sheep’s 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. Yahowsha’s 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 Yahowsha’s name, you do not know him – nor do you know the Father who sent him to serve as the Passover Lamb. His name defines who he is, from whom and why he came. When it is changed or replaced, the result is no longer from God. And when the object of one’s belief ceases to be credible, their faith is in vain.

Considering how often the founder of the Christian religion wrote: “but I Paulos say...”, it is a wonder more people do not 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 Paul’s letters rather than Yahowsha’s pronouncements – and almost never upon his Instruction on the Mount.

Recognizing that we last reviewed the conclusion to Yahowsha’s 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, let’s listen to Yahowsha’ 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 and pointed found on a thorny bramble or brier), or from a thistle, figs?” (Matthew 7:16)

Just as we can delight in the subtlety of Yahowsha’s use of a “harpazo – rapture” derivative to direct our attention to Paul’s false prophecy, akantha, translated “thorn” in verse 16, is from akmen, which means “point.” Yahowsha’ is thereby directing our attention to two of Paul’s most incriminating statements, both of which we will reconsider later in this chapter.

Yahowsha’s instructions continued with... “In this way, every good and useful fruit tree produces exceptionally suitable and commendable, genuine and approved, advantageous and 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.” (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 Paul’s pen? Equally troubling, with Yahowsha’ being so definitive, expressly saying that cherry-picking snippets from a rotten source is not 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, produce, or provide suitable or commendable fruit and results.” (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. If there is a single error, one putrid statement, the smallest corruption in someone’s 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 God’s 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 Yahowah’s 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, and Muhammad, has deceived ten billion souls, beginning long ago with Adam and Chawah.

“Any and every tree not producing suitable, fitting, commendable, and advantageous fruit shall actually be cut off and done away with. And toward the fire (pyr – a metaphor for judgment), it will be thrown. (Matthew 7:19)

So then, by their fruit, their production and results, you will be able through careful observation and studious contemplation to actually know and understand them.” (Matthew 7:19-20)

Epiginosko speaks of that which can be known for certain based upon a close examination and careful evaluation of the available evidence. It is being presented as the antithesis of, and thus as the alternative to, faith. Therefore, to the degree that Yahowsha’s statement was accurately translated, this is especially relevant. And that is because faith is Paul’s lone alternative to observing the Towrah and knowing what God actually revealed.

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 Sha’uwl and his Lord, Satan, Yahowsha’ revealed:

“Not anyone 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.” (Matthew 7:21)

If you are still among those referring to God by Satan’s title, then you are unaware of Yahowah’s 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, and provided His guidance was so that we would be able to choose to engage in His family-oriented Covenant relationship. By mischaracterizing God’s nature and purpose in the way Paul has done, those who refer to God as “the Lord” are upending our Heavenly Father’s 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 the “Bible,” the truth is just the opposite. God spoke or wrote His name, “Yahowah ( – the proper pronunciation of YaHoWaH, our ‘elowah – God as directed in His ToWRaH – teaching regarding His HaYaH – existence and our ShaLoWM – restoration),” exactly 7000 times in the Towrah, Naby’, wa Mizmowr. 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 God’s 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?’” (Matthew 7:22)

But the answer to that question is a resounding, “No!” Not one Christian in a million knows or uses Yahowsha’s 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 Yahowsha’s name means “Yahowah Saves.” Therefore, 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 Yahowsha’s name. Christians speak on behalf of Paul instead. They are inspired by Paul’s letters rather than by Yahowah’s 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 Yahowah, our God. Most do not 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 is not 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, Yahowsha’s conclusion would have scuttled Paul’s claims and destroyed the religion of Christianity with them. Therefore, 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).” (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 don’t know him either. If they are involved in a relationship with god, their god is not real.

When Yahowsha’ 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 Yahowsha’ 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 toward Yahowah’s name, toward observing Yahowah’s Towrah, or toward engaging in the Covenant are moot. God is not interested in them.

The point Yahowsha’ is making here is one that took me a very long time to fully assimilate. But God’s position is both simple and reasonable, even necessary. Salvation is only afforded to the children of the Covenant. Its benefits entail immortality, becoming perfected, adoption, enrichment, and empowerment. Salvation is then a byproduct of these benefits. 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. 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 Yahowsha’s 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. Yahowsha’s name matters, as does Yahowah’s 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 Yahowsha’ said that observing the Towrah, 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 an intelligent and astute, sensible and thoughtful individual who edifies and strengthens his or her house upon the rock.” (Matthew 7:24)

Second only to their disdain for Yahowah’s testimony, as God’s Word is written in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, the Christian aversion to Yahowsha’s testimony is telling. They are somehow unaware that the Prophets spoke with the same voice. So, while Christians will acknowledge Yahowchanan’s 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, in order 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).” (Matthew 7:25)

While Christians will tell you that Paul won the argument over the viability of the foundation God had laid with His Towrah, 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. God’s guidance to mankind begins here. This is where the journey to life begins as well.



