26Questioning Paul
Liars Lie
…Contradicting God
2
Katara | Curse
Plagued by Whom?…
In time, we will analyze every word of Galatians, from Sha’uwl’s greeting to his handwritten closing statement. But for now, I would like to commence our review of Christendom’s foundational treatise at the same place Christians begin their assault on the Torah. That occurs in Galatians 3, verses 10 through 14.
Let’s commence our investigation with the King James Version (Christianity’s most influential Bible translation) and New Living Translation (the religion’s most recent and liberal variation and among the most popular). Their depictions of these passages, juxtaposed against a literal rendering of the earliest manuscript of Sha’uwl’s letter, should suffice as evidence.
Reason dictates that if the following KJV and NLT translations are accurate, and the inspiration behind them valid, then the “Torah” is God’s way of cursing humankind – not saving us. And if this is true, Yahowah and Yahowsha’ are liars.
The King James reads: “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.” (3:10)
More clearly presented, albeit less aligned with the Greek text, the New Living Translation published: “But 27those who depend on the law to make them right with God are under his curse, for the Scriptures say, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the commands that are written in God’s Book of the Law.’ (3:10) If they are correct, God’s Word is God’s curse.
According to the most scholarly and respected resource, the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear, the statement Paul wrote actually conveys: “For as many as from works of law they are under curse they are. It has been written for (not applicable) curse on all who not stay in all the things having been written in the small book of the law to do them.”
Based upon the words Sha’uwl selected, the following is a more complete and accurate depiction of his pronouncement:
“Because (gar – for) to the degree that (hosos – as many and as far as) out of (ek) tasks and activities of (ergon –works or actions associated with) the Towrah (nomou – the means to being nourished by that which is bestowed to become heirs, precepts which were apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper and approved, and prescriptions for an inheritance; from nemo – that which is provided, assigned, and distributed to heirs to nourish them (singular genitive, and thus a specific characterization)) they are and they exist (eisin eisin) under (hupo – by way of) a curse (katara – that which a supernatural power deploys to invoke harm by promoting evil, that which is accursed, denounced and detested), for (gar – because indeed) it has been written (grapho) that (hoti): ‘To become accursed (epikataratos – to be exposed, abhorrent, and repugnant, slanderous, hateful, and malicious (to become is a product of the nominative case)) everyone (pas – all and completely) who (hos) not (ou) remains in (emmeno – stays and continues in, perseveres with) all (pas) that (tois) having 28been written (grapho) in (en) the scroll (to biblion – the book or documented written record typically on papyrus) of the (tou) Towrah (nomou – the allotment which is parceled out, the inheritance which is given, the nourishment which is bestowed to be possessed and used to grow, the precepts which are apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper and to be approved, and the prescription to become an heir (singular genitive, and thus restricted to a singular specific and unique characterization)), to do (poieomai – to make, produce, or perform) them (autos).’” (Galatians 3:10)
Trimmed to its essentials, the statement literally reads: “Because to the degree that out of tasks and activities of the Towrah they exist under a curse which a supernatural power deploys to invoke harm by promoting evil, doing what is accursed, denounced and detested, for it has been written that: ‘To become accursed, to become abhorrent, and repugnant, everyone who not remains in all that having been written in the scroll of the Towrah, to do them.’” (Galatians 3:10)
Recognizing that the preceding translation is a literal rendering of Papyrus 46, the oldest extant manuscript of Sha’uwl’s letter (dated to the late 1st or early 2nd century), it’s hard to explain the KJV’s and NLT’s variation from it.
Nonetheless, one of our questions has already been resolved. While we will diligently research every discernible connotation of “nomos,” not just once but multiple times, Sha’uwl has clearly acknowledged what you will come to know. He is using nomou to describe the “Torah,” as if nomos and towrah were synonymous. We know this because, in the attempt to prove this point, he translated the Hebrew word “towrah” into Greek as “nomou.”
As a result, a Pauline apologist cannot say that Paul 29was condemning Rabbinic Law, or the Talmud, instead of the Towrah, without contradicting Paul’s own translation. Paul is, therefore, calling the Word of God, Yahowah’s foundational testimony, a curse.
If nothing else, that takes chutzpah. It is stupid, but bold.
By rendering towrah as nomou, Paul has emphatically demonstrated that he would be using variations of nomos to convey “Torah” throughout his letters. Therefore, to be intellectually honest, the meaning of towrah in Hebrew which is “teaching, instruction, direction, and guidance” must prevail over “law.” As a result, not only is Paul implicating himself by disparaging the Word of God, those who publish Christian Bibles are universally guilty of misrepresenting one of the most important words ever written when they render towrah via nomos as “law.”
But there is more: Paul misquoted the Towrah. The passage he cited in the context of the discussion in Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 27:26 conveys a message which is diametrically opposed to the point Paul was making. How then can his point be valid if he had to misrepresent God’s position?
The Towrah reads:
“Invoking harm upon oneself is whoever relationally and beneficially is not established, restored, and supported by the words of this Towrah, approaching by engaging through them. And then the entire family responded, ‘This is true, acceptable, and reliable.’” (Dabarym 27:26)
Since Paul’s malfeasance in Galatians 3:10 is so obvious and irrefutable, so condemning of his integrity, it is in our interest to verify every word of both statements. To that end, here is a more fully amplified rendition of God’s testimony:
30“Invoking harm upon oneself (‘arar – plaguing oneself by making oneself undesirable) is whoever relationally and beneficially (‘asher) is not (lo’) established (quwm – restored, supported, encouraged, lifted up and caused to stand, confirmed, and enabled to endure) by (‘eth – with and through) the words (dabar – message and accounts) of this (ha zo’th) Towrah (Towrah – source of guidance, direction, teaching, and instruction [written ToWRaH in Hebrew]), approaching (la) by engaging through them (‘asah ‘eth – by acting upon them and doing productive things according to them, celebrating and profiting with them).
