56Questioning Paul

Liars Lie

…Contradicting God

 

3

Grapho | It is Written

 

Invalidate or Fulfill?…

The truth is as obvious as the lie is apparent. Forming a relationship with God is predicated upon our response to Yahowah’s testimony, not Paul’s.

On the fourth chapter of what is erroneously referred to as the “Christian New Testament,” the first time Yahowsha’s testimony is recorded, he settles this issue for us, removing any doubt that Sha’uwl / Paulos / Paul lied when he maligned the Torah. Listen...

“But then (de – providing a contrast), the One (o) having become the answer (apokrinomai – the One who revealed the means to separate fact from fiction, to distinguish between truth and deceit; from apo – to separate and krino – to separate again), said (lego – clarified, providing meaning using words), ‘It has been written (grapho – it has been inscribed on a document, engraved in writing, and recorded using letters and words), “Not upon (ouk ep) bread (artos – a baked loaf of bread with yeast which aerates, food in general, that which raises up from the ground, is elevated, or lifted up; from airo – to rise up from the ground, to take upon oneself, carry away, and carry off, removing that which had once been associated) alone, by itself, without help (monos – only by himself, forsaken, merely, and destitute of help), will man live (zao o anthropos – will this one man reliably conduct his life in a particular manner to actually restore 57life (future middle indicative)), but (alla – certainly, making an emphatic contrast) upon (epi) every (pas – the whole and complete) spoken statement (rhema – verbal declaration) departing (ekporeuomai – going forth and proceeding, leading and guiding the path of life) through (dia) the mouth (stoma – the spoken communication) of Yahowah (ΘΥ – a Divine Placeholder for Yahowah).”’” (Matthew 4:4)

Yahowsha’ was debating Satan, Sha’uwl’s inspiration. The Devil, as he had with Adam and Chawah in the Garden of Eden, was tempting Yahowsha’. Using the same ploy he had originally tested in the Garden, the same strategy now on display throughout Galatians, the Adversary inverted the intent of God’s testimony by removing it from its context and twisting it to convey the wrong impression. Playing off of a similar circumstance, when the Children of Yisra’el were hungry in the wilderness, Satan recognized that Yahowah miraculously fed them with mana, considered to be the bread of heaven. Now after forty days in the wilderness, he realized that Yahowsha’ was hungry, so why not turn a stone into bread and take a bite?

But this was ordinary bread, artos, bread puffed up by carbon dioxide, which is the residue of fermenting yeast. This fungus is equated to religious and political corruption by Yahowsha’.

“Come on,” you can almost hear Satan pleading as he had exactly 4000 years before, “take a bite. What’s it going to hurt to ingest a little corruption?” Well, what it would have hurt was our salvation by corrupting Yahowsha’, causing him to be less than the perfect Passover Lamb. There was a lot at stake.

But, unlike Chawah six millennia ago, Yahowsha’ knew the Word of God, and he cited it accurately to forestall any temptation. It is the example we should follow. The Towrah is the antidote for Satan’s poison. But of course, to wield it, we must know it.

58Yahowsha’ cited a passage from Dabarym / Deuteronomy. It was applicable to this situation, just as it is ideally suited to resolve the question of whether Paulos spoke for Yahowah when he denounced the Towrah, having claimed that God’s testimony was a lifeless and enslaving curse with the power to condemn but not save. Yahowsha’ disagreed, and siding with Yahowah against Sha’uwl, he said: “Not upon bread alone, by itself, without help, will this man live, but upon every spoken statement departing through the mouth of Yahowah.”

Life, therefore, is a byproduct of Yahowah’s testimony. What’s more, Yahowah speaks in first person in His Towrah and throughout His prophets. So not only did Yahowah’s Torah, His Prophets and Psalms represent the entire reservoir of Godly proclamations at the time Yahowsha’ provided this answer, and not only was this specific citation from the Towrah, Paul’s first letter wouldn’t be written for another twenty years, excluding it from consideration.

One of the many differences between God’s Word and Paul’s epistles is that Yahowah speaks for Himself in His Torah and Prophets, but it is Paul, not God, who is found continually speaking in first person throughout his epistles. And this is relevant because Yahowsha’ specifically correlated life with the words which had flowed from Yahowah’s mouth.

This realization is the antithesis of the Pauline style. Therefore, there would be no possibility of an informed and rational person interpreting Yahowsha’s statement to include anything Paul would subsequently say or write to undermine this reality.

Yahowsha’ “became the answer.” He “apokrinomai – revealed the means to separate fact from fiction, to distinguish between truth and deceit.” Apokrinomai is from apo – to separate and krino – to separate again. More specifically, krino means “to separate in the sense of 59distinguishing between fact and fiction, discriminating between right and wrong, choosing between good and evil.” To krino is “to examine and consider evidence to determine what is reliable and proper.” To krino is “to exercise good judgment by separating that which can be trusted from that which cannot. It is about “discretion.”

