1Questioning Paul

Liars Lie

…Contradicting God

 

1

Sha’uwl | Question Him

 

Prelude to the Truth…

Most Christians believe that Paul, a self-proclaimed Jewish rabbi born as Sha’uwl, a man who wrote under the Roman pseudonym, Paulos, was the principal agent chosen by “Jesus” to communicate the precepts of their religion to the world. They refer to his message as “the Gospel of Grace.”

This is surprising since there is only one, albeit inaccurate, citation from “Jesus” and not a single statement from the “Gospels” in the corpus of Paul’s fourteen letters.

In spite of this, or unaware of it, these same Christians believe that this lone wannabe Apostle, someone who never walked a step alongside Yahowsha’ | “Jesus”, was authorized to denounce and discard Yahowah’s Torah (which is more accurately spelled Towrah and means Teaching and Guidance), replace His Covenant (from the Hebrew word Beryth | Family Relationship), dismiss His annual Feasts (called Miqra’ey | Invitations to be Called Out and Meet), and reject His Shabat – and even contradict Yahowsha’. On the surface, this appears preposterous, and yet no matter how illogical the presupposition required to accept Paul may be, it does not matter to believers.

The miracle which makes the resulting religion popular is performed in Sha’uwl’s / Paulos’ / Paul’s epistle to the Galatians – which serves as the blueprint for Pauline Doctrine. In its pages, a stream of arguments are presented 2against the Torah and on behalf of placing one’s faith in Paul’s “but I say....”

Is there any plausible scenario under which Paul could have annulled and discarded the Towrah | Teaching and Guidance God called “perfect” and “eternal?” And while the answer is obviously, no, Paul had the audacity to claim that, since God’s testimony was incapable of saving anyone, this same inept “God” after communicating His message through prophets throughout the centuries, authorized him, and only him, to devise a new and different plan.

Should we play make-believe, and pretend that God actually “inspired” Paul to contradict Him and negate His testimony? If God’s plan for His people was ineffective and, worse, if it were an enslaving curse, what would make Paul’s replacement believable since it is allegedly “inspired” by the same incompetent God? And yet, unless this preposterous proposition is seen as believable, then Paul’s every claim is invalid.

As a result, the question before us is whether Christianity was established on the bedrock of Divine revelation or on the shifting sands of one man’s delusions.

In the end it all comes down to Galatians – Paul’s first letter, as evidenced by the epistle itself. It is the first time where the Torah was assailed by someone claiming to speak for God. Without Galatians, there is no credible debate between observing the Torah, which is to examine its teaching, or faith, which is to believe in the unknown or uncertain. So while there are many critical passages in Paul’s other letters, and most especially in Romans, Galatians provides the most methodical approach to obfuscating God’s testimony and plan of salvation.

Galatians is one of only two epistles in which the Shabat and Feasts are placed in doubt, the other being Paul’s letter to the Colossians. It is one of only two letters 3where a “New Covenant” is presented, the other being Paulos’ letter to the Romans. Without Galatians, there is considerably less justification for rejecting anything Yahowah (God’s one and only name) shared with us.

Galatians is the place where “faith,” which has become synonymous with “religion,” was first pitted against trusting God’s proven and prophetic testimony. This was accomplished by Paul mischaracterizing the Torah’s nature, implying that to observe it was to obey it and that God’s intent to guide was instead to command. As a result, a book filled with Yahowah’s teaching became known as “the law.”

Wanting to be free of “the law,” and thus “authorized” to establish his own “rules,” Sha’uwl strives to discredit and then discard Yahowah’s Torah in the second and third chapters of Galatians. He does this so that, in the fourth chapter, he can position his advocacy for an entirely new and different covenant, relegating the one scribed by Moses (actually Moseh, meaning to “draw out”) on Mount Sinai to “being of the flesh.”

Inverting reality in Gnostic fashion (as was the rage among Greeks and Romans), Paul claimed that the Torah’s Covenant was with Hagar and thus enslaved, condemning everyone. He would have you believe that God lied when He stated that Hagar and her son, Ishmael, were expressly excluded from the Covenant and banished, because the truth didn’t suit Paul’s agenda. And yet in the Towrah, Yahowah said that His Covenant was established with Abraham and Sarah’s son, Yitschaq | Isaac. He also said that His Beryth | Covenant was the means to life eternal, being perfected, adopted into His Family, enriched, enlightened, and empowered.

Who are you going to believe? Paul’s claims and God’s testimony are the antithesis of one another. They cannot both be true.