And you do not need me to tell you that Sha’uwl 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, I am presently refraining. But someone who is not approaching me might have reason to promote an opinion beyond what he sees in me, or something he hears from me, (2 Corinthians 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 every one of us having fallen down to the earth, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Sha’uwl, Sha’uwl, Why are you actually pursuing me? It’s 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 and about 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, and again and again.” (2 Corinthians 11:23)

Since Paul’s psychosis is germane to our investigation, let’s reconsider some of the other insane things the Devil’s 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, but justice is also His not ours.

In 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 to 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, you would 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 the 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 I’m 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 God’s brilliance by reading His Towrah?

Sha’uwl was afraid that his simplistic and erroneous presentation of Yahowsha’ would be exposed and criticized by those who knew better, so he wrote: “For if one comes and preaches another ‘Iesous’ 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) Paul’s 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 Covenant’s benefits were enabled by Yahowsha’s work during the Miqra’ey. But instead, he condemned the Covenant, created one of his own, 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 1st 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 Yahowsha’s Disciples and perhaps those who had learned from them – and thus those filled and equipped by the Set-Apart Spirit on Shabuw’ah. 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) Christou’s (ΧΡΥ) Apostles (apostolos – a prepared messenger who is sent out).” (2 Corinthians 11:13)

This then is Paul’s 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 Lord’s (ΚΝ) 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 was not 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 Satan’s began to morph, becoming indistinguishable.

It was at this point in 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 beside one, I received. (2 Corinthians 11:24) 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). (2 Corinthians 11:25)

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, (2 Corinthians 11:26) 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, (2 Corinthians 11:27) 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) He was hallucinating.

If one were to believe the village idiot, 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 is not often that we are afforded a window into a deranged and psychotic mind, but Paul, in addition to being insane was a megalomaniac, 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 is not shot down in flames, God’s 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)? (2 Corinthians 11:29)

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, Paul’s next statement borders on schizophrenic. “The God (o ΘΣ) and father (pater) of the Lord (tou ΚΥ) Iesou (ΙΗΥ) 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 braggadocious diatribe, with Sha’uwl 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 a further affirmation, he has already told us that God knew him and chose him before he was born. As such, this may be Sha’uwl’s most presumptions, egotistical, and delusional statement.

Paul is doing such a great job incriminating himself, let’s 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 (ΚΥ).” (2 Corinthians 12:1)

One way to avoid lying I suppose is to say that you cannot remember. But when they are allegedly transformative events in your life, encounters which provide your authority, that will not fly. Nonetheless...

“I am aware of (oida – I know, recognize, recall, or acknowledge) a man (anthropos) in (en) Christo (ΙὨ – a placeholder used by Yahowsha’s 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 (ΘΣ – a placeholder used by Yahowsha’s 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)

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 cannot recall what happened, why did he provide three detailed, albeit conflicting, accounts for Luke to record in Acts? Also, if God cannot 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 this to be the deranged musings and hallucinations 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 (ΘΣ – a placeholder used by Yahowsha’s Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey ‘elohym, the Almighty), he has known and has remembered (oiden – he has recognized, recalled, and acknowledged) (2 Corinthians 12:3) 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 did not 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 a poisonous scorpion’s 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 do not suspect that Paulos much liked being demon-possessed. It must have been maddening and manipulative. 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 arretos was the “negation of the Word,” aphistemi is the antithesis of Yahowsha’s purpose: “to stand up for us so that we might stand with Him.” Therefore, to be aphistemi is to be separated from God’s purpose.

If you are looking for God’s help, if you want Him to respond to you, that will never happen if you call Yahowah or Yahowsha’, “Lord.” This is not only Satan’s title, and the name God uses to identify the Adversary, in that the name Ba’al 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 (ΧΡΥ) 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 wasn’t 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 Sha’uwl, 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)?” (Matthew 16:26)

His insights are stunningly appropriate, especially when we consider Sha’uwl’s 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.



Let’s be clear: Sha’uwl’s | Paul’s 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 Sha’uwl initially. And just as millions have pondered the nature of the thorn in Paul’s 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 I am 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 somewhat 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 Satan’s 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 sheep’s 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 Satan’s 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 reverence – and they will do or say anything they believe will serve their interests. In doing so, they become exceedingly divisive. It’s 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 opponent’s 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 Sheep’s Clothing), Nero (the prototypical “Antichrist”), Rabbi Akiba (the Father of Judaism), Marcion (Paul’s publicist), Diocletian (circa 303 CE with his persecutions), Emperor Constantine (with his claim to have seen a sign under which he could conquer), Muhammad (the demon-possessed founder of Islam), Maimonides (the man who codified Judaism), 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 commercial endeavor. 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 hypocrisy – the telltale signs of insecurity. Sha’uwl’s 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 Yahowsha’s 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 Sha’uwl was rebuked by Yahuwdym who publicly demonstrated that he was lying. Since insecure men cannot tolerate criticism, Paul responded the same way Muhammad would centuries later – by 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, Sha’uwl’s anti-Semitic rant in 1 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 they will stop at nothing to garner the undivided attention they seem to require.

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 vipers – the children of demons. He was one of Satan’s children before he became Satan’s messenger. So, of course, Paul thought that the lesser light and voice came from his god. It did.