And then (wa) the entire (kol) family (‘am – people and nation) responded (‘amar – answered, promised, and declared), ‘This is true, acceptable, and reliable (‘aman – this is affirming, supportive, verifiable, and dependable).’” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 27:26)
So what now? We have just begun, and Paul has condemned himself with his own words. Now that you are informed, if you are rational, you can no longer trust anything Paul wrote. He deliberately misquoted God. Yahowah said that we are established and restored through the Towrah and that we approach Him by acting upon its words. It is harmful to discard the opportunity the Towrah provides, and beneficial to embrace it. Paul twisted the Word of God to state the opposite.
Assuming that you searched for Greek and Hebrew interlinears on your shelf or online, and that you referenced a lexicon or two, looking up each word to verify what you have just read, how are you going to deal with this? The answer to that question may determine the fate of your soul, especially if you have believed Paul up to this point.
While we could, we are not going to stop here. Before we are finished, hundreds of nails will be driven into Paul’s coffin. But if we are seeking to know whether Galatians 31was inspired by God and is trustworthy, we already have our answer. A person who deliberately misquotes God to promote the inverse of what God said cannot be telling the truth when he claims to be inspired by that same God. It is impossible.
Yahowah just said that we harm ourselves when we are not established and restored by the words which comprise His Towrah, approaching Him by acting upon them. Christianity is torn asunder by this statement, a position which cannot be refuted without calling God, Himself, a liar. The very statement Paul misquoted to establish his religion destroys it.
The Towrah verse Sha’uwl mangled in Galatians undermines the most fundamental aspect of the Christian religion, of faith in its Gospel of Grace, as well as Paulos’ own position, because it obliterates the idea that the Torah is passé. But even if observing the Torah was not presented as the lone means to becoming restored and established, as God has just stated, if the Almighty was a capricious prankster, and if His Torah was really a curse as Paul and his ilk have claimed, then citing it as evidence would be irrational, because nothing God said could be trusted. Think about that for a moment.
Christian apologists, steeped as they are in Pauline Doctrine, will say that the Torah is not a pick and choose sort of thing, and that to be redeemed and righteous, a person would have to do everything the Torah requires all the time, or else they would be cursed by it – judged and condemned. But that is not the message conveyed in this Dabarym passage – nor the message conveyed by Yahowsha’. God knows that we are not perfect, which is why He provided the means to perfect us in the heart of His Towrah.
And yet, since Paul has attempted to neuter the Torah, and to sever the relationship between God’s testimony and 32His plan of salvation, most Christians are unaware of the Torah’s redemptive properties. As a result of Paul’s epistles, Christians do not realize that, when Yahowsha’ said “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life,” his “Way” and his definition of the “Truth” were both found in Yahowah’s Towrah. That is why, in the midst of his Instruction on the Mount, he called the Torah “the narrow way to life.”
It was by fulfilling His Towrah-based Miqra’ey | Invitations to be Called Out and Meet that Yahowah honored the promises He had made to make His Covenant children immortal on Pesach | Passover, and perfect us on Matsah | UnYeasted Bread so that He could adopt us into His family the next day during Bikuwrym | Firstborn Children, so that He could empower, enrich, and enlighten us on Shabuw’ah | the Promise of Seven. But by severing this connection, by disassociating Yahowah’s plan from His Word, the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb became as meaningless as the faith Christians created to negate it.
Should you be wondering why I am using both “Torah” and “Towrah” throughout Questioning Paul, the answer is that the correct spelling, according to Yahowah, is “ToWRaH, and thus Towrah. The Wah and Heh are both vowels, and they provide the “o” and “a” sounds in Torah. Then the reason the more common and less correct spelling is used is to more effectively communicate with new readers who are less familiar with Hebrew nomenclature. Therefore, “Torah” will quickly resonate while we all become more familiar with the correct spelling.
In this regard, while some would seek to limit the “Torah” to the five “Books of Moses,” the Towrah is from Yahowah and His “Towrah – Teaching and Guidance” are found in everything He revealed, permeating the Prophets and Psalms. Rather than using the misleading and inaccurate terms “Bible” or “Scripture,” the proper title for Yahowah’s witness is either “Towrah, Naby’, wa Mizmowr 33– Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms,” “Towrah and Prophets,” or just “Towrah.” The Towrah is prophetic and the Prophets contain towrah | teaching and guidance.
Moving on to Sha’uwl’s next thought, as it is found in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear: “But that in law no one is made right along the God clear because the right from trust will live.”
Amplified, and with the Greek text highlighted for your consideration, we find:
“But (de – it follows, moreover, and namely) because (oti) with (en – inside and with regard to) the Torah (nomo –– the allotment which is parceled out, the inheritance which is given, and the prescription to become an heir) absolutely no one (oudeis – nothing, nobody, and not one; from oude heis – not even one) is vindicated or justified (dikaioo – made or shown to be correct, proper, or right, acquitted or declared righteous) by (para – with and in the opinion of) the God (toΘΩ) becomes evident (delos – becomes clear and is made plain (scribed in the nominative, where an adjective is presented influencing the subject, God, in this case, renaming Him)) because (oti – namely and for this reason): ‘Those who are correct, righteous, and proper (o dikaios – those who are right, upright, virtuous, and guiltless) out of (ek) faith (pistis – originally meant trust but evolved to faith or belief as a result of Sha’uwl’s usage in these letters) will live (zao – will be alive).’” (Galatians 3:11)
Buffed and polished in the King James, Paul sounds a bit more eloquent, albeit no more rational: “But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, ‘The just shall live by faith.’”