4More than just being ground zero for Christianity’s disdain for all things Yahowah – His Name, His Word, His Torah, His Covenant, His Instructions, His Shabat, His Invitations to Meet, His Land, His Chosen People, and His Way – Galatians pits Paul’s new religion against the relationship Yahowah proposed.

Yahowah is not Paul’s only adversary. In Galatians, Yahowsha’s Disciple, Shim’own | Peter, is mercilessly condemned by Paul, and Ya’aqob | James and Yahowchanan | John are dismissed and demeaned.

In this light, Galatians and the book of Acts present conflicting accounts of the Jerusalem Summit – further isolating Paul from Yahowsha’s Disciples. Based upon its timing and content, it is obvious that Galatians was Paul’s response, his rebuttal, to having had his message censured, his authority questioned, and his reputation besmirched by Yahowsha’s Disciples in Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem (source from which guidance regarding reconciliation flows).

Paul’s summation of this meeting is found in the heart of his first epistle, along with Paul’s animosity toward the issues which prompted the summit – the purpose of the Torah and the merits of circumcision. These themes dominate Galatians, with Paul’s position consistently running in direct opposition to Yahowah, and therefore to the Word of God. In due time we will juxtapose these texts. So do not be concerned if you are currently unaware of this meeting or of the incompatible accounts of it.

Especially relevant to this discussion is Shim’own’s (He Listens, but errantly called Peter’s) overall evaluation of Paul and, especially, his Galatians letter, in Shim’own | 2 Peter. The disciple bluntly criticizes the content and confusion inherent in Paul’s epistles. Then we are confronted with a statement which, at least when mistranslated and removed from its context, is often used 5to assert that Paul’s epistles should be afforded “Scriptural” status. But if this lone dubious “endorsement” falters, if it is not credible in context, or if this is not what Shim’own actually wrote, then the idea of a “New Testament,” comprised mostly of Paul’s letters and inspiration, being considered “Scripture,” in the sense of having been “inspired by God,” vanishes.

Without misappropriating Shim’own’s | Peter’s position, support for Paul’s troubling letters would be relegated to the murk of myth and to the realm of religious traditions. Therefore, we will dissect Sha’uwl’s | Paul’s overt condemnation of Shim’own | Peter, just as we will study Shim’own’s direct and unabashed response to Sha’uwl under a linguistic microscope, contemplating the Disciple’s perceptions of the self-proclaimed Apostle’s message and letters.

Christian theologians, of course, unanimously side with Paul over Peter with regard to the Great Galatians Debate. In so doing, they have established their religion in opposition to Yahowah, Yahowsha’, the Disciples, and to the Word of God. But no matter: in their view, Paul was right to equate the Torah with law, Yahowah’s Feasts with Judaism, circumcision with the flesh, and the conditions of the Covenant with bondage.

For Christians, as a result of Paul announcing his new covenant theory in the fourth chapter of Galatians, it is appropriate to divide their “Bibles” into two “Testaments” – one “Old” and the other “New,” one failed and counterproductive with the other providing the hope of salvation by rejecting God’s plan and placing one’s faith in Paul’s promises. For Christians, solely as a result of Paul’s epistles, hell awaits everyone who clings to the past by observing the Torah, while heaven embraces all those who place their faith in Paul’s Gospel of Grace.

With the stakes this high, with the credibility of the 6religion of Christianity resting upon one man’s letters, with the salvation of billions of souls at stake, few things could be as important as considering the possibility that Paulos’ epistle to the Galatians might not be trustworthy since he openly contradicted the God he purported to represent. But if this world-renowned individual pulled off this feat, if he managed to supersede something as fundamental to God’s approach to mankind in His Torah, and if Paul supplanted it with something as nebulous as faith in his convoluted diatribes and convinced the world that he had done so without offending God, even with God’s blessing, Galatians would have to be the most brilliantly written thesis of all time.

To determine if Sha’uwl | Paul legitimately changed everything, including our understanding of God and His prophetic testimony, even the means to salvation, we are going to examine his words under the lens of the world’s most acclaimed lexicons while referencing the oldest extant manuscripts. Paul’s thoughts will be scrutinized by juxtaposing each proposal he makes against Yahowah’s position on the same topic. We will leave nothing to chance or supposition. And while we are cognizant that billions of religious individuals believe that Galatians is “Scripture,” we will be honest, even if the result is judgmental and thus deemed offensive. Regardless of how many religious preconceptions succumb to the evidence, this pursuit of the truth will be relentlessly rational.

As I have shared previously, at the onset of this study I was inclined to think favorably of Paul. I simply could not have imagined that he was the focus of God’s ire, becoming the single most hated man in human history from Yahowah’s perspective. And yet, God’s testimony against Sha’uwl | Paul is unrelenting and unequivocal.