This requires us to use our brains to filter out the foolishness of Paul. Yahowsha’ was the living embodiment of the Towrah, the Word of God in the flesh. By observing the Towrah, by acting upon the Towrah’s Guidance, and by engaging in accordance with Yahowah’s Instructions, Yahowsha’ affirmed that the Towrah is the means to know Yahowah, to participate in a relationship with Yahowah, to life and to salvation. So Christians, since this was Yahowsha’s first recorded statement, he is leaving you without excuse.

Now that we know the Towrah is the antidote for Pauline Doctrine, let’s consider the passage Yahowsha’ cited. Here, Moseh is talking with the Children of Yisra’el after they had spent forty years in the wilderness…

“You benefited from His response (wa ‘anah – He answered you in a way which you could choose to take advantage of on an ongoing basis (in the piel stem we are the beneficiaries of God’s answer, in the imperfect conjugation the response provides ongoing benefits, and in the consecutive mood, we can choose to respond)) which is why (wa) He wanted you to be hungry (ra’eb – He decided you would benefit if He developed your appetite (in the hifil stem God brought about their longing for nutrition, in the imperfect He caused it to be ongoing, and in the consecutive mood it was God’s will)).

Then He could feed you (wa ‘akal – so He might fulfill His desire to provide your ongoing substance, continuously nourishing you (hifil imperfect consecutive)) with (‘eth) the (ha) mana (man – a nourishing and sweet-tasting nectar from God considered to be the bread of life; from 60mah – an interrogative asking what is this and what does it mean) which (‘asher) you did not know (lo’ yada’ – you were actually and completely unaware of (qal stem denotes reality and the perfect conjugation indicates that which is complete)) and also (wa) your fathers (‘ab – your forefathers or ancestors) could not have known (lo’ yada’) in order (ma’an – for the express purpose and intent) to make known to you (yada’ – to enable you to know and to become known (the hifil stem reveals that God facilitated our ability to learn, know, and understand, and the infinitive construct has the characteristics of a verb and noun, thereby making those who seek known to God)) that, indeed (ky – truly and surely), not upon (lo’ al) bread (ha lechem – a baked loaf of bread with yeast and food in general; from lechem – that which can be adversarial) alone (la bad – by itself, separated or isolated) shall man continually live and actually be restored to life (chayah ha ‘adam – shall the or this man, humankind and mankind, have life consistently and genuinely preserved, being continually spared, nurtured, and restored (the qal stem speaks of that which is actual and genuine, while the imperfect conjugation affirms the continuance of life)), but (ky – indeed rather) upon (‘al) everything (kol) which flows out of (mowtsa’ – which travels forth, leading and guiding every incremental stage of a journey demonstrating the proper path through life; from yatsa’ – to go forth, leading us out by way of) the mouth (peh – the communication and spoken word) of Yahowah ( – the pronunciation of YaHoWaH as guided by His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence) shall man continually live and actually be restored to life (chayah ha ‘adam – shall this man, humankind, have life consistently and genuinely preserved, being continually spared, nurtured, and restored (the qal stem speaks of that which is actual and genuine, while the imperfect conjugation affirms the continuance of life)).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 8:3)

61Unlike Paul, Yahowsha’ not only cited the complete statement from the Towrah, but he also pulled it from a discussion which was perfectly suited to affirm God’s guidance. His citation answered the specific question being posed. He made the correlation between life and God’s testimony – the very path through life he, himself, lived.

Since this is an important contrast between Yahowsha’ and Sha’uwl, and since their approaches to the Word of God are considerably different, let’s examine Dabarym / Words 8:3 in context. Moseh, the man Yahowah asked to scribe His Towrah, was reminiscing about what the Children of Yisra’el had heard, observed, learned, and experienced together over the past forty years…

“All of (kol) the terms and conditions (mitswah – the insights pondered regarding the instructions of the relationship, the directions associated with the covenant) which beneficially (‘asher – for the sake of the relationship and to show the way) I (‘anky) have instructed (tsawah – have provided by way of directions and guidance) this day (ha yowm) are for you to genuinely choose to observe (shamar – for you to want to closely examine and always carefully consider, electing to consistently and literally focus upon (the qal stem encourages us to literally and actually focus, the imperfect conjugation reveals that our observations should be ongoing and continual, and the paragogic nun ending makes our examination volitional and thus subject to freewill)) for the purpose of approaching (la) by actually responding and engaging (‘asah – through acting upon, profiting from, and celebrating what you learn) so that (ma’an – for the intent and purpose of) you elect to continuously live (chayah – you capitalize upon freewill and are actually restored, your life always preserved (the qal stem reveals that our response to what we observe literally restores our life, the imperfect conjugation reveals that our nourishment, growth, and 62preservation will be ongoing and continual, and the paragogic nun ending makes eternal life volitional and thus subject to freewill)).