Updated for modern sensibilities, the New Living Translation passage reads: “So it is clear that no one can be made right with God by trying to keep the law. For the 34Scriptures say, ‘It is through faith that a righteous person has life.’” (3:11)
And yet Paul’s first point was anything but “clear,” because he misquoted and misappropriated a passage which contradicted his premise. But more telling still, the Towrah does not actually say anything about “faith,” much less that one’s beliefs lead to being “just” or “righteous.”
Therefore, both positions are illogical. Even if no one was justified by the Torah, we could not imply that the righteous shall live by faith. Rather than cause and consequence, these ideas are unrelated. It is like saying: red wagons do not work so it is evident we should put our faith in blue tricycles. More to the point, if God’s Torah cannot be relied upon, in whom are we to express our “faith?”
As I previously mentioned, “the Scriptures” do not “say, ‘It is through faith that a righteous person has life.’” The passage Sha’uwl truncated actually reads:
“Pay attention, he will be puffed up with false pride. His soul, it is not right nor straightforward in him. So, through trust and reliance, by being firmly established and upheld by that which is dependable and truthful, those who are correct and thus vindicated shall live.” (Chabaquwq / Habakkuk 2:4)
Paul’s ruse is almost breathtaking in its audacity. And this time the biggest issue is not just the inaccurate or inappropriate nature of Paul’s citation, where he has once again misrepresented Yahowah’s intent by misapplying and twisting a snippet of what God said. What is amazing here is that Yahowah is specifically warning us about Sha’uwl | Paul, in this passage. So by quoting it, Paul is taunting his audience, arrogantly implying that those foolish enough to fall for rhetoric aren’t sufficiently resourceful or rational to realize that God is telling us to trust Him, not Sha’uwl.
This realization is so condemning, in two subsequent 35chapters of Questioning Paul, I’ll amplify the entirety of God’s indictment regarding Sha’uwl | Paul. But for now ponder these highlights...
“‘Upon My requirements and responsibilities, I have decided I will literally and continually stand. And I will choose to always present Myself upon that which protects and fortifies.
So then I will be on the lookout in order to see what he will say about Me, observing how he will question Me. So then, how can I be expected to change My attitude, My thinking, or My response concerning My disapproving rebuke?’ (2:1)
Then Yahowah answered, approaching me, and He said, ‘Write this revelation and then expound upon and reiterate it using letters upon writing tablets so that, by reciting this, he might run and go away. (2:2)
Still indeed, this revelation from God is for the Mow’ed | Appointed Meeting Times. It provides a witness and speaks, pouring out evidence in the end which entraps. The extended period of time required for this question to be resolved shall not prove it false. Expect him in this regard because, indeed, he will absolutely come, neither being delayed nor lingering. (2:3)
Pay attention, he will be puffed up with false pride. His soul, it is not right nor straightforward in him.
Therefore, through trust and reliance, by being firmly established and upheld by that which is dependable and truthful, those who are correct and thus vindicated, shall live. (2:4)
Moreover, because the intoxicating wine and inebriating spirit of the man of deceptive infidelity and treacherous betrayal is a high-minded moral failure, and is arrogant with meritless presumptions, he will not 36rest, find peace, nor live, whoever is open to the broad path, the duplicitous and improper way, associated with Sha’uwl.
He and his soul are considered the plague of death. And so those who are brought together by him, accepting him, will never be satisfied. Most every Gentile will gather unto him, all of the people from different races and nations. (2:5)
They do not ask questions, any of them, about him. Terse references to the Word they lift up as taunts to ridicule, along with allusive sayings, simplistic and contrived equivalencies, and mocking interpretations, controlling through comparison, counterfeit and clichés, along with derisive words arrogantly conveyed.
There are hard and perplexing questions which need to be asked of him, and double dealings to be known regarding him.
And so they should say, “Woe to the one who claims to be great so as to increase his offspring, acting like a rabbi, when neither apply to him.
For how long will they make pledges based upon his significance, becoming burdened by his testimony?”’” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:6)
Evidence does not get any more compelling or relevant than this. Sha’uwl took us directly to a prophecy that God had used to encourage us to “Sha’uwl – Question Him.”
Therefore, Yahowah revealed that a man named, “Sha’uwl” would arrogantly mislead and intoxicate Gentiles with irrational rhetoric coterminous with the time He would fulfill His Mow’ed – Appointed Meetings. This occurred when Pesach, Matsah, Bikuwrym, and Shabuw’ah were fulfilled in 33 CE. At the time, Sha’uwl 37was studying to become a rabbi in Yaruwshalaim.
Further, as if He were reading Galatians, God told us that Sha’uwl would be arrogant, circuitous, duplicitous, intoxicating, deceptive, treacherous, and presumptuous – which is the antithesis of being matter-of-fact and straightforward. We were warned that this pseudo-rabbi’s way would be improper, akin to a plague of death. And yet, according to God, Sha’uwl’s broad, and therefore accommodating, path would become especially popular with Gentiles because too few of them would actually question his allusive sayings, his derisive words, his comparisons and counterfeits, which would all be ripe with taunts and ridicule.
Sha’uwl impugned himself with these words, twisting the knot which would become his noose. His statement is not only the antithesis of God’s instructions, he has engendered Yahowah’s ridicule of him. Moreover, and apart from the prophecy, if Paul was right in disavowing Yahowah’s standard, it would be the equivalent of God saying: “I will save those who contradict Me and justify those who negate and belittle the plan I have established.” And yet, Yahowah introduced His prophecy in Habakkuk, affirming that He was not about to change.