While this was not the first time, and will not be the last, I hope never to make a mistake this monumental again with regard to Paul. I was wrong.

7And yet, as I have stated before, it will be Sha’uwl’s | Paul’s words, not my preconceived notions, which will determine whether the most influential man in human history had the audacity to contradict God, to undermine His testimony, and to establish a “New Testament” in place of the one he sought to annul. If he did, and if he made his case, then Christianity might be on solid footing. But if it wasn’t appropriate to demean and dissolve the Torah, if faith isn’t the answer, billions have been tragically misled, their souls extinguished as a consequence.

As a result, it is instructive to reinforce the fact that Paul’s given name was Sha’uwl. It is of Hebrew origin, and it means “he questions” and “question him” depending upon how the pronoun is accommodated. Therefore, “questioning him” as a result of what “he has questioned” is precisely what we are going to do. And in this vein, you should also know that the name, Sha’uwl, is indistinguishable in Hebrew from She’owl, which is “the grave,” “the pit,” and the “realm of the dead.” The name, Sha’uwl, is shared with one of the most misguided and counterproductive individuals in Yisra’el’s history, King Sha’uwl | Saul – Dowd’s | David’s mortal enemy. His life, as it transpired, was prophetic of his namesake, the wannabe Apostle Sha’uwl | Paul.

Also relevant, Sha’uwl chose a different, Latin, name, Paulos, which means “lowly and little.” His avowed affinity for Rome and his choice of a fictitious nom de plume are aspects of his life which will loom large before we are finished.

One of the surprising obstacles we will have to overcome along the way will become obvious in short order. Paul’s letter to the Galatians is poorly written, reflecting some of the worst writing found anywhere in texts comprising the “Christian New Testament.” We will encounter a steady diet of linguistic malfeasance and worse.

8Many of Paul’s sentences are incomprehensible. His literacy is well beneath the dignity of God, even though this indisputable fact does not seem to matter to a religion hell-bent on distancing itself from Yahowah, from His Covenant, His Torah, or from His Feasts (Hebrew: Miqra’ey – Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God).

Before we embark on this journey, there is something else you should know. There are a handful of individuals who would like others to believe that Paulos did not write Galatians. They use pedantic ploys to imply that this epistle, along with 2^nd Corinthians, 1^st Thessalonians, Ephesians, and both personal letters to Timothy were foisted as a clever fraud, and then later attributed to Paul. In support of this argument, there is phraseology prevalent in Galatians that appears less frequently in the subsequent epistles claimed by this man.

In support of Galatians being from Paul, we must recognize that the book of Acts reveals that he had the kind of contentious relationship with the Galatians which is actually reflected in the epistle. We are told that the Galatians went from believing that Paulos was the incarnation of a Greek god to wanting to stone him for his caustic rhetoric.

Second, Shim’own | Peter, in his second letter, evaluates an epistle Paul had written expressly to this particular audience – one that we learn from his greeting in 1^st Peter has to be Galatia, because it is the only place where the addressees overlap. Therefore, based upon the Disciple’s letter, we know that Paul wrote an epistle to the Galatians. And if not this letter, then the authentic document has been lost. But more than that, the language Shim’own (He Listens) uses to describe Galatians precisely reflects the contents we find in the surviving copy.

9Third, the issues raised at the Yaruwshalaim (“Jerusalem”) Summit serve as the centerpiece of this epistle. After reading Luke’s (from the Latin Lucas) testimony in Acts, it becomes clear that Galatians was Paulos’ response to his critics at this meeting. Status was paramount to Sha’uwl, and therefore, Galatians chronicles his desire to position himself as favorably as possible, especially vis a vis Yahowsha’s Disciples whom he routinely slights.

Additionally, based upon the disparaging language, it appears that the letter was written immediately after that meeting, long before tempers cooled. And that means that Paulos would have had twelve subsequent opportunities to distance himself from the letter scribed to the Galatians had it been a fraud because his open letters to the Thessalonians, Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians, as well as the personal notes to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon all came later – as did most of his testimony in Acts. Never once is he heard denouncing the authenticity of this epistle to the Galatians but is instead found building his case against the Towrah and its Covenant upon the foundation he laid therein.

Fourth, Galatians is all about Sha’uwl becoming Paulos, about his childhood, his religious education, his questionable calling, his self-proclaimed mission, his adversarial preaching, his suspect credibility, and his personal trials and tribulations. Within its text, we find Paul referring to himself as the parent of his faithful children, as the perfect example to follow, as a person who can do no wrong, and as someone who cannot lie. If Paul didn’t write it, Galatians was either scribed by his publicist, or by someone who spent the better part of his life polishing Paul’s sandals.