And in addition (wa) you can choose to be great, actually increasing in every possible way (rabah – you can elect to have every aspect of your nature multiplied (the qal stem affirms that this promise to make us greater than we are is reliable, the perfect conjugation tells us that the transformation will be complete, and the consecutive mood reveals that we are empowered as a result of our choice to observe and respond)) so that you will be pleased when you arrive (wa bow’ – you will come to and be thrilled to be completely included in (qal perfect consecutive)) and also so that (wa) you will become an heir (yarash – you will be given a complete inheritance as a child choosing to receive all that is his or her father’s to provide (qal perfect consecutive)) within (‘eth – in accord with) the realm (ha ‘erets) which beneficially (‘asher – as a result of the relationship) Yahowah (Yahowah – a transliteration of , our ‘elowah – God as directed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence) promised in a sworn oath (shaba’ – affirmed truthfully and reliably in association with the promise inherent in seven) to (la) your fathers (‘ab – your ancestors and forefathers). (Dabarym / Deuteronomy 8:1)

Also (wa), you should choose to remember (zakar – you should actually want to recall every aspect of (qal stem perfect conjunction consecutive mood)) everything associated with (kol – the entirety of and every aspect of) the beneficial way to the relationship (ha derek ‘asher – the specific and proper path to get the most out of life) Yahowah (Yahowah – the proper pronunciation of YaHoWaH, our ‘elowah – God as directed in His ToWRaH – teaching regarding His HaYaH – existence and our ShaLoWM – restoration), your God (‘elohym), walked with you (halak – traveled, leading you so that you could 63follow Him (in the hifil perfect God is enabling our walk which He considers complete and perfect)) these (zeh) forty (‘arba’iym – a multiple of ‘arba’ – four, from raba’ – to be square, and thus to correct, right, out of debt, and in compliance) years (shanah – time of renewal and of a complete cycle of life) in the wilderness (ba ha midbar – in the desert).

This is in order for (ma’an – it is because and the intent was for) you to respond (‘anah – you to answer), to approach (la) by exerting yourself through the process of learning and understanding (nasah – by testing and evaluating what you had observed and experienced), coming to know and to become known (la’ yada’ – to recognize and realize, to acknowledge and understand) regarding (‘eth) the benefits of the relationship (‘asher) by deciding in your heart (ba leb – through exercising good judgment and reflecting it in your attitude, motivations, and response) whether (ha – as an interrogative) you will consistently and genuinely observe, closely examining and carefully considering (ha shamar – you would actually and continually focus upon, scrutinize, evaluate, and prioritize) the terms and conditions of His agreement (mitswah – the authorized directions regarding His Covenant, the written stipulations and provisions of the mutually binding contract) or not (‘im lo’).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 8:2)

The statement Yahowsha’ cited regarding bread in His defense against Satan followed what we have just read, making it an ideal choice. The Towrah, as it consistently does, reinforces the path to life. If you want to capitalize upon what God is offering, listen to what God has to say. And the only way to do that is to “shamar – closely examine and carefully consider, i.e., observe,” His Towrah. This would not be the only time Yahowsha’ would affirm this obvious reality.

Since our goal is to learn as much from God as is 64possible, before we thumb a couple of pages ahead in this story and ponder Yahowsha’s most declarative statement regarding the Towrah, let’s pause here in the Towrah a moment longer. Next we find Moseh saying...

“Your clothing did not wear out on you and your feet, they did not swell these forty years so that you would know, recognizing and acknowledging (yada’ – you would be aware and understand) by exercising good judgment (‘im leb – by deciding in your core being), that, indeed (ky), in the manner (ka) which beneficially (‘asher – for the sake of the relationship) a man (‘iysh – an individual) instructs and corrects (yasar – teaches and admonishes, providing guidance regarding that which is potentially harmful, revealing the consequences of bad choices and behaviors influencing) his children (beny – his sons), Yahowah (Yahowah – written as directed by His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), your God (‘elohym), teaches and admonishes you, providing guidance regarding that which is potentially harmful while revealing the consequences (yasar – instructs and corrects you so that you don’t go astray and make those mistakes).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 8:4-5)

That is a summation of the Towrah’s purpose. It is our Heavenly Father’s advice to His children. It consists of the same kind of instruction we as parents ought to give to our sons and daughters. The Towrah, therefore, not only provides us with reliable guidance, it exposes us to that which is potentially harmful, revealing the consequences of ignoring our Heavenly Father’s advice.