Continuing to mislead by way of senseless and duplicitous prose, the KJV renders Paul’s next statement: “And the law is not of faith: but, the man that doeth them shall live in them.”
Deploying a different tactic, the NLT authored something which could only be considered appropriate in the context of religion. “This way of faith is very different from the way of law, which says, ‘It is through obeying the law that a person has life.’” (3:12)
Should the translation team deployed by Tyndale House Publishers, Incorporated have meant that “the way of the Christian faith is very different than the way of the 38Torah,” then they would be right. But “can that ‘way of faith’ be right?” is the multi-billion soul question. Can Paul’s thesis, his faith, his religion, be “very different from the way” delineated by God in the Torah and still reconcile fallen man into a relationship with that same God? Has God endorsed a revised plan which is counter to the one He originally authored? And if He did such a thing, wouldn’t it make Him untrustworthy and unreliable?
Irrespective of the fact that Yahowah has provided the answer, at least the battle lines have been drawn. According to the most popular modern translation, it is now the Torah vs. Christianity. So let the Great Galatians Debate begin: are we to trust Yahowah’s Torah or put our faith in Sha’uwl / Paulos / Paul?
Amplified, and with the words Sha’uwl selected on display, the man God just told us to question, wrote:
“But (de) the Towrah (nomou – the allotment which is parceled out, the inheritance which is given, the nourishment which is bestowed to be used to grow, the precepts which are apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper and approved, and the prescription to become an heir) exists (eimi – is) not (ouk) out of (ek) faith or belief (pistis), but to the contrary (alla –making an emphatic contrast with an adversarial implication), ‘The one having done (o poieomai – the one having made and performed as such becoming) them (autos) will live (zao) with (en – in and by) them (autos).’” (Galatians 3:12)
Recognizing that Paul did not express this thought very well, principally because the Towrah passage he cited didn’t fit his presupposition, we are led to believe that Sha’uwl was suggesting that if an individual were to choose the Towrah over faith, that he would have to live with the consequence. He is implying that the only way to live with the Towrah would be to do everything it requires. So since he tried to usurp God’s credibility to prove his 39point, we must turn to the passage he referenced to ascertain whether or not Yahowah’s Towrah actually said what Sha’uwl was asserting.
Opening Yahowah’s Torah to Qara’ / Called Out / Leviticus, we find God imparting guidance, whereby we are advised to avoid the kinds of religious myths and practices which comprise Christianity:
“Speak (dabar – communicate using words) to (‘el) the Children of Yisra’el (beny Yisra’el – children who engage and endure with God), and (wa) say (‘amar –affirm) to them (‘el), ‘I am (‘anky) Yahowah (), your God (‘elohym). (18:1-2)
With regard to things which could be considered similar to (ka – as with and like) the practices (ma’aseh – the pattern of behavior, the work, the things done, undertakings, and pursuits) of the realm (‘erets – land) of the Crucibles of Egypt (Mitsraym – of religious, political, military, and economic oppression) where (‘asher) you dwelt (yashab), you should not engage in or act upon (lo’ ‘asah – you should not celebrate or profit from) similar (ka) pursuits (ma’aseh – patterns of behavior, things done, undertakings, and practices) in the land (ba ‘erets) of Kana’any (Kana’any – Zealousness which subdues and subjugates; commonly transliterated Canaan) which is where as a result of the relationship (‘asher), I am (‘anky) bringing you (bow’ ‘esh).
There (sham), you should not act upon or engage in (lo’ ‘asah) their decrees or customs (chuqah – their prescriptions for living and their traditions and statutes), never walking in or following their ways (lo’ halak – never patterning your life after them). (18:3)
With (‘eth) My means to exercise good judgment regarding the resolution of disputes (mishpat – My means to decide regarding justice and judgment), you should continually engage and genuinely act (‘asah).
40With (‘eth) My prescriptions for living (chuqah – My inscribed recommendations which cut you into the relationship), you should consistently examine and carefully consider (shamar – you should make a habit of consistently and actually observing) for the purpose of approaching by (la) walking in them (halak ba).
I am (‘anky) Yahowah, your God (‘elohym).’” (Qara’ / Called Out / Leviticus 18:4)
This admonition against religion, politics, and societal customs was followed by the statement Paul sought to usurp to justify his inverted proposition. It reads:
“‘And so (wa) you should choose of your own volition to actually observe (shamar – under the auspices of freewill, you should consider choosing to carefully and completely examine (qal perfect consecutive)), accordingly (‘eth), My prescriptions for living (chuqah – My inscribed (and thus written) instructions which cut you into a relationship (and thus into the Covenant) with Me) and also (wa) My means to resolve disputes (mishpat – My means to exercise good judgment regarding redemption (thereby directing our attention to His seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet)).
Whoever (‘asher – relationally and beneficially) consistently acts upon and engages (‘asah – endeavors to genuinely celebrate and continually benefit (qal imperfect)) with them (‘eth), that man (ha ‘adam – that individual and person), indeed (wa – emphasizing this), is actually restored to life as a result of this desire and his decision, living (wa chayah – he is literally revived, perfectly renewed, actually nurtured, completely spared, and kept alive into perpetuity through this exercise of freewill, raised, preserved, and allowed to flourish (qal perfect consecutive)) through them (ba – with and by them).
I am (‘any) Yahowah ().’” (Qara’ / Called Out 41/ Leviticus 18:5)
Yahowah is telling all who would listen that, if people want to live, they should pay attention to what He has to say and then act upon His advice. And at this point, everything He had to say, everything He had to offer, was contained in the very book in which this appeal was recorded: Yahowah’s Towrah!