Fifth, the oldest extant codex containing Paul’s epistles, Papyrus 46, places Galatians in the midst of the other letters claimed by and attributed to Paulos. In order 10of their appearance in the codex, these epistles include: Romans, Hebrews, 1^st and 2^nd Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1^st Thessalonians. And since P46 is dated between 85 and 125 CE, we know that one of the earliest collectors of Greek manuscripts believed that Paul had penned this letter. As did Marcion in the 2^nd century, a man who looms large in this saga.

Sixth, Paulos had a propensity to sign his letters so that his audience would have some assurance that he was the author. But with Galatians, he did more than just sign his name. He personally attests to have written the conclusion with his own hand using really big letters.

And seventh, Paul’s signature term is charis, the name of the Greek goddesses of hospitality and merriment. Their name was transliterated into English as “Grace” as a result of the Roman moniker for these same goddesses, the Gratia. Apart from Paulos’ letters, the use of charis can only be attested in one other place in an ancient Greek manuscript. Therefore, the frequency of deploying the name of the Greek goddesses of charity and licentiousness in all of these letters strongly suggests that this troubling and pagan aspect of Christianity came from Paul as did Galatians.

I suppose that this may leave us with a third, albeit highly unlikely alternative, that Paul was the author, but that he never intended this letter to be circulated, much less to be considered “Scripture.” He was clearly angry and may well have dashed off an emotional response that, from a more sober perspective, he would have wadded up and thrown away.

Most of us have written letters like this; and many have had the good sense to hold on to them long enough to soften them once our passions have subsided. But if this is the case, what does it say about the credibility of the rest of the testimony this man also claims was inspired by God, 11indeed, what does it suggest about the veracity of the Christian New Testament as a whole?

The only benefit of distancing this epistle from Paul is that it would not tarnish the remainder of the letters attributed to him. But even then, the potential benefit would be fraught with peril, in that it would open the floodgates to questioning the appropriateness of everything originally written in Greek and not Hebrew. Christianity’s entire foundation would be torn asunder. Worse, because the Galatians epistle was written in first person, and because it is based upon the life of the self-proclaimed Apostle Paulos, if it is a counterfeit, not only does the authority of more than half of the “Christian New Testament” become suspect, the religion is deprived of doctrine. I say this because Paul’s attaché wrote Luke and Acts and two of his devotees wrote Mark and Matthew, as well as Hebrews – should it not be from Paul, himself. His influence on these texts explains why they are anti-Semitic, historically inaccurate, and contradictory – the same problems which permeate Paul’s letters.

As we will discover throughout this review, in substance, there is very little difference between Galatians and everything else Paul wrote and influenced. It is readily apparent that the same individual authored them, one that was promoting his own unique message in his own inimitable way.

Ultimately, however, the only question which really matters is whether or not Galatians is true. Is it the inspired Word of God or not? If it is valid, so is Christianity. But if it is invalid, the world’s most popular religion is brought down with it.

This conclusion is inescapable because Galatians, even more than Paul’s other letters, is devoted to systematically demeaning, dismantling, and demoting the Torah and its Covenant. This would include the recognition 12that Yahowah is God’s only name, that Yahowah, Himself, is our Savior, and that the Shabat remains set apart. Without Galatians, there would be no way to explain Christianity’s opposition to Yahowah’s seven Miqra’ey – Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God – as they would still delineate the path to eternal life, to salvation, adoption, enrichment, empowerment, and reconciliation, leading to living with God as His children. Without Galatians, Romans, and Hebrews, there would only be one Covenant, a familial accord which has yet to be renewed. There would be no room for a “New Testament,” a “Gospel of Grace,” or a faith-based religion.

Without Galatians, Yahowah’s Towrah, as it is affirmed throughout the Psalms and Prophets, remains the sole means to liberate humankind from religious and political oppression. But with Galatians, the Torah is mankind’s greatest foe, the path to enslavement and condemnation.

Without Galatians, the “Gospel of Grace” would be stillborn, invalidated by Yahowah’s promise to heal His people through the Towrah – with its entirely different, yet overtly beneficial message. Without Galatians, our association with God would be based exclusively upon the Towrah’s everlasting Covenant, upon knowing Yahowah and relying upon God’s Guidance, not Paul’s.

Without Galatians, admission to heaven would be predicated upon responding to Yahowah’s Invitations to Meet with Him as this seven-step path is articulated in the heart of the Towrah. Without Galatians, “faith” becomes irrelevant, as does the religion of Christianity, because the God who authored the Towrah can be known through it.