Since Yahowsha’, the very first time he speaks to us, directs us to this place in Yahowah’s Towrah, let’s take one more step in Yahowah’s direction.

“And so (wa) you should genuinely choose of your own volition to thoroughly and completely observe (shamar – you ought to want to actually examine, literally 65consider, and totally focus upon (qal perfect consecutive)) Yahowah’s (YaHoWaH – an accurate presentation of the name of ‘elowah – God as guided by His towrah – instructions regarding His hayah – existence), your God’s (‘elohym – the Almighty’s), stipulations and provisions (mitswah – terms and conditions regarding the relationship agreement) to approach (la) by walking (halak – journeying through life) in (ba) His ways (derek – His paths and steps through life), and (wa) for the purpose of coming to (la) revere and respect (yare’ – highly valuing) being with Him (‘eth).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 8:6)

These would be Yahowah’s provisions, not Paul’s propositions. They are stipulations rather than leaps of faith. Collectively they enable us to approach God and to enjoy His company. And these terms and conditions regarding the Covenant are being presented in Yahowah’s Towrah – a document we are being encouraged to examine and consider so that we can benefit from God’s guidance.

In short order, we will return to this encounter between Yahowsha’ and Satan. Our purpose will be to demonstrate the strategy the Adversary typically deploys so that we are attuned to this preferred tactic as we make our way through the corpus of Paul’s letters, and especially Galatians, the Magna Carta of Christianity. And secondarily, by considering Yahowsha’s response, we will learn how we should react to similar deceptions.

But for now, let’s rejoin the chronology presented by the Disciple. The very next time we hear Yahowsha’ speak is in the fifth chapter of the book now called, “Matthew.” This time, rather than negating Satan’s influence by debating a singular fallen spirit, Yahowsha’ is instead setting the stage by providing the proper perspective from which to evaluate everything he would say and do over the course of three years. This speech to the “multitudes” is known as the “Sermon on the Mount.” It is a tribute to 66Yahowah and His Towrah.

Yahowsha’s presentation is especially germane considering Paul’s claim to have been authorized by him to assault and annul the Towrah. Therefore, to determine whether such a mandate were possible, let’s examine Yahowsha’s statements regarding the enduring authority of the Towrah during his Instruction on the Mount.

Translated from Hebrew to Greek and then to English, Yahowsha’ said…

“You should not think or assume (me nomizomai – you should not consider, expect, or suppose at any time even the possibility of the commonly held or popularly established presumption, never accepting the prevailing precept or justification (negative particle, aorist active subjunctive verb)) that (hoti – namely) I actually came (erchomai – I in fact appeared then, now, or in the future (aorist active indicative)) to tear down, invalidate, put an end to, or discard (kataluo – to dissolve, destroy, disunite, subvert, overthrow, abrogate, weaken, dismantle, or abolish, releasing or dismissing any of the implications, force, influence, or validity of) the Towrah (ton nomon – that which has been assigned to nourish and provide an inheritance) or the Prophets (e tous prophetes – those who are inspired to speak and write based upon divine inspiration, making God’s thoughts and plans known even before they happen).

I actually came not (ouk erchomai) to dismiss, to invalidate, or to discard (kataluo – to tear down, to dissolve, to destroy, or to disunite, subverting by creating an artificial division, and thereby overthrow, abrogate, weaken, dismantle, or abolish, dismissing any implication or its influence), but instead (alla – to the contrary, emphatically contrasting that to the certainty), to completely fulfill (pleroo – to proclaim and complete, conveying the true meaning and thinking, to liberally supply, carrying out, accomplishing, and rendering it 67totally and perfectly). (5:17)

Because (gar – for this reason then so that you understand) in deed and in truth (amen – truly and reliably), I say to you (lego sy), until (hoes – up to the point that) with absolute certainty (an) the heaven and the earth (o ouranos e ge – the universe and the surface of the planet) cease to exist (parerchomai – pass away, disappearing), not ever under any circumstance shall (ou me – there is no way whatsoever, not even so much as a possibility that) one aspect of the smallest letter (eis iota – shall a single Yowd, the first letter in Yahowah’s name and the smallest character in the Hebrew alphabet) nor (e) a single stroke of the pen (mia keraia – one of the smallest lines distinguishing any aspect of any Hebrew letter) cease to be relevant (parerchomai – be averted or neglected, have any chance of being ignored or disregarded, being passed over or omitted, perishing) from (apo – being disassociated, separated, or severed from) the Towrah (tou nomou – that which has been assigned to nourish and to provide an inheritance) until with absolute certainty (hoes an) everything (pas – every last aspect, all and the totality of it) takes place (ginomai – happens and occurs, becoming a reality). (5:18)