Therefore, Paul has once again deliberately abbreviated and misappropriated a passage which was inconsistent with his message. He was hoping that, by pilfering some common words, his errant citation would be sufficient to convince his audience that God supported his contrarian position.
But in the actual citation, God absolutely and unequivocally did not say that the “law is very different than faith,” that “through faith a person has life,” or even “through obeying the law a person has life,” or anything remotely similar to these propositions. Paul was, therefore, being disingenuous to put it politely.
Surprising to many, there isn’t a Hebrew word for “obey.” To “shamar – observe” is to “examine and consider,” not “keep.” And to “‘asah – to act and engage” is to respond to what one has learned – a concept light-years removed from “obedience.” Moreover, neither “chuqah – prescriptions for living” nor “mishpat – means offered to resolve disputes by exercising good judgment” could be considered “laws.” Instead, Yahowah stated that by observing, which is to closely examine and carefully consider His written instructions, we are able to make reasoned decisions regarding the restoration of our lives. Therefore, God “chayah – restores and renews the lives” of those who are Towrah observant when they act upon what they have read. This is, of course, the antithesis of the Christian position.
While we are making such distinctions, it is 42grotesquely inappropriate to refer to Yahowah’s Torah as “law,” as Paul does throughout his letters. The Hebrew word towrah is derived from yarah and means “source from which teaching, instruction, direction, and guidance flow.” His presentation is educational. His witness is enlightening. He is offering guidance which we are free to embrace or reject, so He is not controlling. Moreover, His way is not restrictive but instead liberating.
Rabbis, like Paul (who was dismissed from Pharisee school), deliberately perverted Yah’s testimony to validate their own set of laws – a set of religious arguments recorded principally in the Talmud. By referring to the Towrah as nomos within contexts which imply “law,” Paul, who was educated in Hebrew, demonstrated that he should not be trusted.
Those who would argue that Yahowsha’ refers to the Towrah as “nomos” in his Teaching on the Mount would be inaccurate. Yahowsha’ spoke Hebrew and occasionally Aramaic, never Greek. And the Disciple Levi, who was an eyewitness to Yahowsha’s initial and longest public declaration, wrote this portion of his biographical account in Hebrew. Someone writing under the pseudonym “Matthew,” no earlier than 80 or 90 CE, combined that eyewitness account into a much longer and less accurate Greek manuscript. Moreover, as we shall soon discover, the etymological history of nomos is somewhat harmonious with the Covenant’s purpose as it is presented in the Towrah, which is “to parcel out an allotment and to bestow an inheritance, providing prescriptions regarding how to become an heir.”
Paul, however, cannot be afforded any excuse. And that is because all of Paul’s letters, including Galatians, were originally written in Greek, and there is no mistaking the fact that he was mischaracterizing the Towrah, presenting it as a punitive set of “laws.” Further, he did so in accord with Rabbinical Judaism – a religious proposition 43Yahowsha’ thoroughly rebuked.
These things known, there is much more to nomos than meets the eye of the casual observer. The word is based upon “nemo – to provide, assign, and distribute an inheritance and to nourish heirs.” It is “an allotment which is bestowed and parceled out to feed hungry sheep.” Metaphorically then, a nomos is a prescription for living which is given to us by God so that we might live with Him as His children, be fed and grow, inheriting all that is His to give. In this regard, properly defined, nomos actually provides a fitting depiction of Yahowah’s “Towrah – teaching, guidance, direction, and instruction” on how to participate in His Covenant Family.
However, since Paul consistently casts the nomos in a negative light, it is certain that he was not trying to reflect any of these positive attributes. This analysis also suggests that religious Bible translators, following Paul’s bad example, have knowingly and deliberately mistranslated both nomos and Towrah as “Law.” Recognizing this, lexicons published by Christian institutions claim that nomos describes “anything established as a custom, a law or command, any law whatsoever, a rule or injunction, even Mosaic law and the Pentateuch.”
Moving on to the next statement as it is presented in the Nestle-Aland, King James Version, and New Living Translation, we find: NA: “Christ us brought out from the curse of the law having become on behalf of us a curse because it has been written, ‘curse on all the one having hung on wood.’” KJV: “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:” (3:13)
Once again, if either the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear or the King James Version has accurately reflected Paul’s thought then, according to Sha’uwl, the Torah is a curse. For this interpretation of Paul’s statement 44to be correct, rather than fulfilling the Torah, Yahowsha’ liberated us from its clutches. It also means that Yahowsha’, rather than being the perfect Passover Lamb as a result of observing the Towrah, embodied all of the Torah’s negativity. Even worse, according to Paul, his “Christ” was burdened by the Towrah rather than our sins.
To suggest that his position is irrational would be too kind. It means, at least according to Paul, that the only actual sinner in this story is God – the Author of the Towrah. To believe Paul, the Christian “Christ” died to remove Yahowah’s curse. And if that were not sufficiently insane to make you walk away, shaking your head in disbelief, Paul is quoting this same errant and troublesome God to support his agenda. He even claims that this sinful and inept God inspired this condemnation of His testimony. So how is it that 2.5 billion people believe Sha’uwl | Paul, relying upon the illogical notion that he is right and God is wrong?
Attempting to absolve Paul of the untenable position he has been placed in by his own testimony, as reflected in the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear and the King James Version, the New Living Translation twists the text to convey a different perspective: “But Christ has rescued us from the curse pronounced by the law. When he was hung on the cross, he took upon himself the curse for our wrongdoing. For it is written in the Scriptures, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.’” (3:13)
To the New Living Translation’s shame, there is no reference to a “cross” anywhere in the Greek texts, much less in this passage. To Sha’uwl’s | Paul’s shame, the Torah’s position should not have been abridged, misappropriated, nor misquoted. While the Torah’s prediction is profoundly accurate, and stunningly prophetic, its merit was mitigated by the way Paul truncated it.