In this regard, you should know that faith is the opposite of trust. Trust emerges from a discerning evaluation of the evidence, while faith thrives in the absence of information and reason.

13So, while there may be some lingering debate among a few individuals regarding the authenticity of this epistle, we will proceed as if Galatians is genuine. After all, billions of people the world over accept it as having been written by Paul, a man they believe was inspired by God. But is that possible? Could the God who created the universe, who conceived life, who authored the Torah, who nurtured the Covenant, who freed a nation from slavery, and who enlightened the world while proving His existence and verifying His witness through prophecy, have contributed to a book which presents Him as incompetent and impotent?

Fortunately, that question can be answered. So long as we are willing to invest the time required to consider the evidence with an open mind, so long as we are willing to evaluate the facts rationally, not religiously, together we will determine with absolute certainty whether Galatians, indeed the whole corpus of Pauline literature, was inspired by God. If not, it is not reliable. And in the end, that is all this study strives to determine.

There are some far-reaching implications associated with that determination. And that is because the religion of Christianity was established as an extension of the paradigm Paulos proposed in his first public address and epistle.

The Pauline “Jesus Christ” was touted as a new and improved, more tolerant and accepting, nicer and loving, version of the jealous and wrathful God of the oppressive Law, a God out of touch with Greek and Roman sensibilities. The perception of Yahowsha’ as the Passover Lamb would be lost in the fog of myth. The realization that Yahowsha’ was Towrah observant would be convoluted, twisted and inverted, with Christians, as a direct result of Paul’s opening salvo, believing that their “Jesus” had come to annul the old god’s arcane and dreadful “Law,” freeing them from its judgmental nature.

14With Yahowsha’s name forgotten and replaced, the Christian Savior would become known as “Jesus Christ,” jettisoning all association with Yahowah. In this way, the entirety of Yahowah’s testimony, His role as Creator, Father, and Savior, even as God, would be discounted then dismissed, as would His Torah and His Covenant. Christians would not speak of Him or pray to Him, preferring to focus on their religious caricature.

The Pauline “Jesus Christ” would become an object to be painted with the impressions and opinions of believers, his own words and life ignored because most everything he said and did was now in conflict with the belief system Paul was foisting on an accepting world. He would be portrayed as a helpless infant cradled in his mother’s arms or as a dead god on a stick. High praise, indeed.

As a result of what this new paradigm wrought, should Paul’s epistle to the Galatians prove to be unreliable for any reason, to be in conflict with Yahowah or Yahowsha’, the foundational assumptions of the Christian religion fall apart with it, as they could neither be inspired nor be accurate. It is that simple, that clear cut. The fate of the faithful rests in the balance, as does their religion.

Since Paul provides him ample lip service, I understand that Christians believe that “Jesus Christ” was the founder of their religion, but that is not accurate. I understand that Christians believe that it is appropriate to address God as “the Lord,” but that is inadvisable. I understand that Christians believe that “Jesus” is the second person of a Trinity, and represents the totality of God, but that is not possible.

I understand that Christians believe that God died for 15their sins, but that is an absurdity. I understand that Christians believe that God’s purpose is to save us, but that is unrealistic. I understand that Christians believe that salvation requires nothing of them and that it is a product of faith, but that is ridiculous. I understand that Christians believe that all souls go either to heaven or to hell, but that is irrational.

I understand that Christians believe that “Jesus” was born on Christmas Day, but that is not credible. I understand that Christians believe that Easter commemorates God’s bodily resurrection from the dead, but that would have been counterproductive. I understand that Christians believe that the Covenant’s renewal is depicted in their “New Testament,” making it possible to ignore everything in the Torah, but that is blasphemous. I understand that Christians believe that their “Bible” is the inerrant Word of God, but that is exceedingly ignorant.

I understand that Christians believe that Paul met with “Jesus” on the road to Damascus, that he had a conversion experience, that he was transformed from being a murderer to serving as an apostle, someone chosen and inspired by God to share the Gospel of Grace with the world, but that is laughable. I understand that Christians believe that the Torah was written exclusively for Jews, that it was comprised of old-fashioned laws that no one can obey, and that “Jesus” came to free us from that Law, but that is wholly incongruous with the evidence.

Quite literally, most everything Christians believe is untrue. And faith in something which is invalid is foolish.

It is an irrefutable fact that no one named “Jesus Christ” lived in the 1^st century of the Common Era. The name “Jesus” was initially conceived in the 17^th century, shortly after the letter “J” was invented. The actual individual was not Greek, and therefore, he did not have a Greek name. And even if he had been Greek, “Jesus” is not 16an accurate transliteration of Iesou, Iesous, or Iesoun.