Therefore (oun – indeed and as a result), whoever may at any time (hos ean – if at any moment anyone introduces a contingency or condition whereby individuals) dismiss or attempt to do away with (luo – may seek to toss aside, invalidate, or abolish, tearing away or put asunder) one of the (mian ton) smallest and least important of these (houtos ton elachistos) prescriptions and instructions which are enjoined (entole – rules, regulations, and authorized directions, precepts, and teachings), and (kai) he instructs or indoctrinates (didasko – he might teach, delivering moralizing discourses while conceiving and instilling doctrine, expounding or explaining so as to enjoin) people 68(anthropos – humanity or mankind) in this manner (houto – thusly and likewise), he will actually be provided the name and will be judicially and legally summoned as (kaleo – he will be referred to and called by the proper name, literally and passively summoned, called to task and designated) Lowly and Little (elachistos – Paulos in Latin, meaning: small and inadequate, insignificant and insufficient, irrelevant and unimportant, immaterial and inconsequential (Paulos, the Latin name Sha’uwl adopted as his own means “elachistos – little and lowly)) by the kingdom of heaven (en te basileia ton ouranos – by, within, among, and with regard to the reign and royal authority of the heavens).

And then (de – but by contrast), whosoever (hos an) might act upon it (poieomai– may engage through [the Towrah], making the most of it, attempting to carry out its assigned tasks (aorist active subjunctive)), and (kai) teach it (didasko – try to provide and share [the Towrah’s] instructions, expounding upon it), he (houtos – these things) will properly be referred to and named (kaleo – it will be judiciously and appropriately called and designated) great and important (megas – astonishingly valuable, splendid and sensible, albeit surprisingly uncommon) among those who reign within the heavens (en te basileia ton ouranos – by and with regard to the kingdom and royal authority of the heavens).” (Matthew 5:19)

That was unequivocal. It was also in complete opposition to the Christian traditions Paulos contrived. To discount or discard any aspect of the Torah, an individual such as Paulos has to contradict Yahowsha’. And it is irrational for anyone to claim to have been granted authorization to speak on behalf of an individual when his message is contradictory to them.

If Yahowsha’ told the truth, the notion of a “New Testament” is torn asunder because Yahowah’s original 69testimony is still valid. And based upon this statement, Paul’s letters which seek to invalidate the Towrah must be discarded.

But if Yahowsha’ cannot be trusted, then neither can Paul, because he would be speaking on behalf of a liar. In fact, if Yahowsha’ cannot be trusted, then the whole “New Testament” has to be rejected, because it claims to chronicle Yahowsha’s words and deeds.

Neither option is acceptable if you are a Christian. With regard to the religion’s veracity, it actually does not matter if this statement from Yahowsha’s most famous and well-attended public pronouncement is valid or invalid, properly recorded or misrepresented. If Yahowsha’s | “Jesus’” uncompromising declaration before the largest audience he would ever address, a speech originally chronicled by his most literate Disciple, isn’t reliably conveyed, then nothing the Greek manuscripts claim to document can be considered credible. And if Yahowsha’s words were accurately translated into Greek and then responsibly retained, there is no possibility whatsoever that the Christian religion is valid, because it is in complete and irreconcilable conflict with the letters which comprise the words of the Towrah.

As a Christian, you cannot discount this statement without discounting Yahowsha’s testimony. And the moment that is done, everything crumbles. But on the other hand, to believe him, you have to reject Christianity.

Equally telling, especially since the Prophets were included in Yahowsha’s affirmation, the majority of Yahowah’s prophecies, including His return and His ultimate renewal and restoration of the Covenant with Yisra’el and Yahuwdah, have not yet happened, and the heavens and earth remain. Therefore, the Towrah still stands. Now that is something for Christians to think about, especially considering the subject and speaker. Therefore, as a Christian reading this, since you are no longer ignorant 70of this proclamation, your only options are to reject Christianity or remain irrational. And what do you suppose the merits might be of believing in something which is illogical?

Since we are now undeniably aware of Yahowsha’s assessment of those who attempt to dismiss and discard any portion of the Torah, and that he referred to such attempts as “Paulos,” how can we consider Paulos’ attempt to demean and devalue the Towrah favorably? In this light, how is it that Paul convinced the world that God had authorized him to do precisely what Yahowsha’ just testified should not and could not, be done? Said another way, is there any chance whatsoever that God inspired, even condoned and endorsed, the writings of a man who invalidated His Towrah in view of this statement by Yahowsha’? Do Christians honestly believe that Paul can contradict God and still be trusted?

I realize that we have just begun our investigation, and that apart from the four derogatory statements we have thus far considered, where Paul referred to the Towrah as a curse, something abhorrent, repugnant, and malicious, and where he claimed that absolutely no one could be saved by the Towrah, I have not yet validated the assertion that Paul claimed to have destroyed and discarded the Towrah after dissolving and dismantling it.