45But first things first: here is how the Greek text of Sha’uwl’s letter reads:
“Christos (ΧΡΣ – divine placeholder [written by Paul or added by a scribe]) us (ego) bought back (exagorazomai – worked to atone and purchase; from ek, out of, and agarazo, doing business in the marketplace where (agora) people assemble for a public debate, to buy, sell, and vote) from (ek) the curse (katara – from the evil, hateful, abhorrent, loathsome, maligning, and malicious influence) of the (tov) Towrah (nomou – the means to being nourished by that which is bestowed to become heirs, precepts which were apportioned, established, and received as a means to proper and be approved, and prescriptions for an inheritance; from nemo – that which is provided, assigned, and distributed to heirs to nourish them (singular genitive, and thus a specific characterization)), having become (ginomai – having existed as) for our sake (hyper ego) a curse (katara – a repugnant prayer, invoking the power to harm others by wishing evil upon them, maligning and malicious), because (hoti) it has been written (grapho – inscribed): ‘A curse on (epikataratos – being exposed to divine slander and vengeance) all (pas) the one (o) having hung (kremamai – suspended) on (epi) wood (xylon).’” (Galatians 3:13)
According to the founder of the Christian religion, Yahowah’s “Torah is an abhorrent and detestable curse which promotes evil.” From Sha’uwl’s perspective, God’s Word is “malicious and repugnant.” Moreover, instead of Yahowsha’ observing the Towrah, affirming and fulfilling it as he, himself, attests in the 5th and 7th chapters of Matthew, according to Paul, God opted to engage in a business transaction whereby He has ransomed us, not from sin, but instead from the Torah.
It is difficult to imagine the darkness which would have to come over a person to prompt them to promote such a demonic deception. But perhaps one thing is becoming 46clear, Sha’uwl may well have told the truth when he admitted to being goaded and possessed by one of Satan’s demons. But even then, why would so many Christians blindly swallow this poison?
I suppose it is because, like all spellbinding deceivers before and after him, Paul continues to weave a few credible threads through his evil tapestry. By citing God (actually misquoting Him), Sha’uwl’s lies appear plausible.
In reality, the redemption of the Covenant’s children is predicated upon Yahowah, Yahowsha’ (errantly called “Jesus”), and the Set-Apart Spirit honoring the Towrah’s promises through the Miqra’ey | Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God. Yahowah’s and Yahowsha’s sacrifices on Pesach and Matsah, apart from the Towrah, are meaningless. There would have been no reason for these Feasts to exist, nor any benefit to be derived from the Passover Lamb’s inadvertent misfortune. Unless the Pesach ‘Ayil’s sacrifice served a purpose, such as fulfilling the promise of eternal life associated with Passover in harmony with the Towrah’s instructions, Yahowsha’s life was irrelevant. In fact, if the Towrah did not depict Yahowah’s enduring plan of salvation, then Yahowsha’ would have been an egregious liar who should not have been trusted, because he said and performed otherwise.
And that is what is so odd about all of this. Sha’uwl is attempting to demean and dismiss the Towrah while pretending to speak on behalf of its Author. There is no rational way to position God in opposition to His own teaching, especially since He not only talked the talk, He walked the walk.
The statement Sha’uwl | Paul misquoted also comes from the Towrah, this time from Dabarym / Words 21:23. The passage reads:
“Indeed when (wa ky) it comes to pass over time 47(hayah) that by association (ba) an individual (‘ysh – a Man) is judged to be guilty, to resolve disputes (chata’ mishpat – it is decided, determined, and thought that he is liable for sin in order to resolve disputes) worthy of death (maweth), and he chooses to be dispatched to the realm of the dead (wa muwth – he passively allows himself to be slain so as to be absent from life, completely fulfilling the penalty (hophal stem perfect conjugation consecutive mood)), then (wa) you decide to completely and literally suspend Him (talah ‘eth – you want to hang Him by fastening Him (qal perfect consecutive)) on (‘al) a wooden timber (‘ets – an upright pillar of wood or tree), his corpse shall not remain overnight (lo’ lyn nabelah – his body must not endure the night, staying there after sunset) on the upright pillar of wood (‘al ha ‘ets – near the wooden post or tree).
Rather instead (ky – truthfully and certainly), you should prepare and entomb his body (qabar qabar – it is essential that you place his body in a sepulcher) on this same day (ba ha yowm ha huw’).
Indeed because (ky), the One being suspended (talah – the one being hanged) is the cursed and abated of (qalalah – the maligned who fades away as a result of an oath and is diminished, slighted, and decreased (in the construct form, the abated and diminished is being associated with and is connected with and bound to)) God Almighty (‘elohym).
So you should not defile (wa lo’ tame’ – you should not cause to be unclean), accordingly (‘eth), your soil (‘adamah – your land, realm, and world; from ‘adam – mankind and human nature), which relationally and beneficially (‘asher) Yahowah (), your God (‘elohym), gave (nathan – produced, offered, and bestowed) to you (la – for you to approach) as an inheritance (nachalah – to become an heir).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 21:22-23)
48This is a prophetic picture of the Pesach ‘Ayil’s fulfillment of the Towrah’s presentation of Passover. Yahowah’s testimony reveals that Yahowsha’ would be considered guilty of sins worthy of death, that he would be suspended from a wooden timber, that his body would be removed from the upright pole before the sun set, that his carcass would be prepared and placed in a sepulcher as opposed to being buried in the ground, and that, as a result of having our sins associated with him, the soul would become separated from God in She’owl | Hell on Matsah. It also tells us that his body, in keeping with Yahowah’s instructions regarding Passover, would cease to exist that night.