More incriminating still, these Greek corruptions of His name were never written on any page of any pre-Constantine codex of the so-called “Christian New Testament.” Following the example of the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Hebrew Torah, Prophets, and Psalms), a Divine Placeholder was universally deployed to represent “Yahowsha’.” Further, the name, Yahowsha’, which is affirmed over 200 times in the Torah and Prophets, means “Yahowah Frees and Saves.” This means that “Jesus” cannot be the “Savior.”

Furthermore, a man named, “Jesus,” could not have come in His Father’s name. But Yahowsha’ could and did. So since the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, and cannot even get his name right, what else might be untrue? And now that you know that “Jesus” isn’t accurate, are you going to start using his actual name?

“Christ” is not a last name, as in “Jesus Christ.” Further, since he was not Greek, it would be silly to ascribe a Greek title to him. Also, a title should never follow a name, but instead precede it. And when a title is conveyed, it should be accompanied by the definite article.

Making matters worse, “Christos,” the alleged basis of “Christ,” speaks of the “application of drugs.” “Christos” is not an accurate translation of “Mashyach,” which is the only Hebrew word which can be transliterated, “Messiah.” And according to Yahowah, He anointed Dowd | David the Mashyach, not Yahowsha’. So “Christ” is a misnomer, attributing a title that does not fit and does not belong.

Nonetheless, Divine Placeholders were used to present Yahowsha’s alleged title on every page of every Greek manuscript scribed in the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, and early 4^th centuries CE. Also, a thorough investigation of the historical evidence demonstrates that the placeholders for this title 17were based upon Chrestus, a variation of Chrestos (Strong’s G5543), not Christos (Strong’s G5547), with the former meaning “fit for use and virtuous.” It would have been appropriate and correct in that Yahowsha’ was a “Useful Implement.” Such is the nature of the Passover Lamb.

Sadly for Christians, however, Christos | Christ was a very poor choice. The only time Yahowsha’ is translated and recorded using “christos” or its verbal root, “chrio” (Strong’s G5548), is in Revelation 3:18. There, a mal’ak | spiritual messenger representing Yahowsha’ is heard recommending that the Laodiceans (people living in democratic nations during the last days) symbolically “apply (chrio) to your eyes an eyesalve (which was a pharmaceutical or drug) so that you may see.” The word, chrio, the actionable root of christos, was used correctly because it spoke of “the application of drugs.” The community was famous at the time for manufacturing and promoting an eye balm to improve vision. The spiritual implement representing Yahowsha’ was, therefore, implying that the Laodiceans’ vision was occluded and that if they wanted to recognize who had been standing beside the door and knocking, thereby associating Yahowsha’ with Passover, he recommended they become observant. This use, therefore, implies that a “Christ” would have distributed drugs and that “Christians” would have been drugged. Replacing the Hebrew Mashyach | Messiah with Christos | Christ was a very poor decision fraught with peril.

Since the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, and can’t even get the title which became the name of their religion right, what else might be untrue? And now that you know that “Christ” isn’t remotely accurate, and does not apply, are you going to start referring to Yahowsha’ as the Passover Lamb rather than the Christ?

18Yahowsha’ emphatically stated that he did not come to replace or to annul any aspect of the Torah, but instead to be the living embodiment of it. Therefore, by upholding the existing standard, he could not be the founder of a new religion. Yahowsha’ was without exception, Torah observant. His every word and deed affirmed this, as did his participation on Passover in year 4000 Yah as the Pesach | Passover ‘Ayil | Lamb. It would be impossible as a result to follow Yahowsha’ without embracing the Towrah. And the moment a person becomes Torah observant, he ceases to be a Christian, which is why believers ignore almost everything Yahowsha’ did and said.

Since the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And now that you know that Yahowsha’ was Torah observant, are you going to follow his example?

Throughout the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, God ascribes the title “Lord” to Satan. The Adversary is called “ha Ba’al – the Lord,” because he wants to control the beneficiaries of freewill. The Adversary’s prime objective is for mankind to bow down to him, worshiping him as if the Lord was God. But the actual God has a name, and He has no interest in control, or desire to be worshiped. His name, Yahowah, is pronounced as easily as any of the many thousands of other words and names written throughout His witness: Y-aH-oW-aH.

Based upon the Hebrew verb, “hayah,” “to exist,” Yahowah is found 7000 times in His Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. He not only encouraged us to use this name, but said that the replacing of His name with the title, “Lord,” was the most devastating thing humankind has ever done. It opens the door to mischaracterizing His nature and to the acceptance of false gods by any other name.