Therefore, while we will cover all of this in great detail, until then here is a literal rendering of Paul’s proposition. With so much at stake, readability will suffer to achieve absolute accuracy…

“Having come to realize without investigation or evidence that by no means whatsoever is made righteous or vindicated, man out of acting upon the Towrah if not by faith in Iesou Christou.

And we to Christon Iesoun, ourselves, believed in order for us to be acquitted out of faith in Christou, and 71not out of acting upon the Towrah. Because out of works of the Towrah not any flesh will be acquitted, vindicated, nor be made righteous.” (Galatians 2:16)

“Because if that which I have actually torn down, dissolved, and dismantled, invalidated and abolished, negated, abrogated, and discarded, completely destroying, by this on the other hand, I strengthen and promote this edifice which I myself, bring into existence and have recommend. (Galatians 2:18)

I then, because of the Towrah, actually died and was separated in order that to God I might currently live. In Christo I have actually been crucified together with.” (Galatians 2:19)

“O ignorant and irrational, dimwitted and unreasonable, Galatians. Who bewitched and deceived you? (Galatians 3:1)

This alone I want to learn from you: out of accomplishments of the Towrah the spirit you received or alternatively out of hearing of belief? (Galatians 3:2)

In this way, you are ignorant and irrational, lacking in knowledge and unable to think logically. Having begun with spirit, now in flesh you are completing? (Galatians 3:3)

So much and so long these things you suffered, you were affected and you were vexed and annoyed without result or a plan. If indeed also thoughtlessly and for nothing without reason or cause. (Galatians 3:4)

The one, therefore then, supplying you the spirit and causing to function and operating powers in you out of acting upon and engaging in the tasks delineated in the Torah or out of hearing faith?” (Galatians 3:5)

“Indeed, consequently, the Torah accordingly is against and contrary to the promise of the god. Not may it be (It might be, although I don’t want it to be). For if, 72perchance, had been given the Torah the power and ability, the capacity and resources, to impart life, certainly in the Torah would be the righteous and vindicated. (Galatians 3:21)

To the contrary, emphatically and certainly, written scripture imposed restrictions, completely shutting the door on heaven, imprisoning everything under error and evil in order that the promise out of the faith of Iesou Christou might be given to believers. (Galatians 3:22)

But before they to come of the faith, under the control of the Towrah, we were actually being held in custody as prisoners, restricted and trapped like fish in a net, to the bringing about of faith was revealed. (Galatians 3:23)

As a result, the Towrah has come to exist as our disciplinarian, a pedagogue which instructs in a particularly pedantic and dogmatic manner using strict, old-fashioned methods with an overbearing demeanor by smiting and stinging those it enslaves, extending until Christon in order that by means of the faith, or a belief system, we might, at some point in time, while doing nothing ourselves, be justified, with the possibility of someday being vindicated as a result of being influenced. (Galatians 3:24)

But now having come the faith-based system of belief, no longer do we exist under an old fashioned and strict disciplinarian whose methods are antiquated and overbearing, even harsh.” (Galatians 3:25)

This resolutely accurate and literal translation is word for word as the text of Galatians actually reads in Greek, something that will be conclusively demonstrated in due time. It sounds coarse and disjointed because it was poorly written. But if you look beyond the sorry prose and consider the intent of the words, there is no mistaking the 73fact that Paul is claiming that he has invalidated and destroyed the Towrah because he views God’s testimony as inept and incompetent, even antiquated, mean-spirited, and overbearing. He is also claiming to have replaced the arcane and impotent Towrah with his edifice: “the faith of Iesou Christou” which is now wholly suspect due to the testimony of said individual.

To someone who knows and loves Yahowah, for someone who has been enriched and empowered by His Beryth | Covenant, as someone who has been perfected and adopted into His Family through His Miqra’ey | Invitations to be Called Out and Meet, and for someone who has been liberated and enlightened by the brilliance of His Towrah | Teaching, Paul’s rhetoric is nauseating. Even without my affinity for Yahowah, for any rational, informed, and moral individual, Paul’s claims are condescending, illogical, and obnoxious.

Such an illiterate and ignorant individual ought not have fooled anyone – much less billions. The fact that he has is a testament to the fallen state of man.