Yahowah uses prophecies like this one, and a thousand more like it, to prove that He inspired His Towrah and Prophets. He did this so that we would be able to trust everything else He has to say. Only God can get every prophecy right, every time, without fail.
In Roger Miller’s song, King of the Road, where the refrain repeats “I’m a man of means by no means,” Paul’s methodology is easily exposed. By simply separating clauses, he is creating a false impression. Using this example, while the country artist sang “I am a man of means,” when that statement is disassociated from “by no means,” without the negation, the initial phrase isn’t just misleading, it’s wrong. Similarly, “by no means” independent of “I’m a man of means” could be deployed by an unscrupulous individual to negate anything in the song. But the technique is disingenuous.
Since Paul is not misrepresenting the sentiments of a country song, but instead misappropriating the Word of God, by falsely conveying the impression that God is affirming the disillusion of His own lyrics, Sha’uwl | Paul is disrespecting both God and his audience. God was not amused and has put us on notice that such tactics are deceitful, deadly, and damning, condemning Sha’uwl by 49name for using them. But what about his audience, what about the billions upon billions of Christians? Now that you know, what are you going to do?
Thus far we have learned that Paul cannot be trusted. We now know that the King James Version is unreliable and inaccurate, and that the New Living Translation is not a translation of the Greek text; it is not even a faithful paraphrase, but is instead a novelized account, whereby its authors became storytellers. To its credit, the NLT reads smoothly, and it tickles the ears of the evangelical Christian audience, which is why I suppose it has become so popular. But as a study tool, other than to affirm Christian interpretations of Pauline Doctrine, it is of no practical use and is potentially harmful.
We have learned that Paul has misapplied and misquoted the Towrah and Prophets with the intent to mislead, which is troubling. All four citations were cleverly abridged. They were deliberately taken out of context and then purposefully altered to make it appear as if Paul’s proposition and God’s testimony were in sync. One time would have been inexcusable, but removing clauses from conversations will become a bad habit. Paul’s propensity to be disingenuous has become epidemic – a plague which many Christians have come to emulate to justify their religious views. It is also curious, indeed telling, that, when considered as a whole, each of the four statements Sha’uwl | Paul cited, resolutely affirmed the Towrah’s enduring promise to resolve the conflicts which separate us from Yahowah. Every one of God’s declarations undermined Pauline Doctrine and thus the Christian religion.
And that means Paulos had no respect whatsoever for his audience. He played Christians for fools because he believed they would be easy to fool.
I do not say this to insult you if you are a Christian, but to get you to realize that what I am sharing is true. Sha’uwl 50was so confident that his audience would not question him, that he flaunted his association with Satan, admitting that he was not only demon-possessed, but that he had been goaded into hyperbole, into overstated exaggeration, by the Adversary’s emissary. Are you surprised? Did this catch you unaware?
It should not have. After all, there have been thousands of sermons questioning the nature of Paul’s “thorn in the flesh.” And yet nary a one of Paul’s advocates conveys the specific and unabashed answer Paulos, himself, scribed in his second of two letters to Corinth, when he infamously wrote:
“Because (gar – for indeed) if (ean) I might want (thelo – I may decide, desire, propose, or enjoy) to brag (dauchaomai – to boast and to glorify myself) truthfully (aletheia – honestly), I would not be (ouk esomai) foolish or imprudent (aphron – acting rashly without reason, inappropriate or unjustified).
For then (gar – because) I will say (ero) I am presently abstaining (pheidomai – I am currently refraining). But (de) someone (tis) not approaching me (un eis eme – of lesser stature, worth, or merit) might ponder (logizomai – may have reason to logically conclude, embrace an opinion, or hold a view) beyond (hyper – over and above and because of) what (o) he sees (blepo – he will be able to view and discern) in me (me), or (e) something (ti) he hears (akouo – he listens to, receives, pays attention to) from (ek) me (emou), (12:6) and of the (kai te – so with regard to the) extraordinary superiority of the exaggerated (hyperbole ton – preeminence and exceedingly great, transcendent, magnificent, and awe-inspiring aspects of the overstated) revelations (apokalypsis– disclosures with the appearance of instructions concerning the unknown).
Therefore (dio – it should be self-evident), in order 51that (hina – for the purpose that) I not become overly proud and be lifted up (me hyperairomai – I not become conceited, exalting myself beyond what would be justified, so as not to be insolent, audaciously lifting myself above the source of my inspiration), there was given to me (didomi ego – there was deposited upon me, allowing me to experience, there was granted and entrusted to me for my advantage) a sharp goad and troubling thorn (skolops – a sharp pointed prod used to control animals, featuring a poisonous scorpion’s stinger) in the body (te sarx – incorporated into the flesh and as an aspect of physical animal and human nature), a messenger (angelos – a spiritual envoy or demonic spirit) of Satan (Satan – a transliteration of satan, Hebrew for the Adversary), in order to (hina – so as to) strike and restrain me (kolaphizo – adversely harm, beat, and torment me, violently mistreating me to painfully afflict, attack, buffet, and batter me; from kolazo – to prune, control, check, curb, and restrain me), so that as a result (hina) at the present time there is the possibility that I might not be conceited, currently exalting myself beyond what would be justified, lifting myself up (me hyperairomai – I may not be overly proud nor excessively exalted or lifted up, overdoing it, so as to be insolent and audacious (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 revealing that this outcome is a mere possibility, and in the first person singular, thereby identifying Paulos as the one being possessed and controlled)).” (2 Corinthians 12:6-7)
As bad as this is, and this is as bad as bad ever gets, especially if you are a Christian and have entrusted your soul to the credibility of this man’s testimony, it may be even worse when considered from the perspective of Sha’uwl’s “conversion experience.” On the road to Damascus, he initially claims to have heard the “flashing light” speak to him. In a desperate attempt to prove his 52qualification, and thus justify his exaggerated “revelations,” under oath, Paulos testified...