Further, learning someone’s name is the first step in 19initiating a relationship. And Yahowah wants us to relate to Him as children would to a father. The proper perspective is to see our Heavenly Father on His knees, offering to lift us up. And as the Author of freewill, God is opposed to lording over anyone. So since the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And now that you know that God’s name is pronounced “Yahowah,” are you going to use it instead of Lord?

The Trinity is a Babylonian religious concept. This notion was part and parcel of the pagan mythology of the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans as well. Yahowah never once mentions anything even remotely akin to a Trinity. He not only says that He is one, but expressly asks us not to accept religious customs such as this.

Yahowsha’ is the Passover Lamb, and was here to serve us. He is not God. Further, the entirety of God would not fit into our solar system, much less into the body of a physical being.

Also in this regard, Yahowah’s Spirit is set apart from Him. Her title, Ruwach Qodesh, which means “Set-Apart Spirit,” affirms this reality. Representing the Maternal aspects of Yahowah’s nature, She serves as our Spiritual Mother, thereby completing the symbolism of the Covenant Family – the very family we are invited to join. And now that you know that God is one, are you going to start focusing your attention on getting to know Yahowah instead of “Jesus” or the “Holy Ghost?”

Yahowah is immortal. He cannot die. Man cannot kill God. Therefore, God could not die for your sins. Yahowah explained this, but Christians seldom listen to Him. As the Passover Lamb, Yahowsha’ cited the opening line of the 22^nd Psalm, telling us that the Spirit of God had departed, allowing his physical body to die while Yahowah’s soul went to She’owl to redeem us on UnYeasted Bread. The 20Psalm explains all of this, including the service God’s soul provided for us on the Qodesh | Set Apart Miqra’ | Invitation to be Called Out and Meet of Matsah | UnYeasted Bread.

Therefore, according to Yahowah, He did not die. As for Yahowsha’s physical body, the remains of the Passover Lamb were incinerated that same night in accordance with the Towrah’s instructions. So there was no body and no physical resurrection. And that explains why, in all three encounters on Firstborn Children, no one recognized him. He was the same soul, now reunited with the same Spirit, but he was only partly corporeal.

Recognizing the relationship between energy and matter, one realizes that being corporeal would be a liability, which is why there is no such thing as bodily resurrection into the spiritual realm.

Since the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And now that you know that God could not die for your sins, are you going to follow His example and celebrate Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children with Him?

Speaking of the first three Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God, they collectively depict the Way Yahowah has provided to perfect us. But saving us isn’t His priority. Yahowah is committed to His Covenant. Salvation is only afforded to its children.

It would be irrational for Yahowah to save souls who do not know Him, who do not care what He had to say, who don’t appreciate what He is offering, and who have worshiped a god of man’s making. Therefore, before a soul can be saved, that individual must first come to know, understand, accept, and then engage in the Covenant based upon the conditions articulated in the Towrah.

21The first of these is to walk away from religion and politics, from all things associated with Babylon. We are encouraged to rely on Yahowah instead, walking along a path which makes us immortal and perfect children who are prepared to be adopted into our Heavenly Father’s family, enabling His Spirit to enrich us and empower us. Therefore, salvation is the byproduct of participating in the Covenant.

Since the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And now that you know that God has established a handful of conditions that must be met to participate in this relationship, are you going to seek to understand them and then respond to God based upon what He is actually offering?

If God said, “Love me or I will send you to hell to be tortured,” He would not only be unlovable, He would be sadistic. Because of this scenario, there is a serious problem with the Christian god. However, the real God, Yahowah, said no such thing. According to His testimony, most souls simply cease to exist upon their mortal demise. They do not know God. God does not know them. There is nothing more. No reward. No punishment.

Yahowah provided each of us with the gift of a soul so that we could be observant, giving us freewill so that we could choose to know, ignore, or reject Him, and the benefit of a conscience so that we could exercise good judgment during our lives. The relatively few souls who use these gifts and get to know Yahowah as He revealed Himself in His Towrah, who understand and accept the conditions of His Covenant, and who answer the Invitations to walk to Him live forever with God in His home. Those souls who are beguiled by religion, or who just have no interest in God, cease to exist. And those who oppose Yahowah, promoting anything which leads others away from God, His Towrah or His Covenant, will spend 22eternity incarcerated in She’owl, something akin to a black hole.

Since the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And now that you know that most souls do not end up in heaven or hell, are you going to start questioning those who have tried to deceive you, promising heaven to you if you place your faith in them and their religion?