Returning to Yahowsha’s declaration, indirectly, he incriminated Sha’uwl, a man who not only dismissed the Towrah, but who also claimed to be a rabbi and Pharisee, in addition to being a religious expert, scholar, orator, and writer. Please consider what Yahowsha’ said next…

“For indeed (gar – because then), I say to you all (lego umin – I actually affirm and personally explain to you all (present active indicative)), that unless (hoti ean – because if) your (umon) righteousness, integrity, and standing in the relationship (dikaiosyne – acceptability of your thinking and state of approval, upright nature, accuracy of your understanding) is abundantly superior and eminently more appropriate than (perisseuo polys – could be considered vastly more abounding and greatly in excess of) the religious teachers, experts, scribes, and scholars (ton Grammateus – government officials, 74politicians, public servants, reporters, writers, clerks, lawyers, and judges), as well as the Pharisees (Pharisaios – members of a fundamentalist political and religious party comprised of hypocritical Jews who coveted authority, were overtly religious, set rules which others had to abide by, established religious rituals and traditions, and interpreted the Towrah to their liking), you will absolutely never move into nor experience (ou me eiserchomai eis – there is no chance whatsoever that at any time you might ever do something which may cause you to enter into (aorist active subjunctive)) the realm of the heavens (ten basileia ton ouranos – the sovereignty of the kingdom of the abode of God).” (Matthew 5:20)

Since we are still in the infancy of our study, notwithstanding the foregoing, for some it may still seem a bit presumptuous to conclude that Paul’s overall intent was to foreclose the Torah in order to promote his new faith. And yet the translations of the Galatians passages we considered suggest that Christian theologians believe they are justified in their interpretation of Paul’s message when they cite this letter as “evidence” that the Torah was an outdated and restrictive burden which had to be replaced with a much simpler and accommodating approach. But why is it that not one Christian scholar has the character, courage, or intellectual integrity to admit that Paul’s position, if Christians have interpreted it correctly, is diametrically opposed to Yahowsha’s testimony on life and the Towrah, as well as in direct conflict with God’s Word?

Speaking to those who are willing to invest the time required to actually know Yahowah, to those who actively seek to learn the truth, to those willing to engage in the process which leads to admission into God’s home, Yahowsha’ provided a set of instructions which completely undermines the ignorance of blind faith...

“You should ask (aiteo – at the present time it is desirable for everyone to act on his own initiative to 75earnestly request information, knowledge, and answers (present active imperative second person plural)) and (kai – as a logical connective conjunction relates the flow of thought from one thing to another while expressing the logical relationship between them) it will be given (didomi – in the future this will reliably produce the desired result (future passive indicative third person)) to you (umin – two or more of you or you all).

You should seek (zeteo – at the present time it is desirable for everyone to act on his own initiative to attempt to find information, searching for knowledge and answers (present active imperative second person plural)) and (kai – expressing the logical relationship) you will actually receive the discovery (heuriskomai – you will receive an education, you will be the beneficiary of finding reliable learning, facilitated and aided in the process attaining the information (future passive indicative third person)).

You should knock (krouo – at the present time it is desirable for everyone to act on his own initiative to physically demonstrate and announce their presence at the door desiring acceptance and admittance (present active imperative second person plural)) and (kai – expressing a logical relationship) it will be opened (anoigo – entry into the midst will be provided (future passive indicative third person)) to you (umin). (Matthew 7:7)

For then (gar – because and for this reason) universally the one asking (pas o aiteo – without exception, the individual actively engaging is transformed and (present active participle nominative)) receives (lambano – he is selected and is grasped by the hand (present active indicative)), (kai) the one seeking (zeteo – earnestly trying to obtain information though personal interaction so as to learn (present active participle nominative)) actually finds (heuriskomai – genuinely participates in the discovery and receives an education 76from the information (present active indicative)), and (kai) the one knocking (krouo – the one demonstrating and announcing his presence at the door desiring acceptance will be given and granted what he seeks so (present active participle dative)), it will be opened (anoigo – access to understanding and entry into the midst will be provided (future passive indicative third person)). (Matthew 7:8)

Yahowsha’s declaration is consistent with Yahowah’s Towrah guidance. God constantly encourages us to observe, which is to closely examine and carefully consider, His instructions, especially the provisions associated with the Covenant. He asks us to listen to His prescriptions for living, so that we can act upon what we discover. This, however, is the antithesis of Paul’s proposition, which is salvation through faith. God’s method requires us to seek, to learn, and then engage. But with faith, both the process and response are unnecessary and counterproductive.

Yahowsha’s next statement is also hostile to Paul’s proposition because he is directing our attention not to himself, but instead to Yahowah, to our Heavenly Father, and to the Father’s gift, which is found in the Towrah. But beyond this, by juxtaposing these thoughts, Yahowsha’ is also revealing where we should look to find the door to seek acceptance. He is even contrasting the merits of Yahowah’s testimony, His offer and promises, against the statements and assurances of a man. He is saying this expecting that we will act upon Yahowah’s offer instead of one promoted by someone who is clearly Paul.