“And every one (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 kick against (laktizo – to resist, to strike with the heel) against (pros) the goad (kentron – a pointed sharp stick used to prick and prod and thus control animals featuring the stinger of a deadly scorpion with the power to ruin and kill, making resistance vain or perilous)).” (Acts 26:14)
While it may be surprising, even this gets worse in context, because the line “It is hard to resist the goad” was plagiarized from a line attributed to the Greek god, Dionysus – the pagan deity whose doctrine became part and parcel of Christianity. It is the most memorable line of Euripedes’ Bacchae, dating to 405 BCE. Dionysus’ line reads: “I would sacrifice to the god rather than kick against his goad in anger, a mortal against a god.”
Also, at this time, and by his own admission, Sha’uwl was doing this very thing. He was striking anyone who admitted that Yahowsha’ was the Passover Lamb. And now he was that “mortal against God.”
53There is no way to discount this testimony, to reject Paul’s admission of guilt. His confession to the Corinthians is duly recorded in Papyrus 46, a late 1st or early 2nd century codex. If that witness is not reliable, the entire “Christian New Testament” becomes untenable, because there are no older or more credible codices that P46.
If you are a Christian, you must either deal with this by rejecting all of Paul’s letters as being demonically inspired, and then the whole of the “New Testament” as being similarly unreliable. Or, of course, you could put your head in the sand, and be religious which is now akin to being irrational. At this point, you can no longer claim ignorance – nor should you.
It should now be obvious that Paul was as Yahowsha’ | “Jesus” described him – a wolf in sheep’s clothing. He deliberately lied with the intent to deceive. And while that was relatively common then as it is today, it is frankly unbelievable that this man’s fraudulent propositions are considered the Word of God.
If you are a Christian, are you going to remain a victim? You have the option to reject Paul, but that will mean rejecting Christianity. So what are you going to do? Are you open to knowing the truth? Can you handle the truth? Do you want the truth?
Before we move on, let’s pause a moment and consider the options at our disposal regarding Paul’s strategy – that of misappropriating, mistranslating, and misquoting Yahowah’s Towrah and Prophets to promote his agenda. You can ignore his malfeasance if you believe that I have misrepresented Paul’s or Yahowah’s statements. But this approach is easily resolved. Flip forward to the “Towrah – Teaching and Guidance” chapter of Questioning Paul where every Hebrew and Greek word delineated in these statements is presented so that you can do your own due diligence and verify the text and the translations for 54yourself. Or simpler yet, just compare standard English translations of these passages and Sha’uwl’s quotations and note the differences.
Since the first option to dismiss this problem is a nonstarter, you can accept the fact that the citations are different, but attribute their divergence to an inadvertent mistake on Paul’s part. But if you do, you must also abandon the notion that Paul’s letters are “Scripture” – the inerrant Word of God. And with that realization, the foundation of Christianity crumbles.
You can admit that there is a pattern of malfeasance with regard to all of Paul’s Towrah citations, and recognize that they are misquoted and then twisted to support his agenda, which means that he intended to misrepresent them. But if you take this path, you will be compelled to label Paul a false witness. And at that point, Christianity becomes false – yet the most popular and broad path that leads to destruction.
Since these options are devastating, you could blame the mistakes on scribal error, suggesting that Paul’s quotations from the Torah and Prophets were correct initially, but that over time copyists inadvertently misrepresented his words, creating a false impression. But this is a slippery slope. The oldest meaningful codex of the Christian “New Testament” is Papyrus 46, which is dated between 85 and 125 CE, thirty-five to seventy-five years after this epistle was scribed. The codex contains a complete copy of almost all of Paul’s letters. If it is not reliable, then nothing in the so-called “Christian New Testament” is reliable. There is only one other 2nd century witness, Papyrus 75, which covers Luke and John, and it was scribed nearly one hundred years thereafter. Therefore, if scribes significantly altered Paul’s letters during this relatively short period of time, the list of appropriately supported and reliable “New Testament” books would shrink to two: portions of Luke and John. The rest, based 55as they are on far less reliable and far more recent manuscripts, would be too suspect to believe. And of course, that would mean that the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms would still stand unchallenged.
Or you can take the quietly popular, albeit seldom articulated, Christian position regarding these misquotes – one derived from Marcion in the early 2nd century. He concurred with Paul and concluded that the God who inspired the Torah was mean-spirited, and no longer relevant. It is a position which many Christians hold, even if they are too timid to voice it. As such, Marcion attempted to nullify the Torah by encapsulating it within a collection which he, following Paul’s lead, labeled the “Old Testament,” and thus suggested that it was the will of a now deceased, or at least irrelevant, deity.
Marcion promoted the myth that Paul was the only true Apostle, and that he alone spoke for the new and improved god of his “New Testament.” Paul’s letters were canonized as a result – a collection that included his epistles and edited portions of Luke and Acts. Thereby, Sha’uwl of Tarsus, now Paulos of Rome, was positioned and purported to correct the errors that the old God had made. As a result, Paul’s new faith forever separated believers from Yahowah, from His Invitations to be Called Out and Meet, from the Chosen People, from the Promised Land, from the Covenant, and from Yahowah’s Towrah – His Teaching and Guidance.