Paul’s 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 women’s work.

Never having enjoyed a mother’s 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 person – a young man named Timothy.

Having witnessed his dark side, his penchant for tearing others down and abusing them, Rabbis may have encouraged Sha’uwl to harass those who recognized that Yahowsha’ was the Passover Lamb. And even in this barbaric job, Paul would brag that he excelled. Imagine a soul dark enough to boast about such a thing. 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 were 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 knee-deep in their own self-serving charade, they could not turn back and admit the truth – their egos would not allow it. And that is why Satan picked them in the first place. He knew that their need to be esteemed and to compensate for their broken childhoods drove a lust for attention and admiration 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 I suspect Satan promised Sha’uwl – a pompous elitist – that as his apostle he would become the most influential man who ever lived. He delivered.

Surprisingly, the infamy of being the world’s most influential man does not go to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, or even Yahowsha’ or his disciples, because, as a result of Paul’s letters, too few people consider what they had to say. But Paul founded a religion – the largest and most influential in human history. He has been immortalized. Christians cite his words far more often than Yahowah’s and Yahowsha’s combined. He has become “Saint Paul” – the most famous “Apostle.” They name cities and cathedrals after him.

And as a result of what he has done, the man who was rejected by his father, mother, religious teachers, Yahowsha’s disciples, and God took his revenge and damned more souls than anyone in history. Billions have been poisoned by his words. He was the Wolf in Sheep’s clothing; the one in the best position to mutilate Yahowah’s Word and devour Yahowsha’s 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. Paul’s way of faith and his gospel of grace are in direct conflict with God’s Word. So, for Christians, it is time to metanoeo: to change your perspective to that of the Towrah, your thinking so that it is consistent with God’s, 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 Sha’uwl’s name: She’owl. Do not 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:

“Yahowah’s 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.

Yahowah’s enduring testimony is trustworthy and reliable, verifiable and establishing, making understanding and obtaining wisdom simple for the open-minded.” (Mizmowr / Psalm 19:7)



RESOURCES

YadaYah.com

ProphetOfDoom.net

Tea with Terrorists

InTheCompanyOfGoodAndEvil.com

Forum.yadayah.com

BlogTalkRadio.com/Yada

Facebook: Yada Yahowah Observations

Facebook: Yada Yahowah Coming Home

Printed and eBooks: Amazon.com (Craig Winn)

Contact: email@YadaYah.com

ASSOCIATED RESOURCES

YahowahBeryth.com (Books & Audio Archives)

BlessYah.com (Books & Audio Archives)

Facebook: Shamar Towrah (Discussion Group)

Yada Yah on YouTube (Audio Programs)

Cover photo courtesy of hystar.wordpress.com

Ver. 20210812

Devil’s Advocate

Yahowah reveals that if someone like Paul establishes himself as an interpreter of revelations, he is a false prophet. If he claims to have performed miracles as proof of his calling, as Paul has done, or if he encourages us to accept other gods such as his Iesou Christo, he is a false prophet. If he fails to affirm our love for Yahowah, whom Paul contradicted and demeaned, or subtracts from or adds to the Towrah, he is a false prophet…

“Observe (shamar) every (‘eth kol) word (dabar) which shows the way to benefits of the relationship (‘asher) that I am (‘any) instructing (tsawah) you with (‘eth ‘atah) for the purpose of (la) engaging with it and acting upon it (‘asah), never adding to it (lo’ yasaph ‘al – through a New Testament) nor subtracting from it (wa lo’ gara’ min – replacing it).

Indeed, if (ky) a prophet (naby’) stands up trying to establish himself (quwm) in your midst (ba qereb) as an interpreter of revelations (chalowm chalam), and provides (wa nathan) a sign (‘owth) or (‘o) miracle (mowpheth) for you (‘el ‘atah), and that religious miracle worker (ha ‘owth ‘o ha mowpheth)…says (la ‘amar), ‘Let us go after (halak ‘achar) other (‘acher) gods (‘elohym) which (‘asher) you have not known (lo’ yada’), serving and worshiping them (wa ‘abad), do not listen to (lo’ shama’ ‘el) the words (dabar) of that prophet (ha huw’ naby’) or (‘o) interpreter of revelations (ha huw’ chalowm chalam). This is (ky) the test (nasah) of Yahowah (Yahowah), your God (‘elohym), for you to know (la yada’) whether it affirms your (ha yesh) love (‘ahab) for Yahowah with all (ba kol) your heart (leb) and (wa ba kol) soul (nepesh).

Therefore (wa), a prophet (ha huw’ naby’) or (‘o) interpreter of revelations (ha huw’ chalowm chalam) is deadly (muwth) if (ky) he has spoken (dabar) rebellious renunciations (sara’) against (‘al) Yahowah your God…the One who redeemed you (wa ha padah) from the house (min beyth) of servitude and worship (‘ebed).

His desire is to seduce and scatter you (la nadach) from (min) the way (ha derek) which beneficially leads to the relationship (‘asher) with Yahowah, your God… And so (wa) you should choose to remove (ba’ar) that which is incorrect (ha ra’) from your midst (min qereb).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 13:1-6)