God is immortal. He was not born on any day, much less on the Winter Solstice, Christmas Day, when the Son of the Sun was born in virtually every pagan religion – nine months, of course, after the celebration of Easter. Yahowah consistently asks us to reject the religious mythology of pagan cultures, and yet Christians incorporated Babylon’s two holiest days into their faith. This does not please God; it angers Him, especially since Christians celebrate these pagan holidays while ignoring, even rejecting, every one of His Meetings.

This is especially disappointing because Yahowsha’s purpose was to enable the promises Yahowah had made regarding Passover, with Yahowah and the Set-Apart Spirit fulfilling UnYeasted Bread, Firstborn Children, and Seven Shabats. And after the Trumpets Harvest, He will fulfill Reconciliations and Shelters upon His return.

Since the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And now that you know that God hates Christmas and Easter, are you going to answer His Invitations on the days He designated?

The lone presentation of the Covenant’s renewal is detailed in Yirmayah / Jeremiah 31. And there, Yahowah reveals that this still future restoration of His relationship will be with Yahuwdah and Yisra’el, not with a Gentile church. In the same discussion, He reveals that the only 23difference between the existing Covenant and its reaffirmation is that upon His return He will personally place a complete copy of His towrah | guidance inside of us. This is significant because God would not have created a New Testament repudiating His Torah, only to return to the original plan.

With the Towrah woven into the very fabric of our nature, there will come a time when Yahowah’s Instructions can no longer be corrupted or rejected. All memory of Paul, his letters, and his religion will be wiped out as a result.

So since the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And now that you know that God has only one Covenant, that it has not yet been renewed, and that its restoration is predicated upon the incorporation of His Towrah into our lives, are you going to consider reading it and integrating its guidance into your life?

The “Christian New Testament” isn’t even remotely reliable. To pretend that it is the inerrant word of God is absurd. There are over 300,000 known differences between the oldest manuscripts and the texts which support legacy and modern translations. No two codices agree on which words were originally written, and that is just the beginning of the problems. No words representing church, cross, holy, saint, Christian, Jesus, Christ, Lord, God, Ghost, Christmas, Easter, communion, Last Supper, Trinity, or Gospel can be found in any ancient manuscript, making all of these things religious corruptions. There are whole sections of books that are not attested in the older witnesses, such as the discussion with the adulterous woman in the 8^th chapter of Yahowchanan | John, as well as the concluding chapter of Mark.

Neither Mark, Matthew, nor Luke were eyewitnesses, and thus are comprised of hearsay testimony. Paul’s 24thirteen letters, combined with his starring role in Acts, present doctrines which are diametrically opposed to Yahowsha’s words and deeds, and thus cannot have been inspired by the same God. And then we have to confront the issue of invalid, incomplete, and misleading translations, something you will more fully appreciate by the time you have completed this book.

So since the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And now that you know that you cannot rely on the Christian New Testament, where are you going to turn for answers?

Ironically, according to Yahowsha’s testimony during the Olivet Discourse, Paul could not have seen him on the road to Damascus. He told us not to believe anyone who made such a claim. So if Sha’uwl saw a light, it was not Yahowsha’.

Make no mistake, Paul’s message was his own. He never accurately quotes anything Yahowah or Yahowsha’ said. Paul’s testimony is not only incongruent with the Towrah, it is contrary to all of the prophets. Even Paul’s preaching was the antithesis of every credible witness.

If God can be relied upon, then Paul is a liar. You can either believe Paul or trust God, but no one can accept both. By comparing their words, this book will prove this point beyond any doubt. You will hate Paul before we are through.

As for the rest of the points that have been raised here in hopes of motivating Christians to begin questioning some of the many myths that have been woven into the fabric of their religion, irrefutable evidence to support every conclusion is provided in the many volumes of Yada Yahowah, An Introduction to God, Observations, and Coming Home.

25Before you consider these, there was a reason for the questions. If you are not going to change your thinking when confronted with evidence that undermines your beliefs, then nothing matters. This book, any book, even God’s book cannot influence a closed or irrational mind.

And there are so many more Pauline deceptions to be addressed. I understand that on one hand, Christians, as a direct result of Paul’s letter to the Galatians, have been led to believe that the Torah was written exclusively for Jews, that it was comprised of old-fashioned laws and arcane concepts that are impossible to obey, and that “Jesus” came to free the world from it. Then on the other, Paul has convinced them that all of the Towrah’s promises to these same people still apply, but that they have been miraculously transferred to them. And this juxtaposition of unattested absurdities may be the most inane aspect of the Christian religion.

But since addressing these Pauline propositions is the purpose of this book, let’s consider the evidence.