“Should you be considering an alternative (e – by comparison (scribed as a logical disjunctive, a conjunction which provides a logical contrast between opposites)), what (tis) man (anthropos) currently exists (estin – is now actively becoming (present tense nominative singular masculine)) from among you (ek umon) who (hos), when his son (o huios autos) asks for (aiteo – will request 77sometime in the future (future active indicative)) a loaf of bread (artos – aerated and thus yeasted bread), (me – forming a question) will he give him (epididomi autos – will he hand to him) a stone (lithos – a rock used for sealing graves or making millstones)? (Matthew 7:9)

Or should you be considering an alternative (kai e – by comparison (scribed as a logical disjunctive, a conjunction which provides a logical contrast between opposites)), when he asks for (aiteo – he actually will request (future active indicative)) a fish (ichthys), (me – forming a question) will hand him (epididomi autos – will he give to him) a snake (ophis – a serpent which is symbolic of Satan)? (Matthew 7:10)

If (ei – introducing a condition which must occur or be met before the resulting event can be manifest), therefore (oun), you all (umeis) presently and actively being (ontes – currently existing and in the process of being (present active participle)) troublesome and morally corrupt (poneros – seriously flawed, evil and annoying, blind and diseased) have in the past been familiar with and have actually known how (oida – have perceived and have shown that you are genuinely aware of, having recognized how (perfect (a completed action in the past) active indicative)) to give (didomi – to provide) good and beneficial (agathos – moral, generous, and useful) gifts (doma – presents) to your children (tois umon teknon – to your descendants and offspring), how much more by contrast will (posos mallon) your Father (o umon pater), the One in the Heavens (o en tois ouranos), actually give (didomi – personally respond to reliably produce, grant, and bestow (future active indicative)) something good, moral, generous, and beneficial (agathos – that which is upright and worthy, capable and substantial, valuable and kind) to those asking this of Him (tois aiteo auton – actively responding to Him, making a request of Him (present active participle))?” (Matthew 7:11)

78Therefore, if Paulos is offering the gift of faith, and Yahowah is offering the gift of the Covenant, which offer do you suppose might be more beneficial and capable, more generous and substantial? And since this follows a presentation on asking and seeking, do you suspect that Yahowsha’ is indicating where we ought to look to find something which is reliably good, valuable, and kind? Further, since the answers to these questions are obvious, why do Christians, who claim that their religion is based upon Yahowsha’ | “Jesus,” ignore this and turn to Paul instead? In light of this, how did Sha’uwl manage to convince them that the Towrah was anything but good, generous, capable, or beneficial?

“Anything (pas – everything), therefore (oun – then), to whatever to the degree or extent (ean hosos – whenever and as far as) you might want or may enjoy (thelo – you might decide or presently desire, you may propose or be of the opinion or currently think something might be so, perhaps personally being fond of or taking pleasure in your will, your intent and your purpose (present active subjunctive)) as a result of (hina – that) men being human (oi anthropos – individuals representing mankind and humankind (nominative plural)) doing for yourself (poieo umin – actively attempting to perpetrate this, fashioning and assigning these things with regard to yourself (present active subjunctive dative)), also (kai) in this way (houto – likewise in this manner, thusly), you (umeis) should choose to actively do for them (poieomai autois – you may elect to perform and behave unto them (present active imperative)).

This (houtos) then (gar – for this reason) actually and presently is (estin – exists as) the Torah (o nomos – becomes the means to being nourished by that which is bestowed to become heirs, existing as the precepts which were apportioned, established, and received as a means to prosper and to be approved, and prescriptions for an 79inheritance; from nemo – that which is provided, assigned, and distributed to heirs to nourish them (nominative)) and the Prophets (kai oi prophetes).” (Matthew 7:12)

The moral here is that, since we do not want a millstone, a premature burial, a poisonous snake, or a serpent representing Satan given to us by men or by their institutions, and would be vastly better served with Yahowah’s good, generous, and beneficial gift, we ought to offer our fellow man access to God’s gift, starting with our children – providing them with the valuable and kind offer found in our Heavenly Father’s Towrah presentation of His Beryth | Covenant Family.

Since context is the mother’s milk of understanding, remember that Yahowsha’ has been encouraging us to knock at a certain door, seeking admission, and he has spoken of our Heavenly Father’s gift being especially valuable. He has deliberately and decisively associated this especially good and generous gift with Yahowah’s Towrah and Prophets.

Yahowsha’ is introducing the narrow doorway which leads to life. He is speaking of Passover, something he, as the Passover Lamb, ought to know a great deal about…

“Under the auspices of freewill, you all should choose at some point in time to enter, personally engaging by moving (eiserchomai – at a moment in time you ought to want to personally act by electing to go in, beginning the journey by choosing to experience (aorist active imperative)) through (dia – by way of and on account of) the narrow, specific, seldom-tread, and exacting door (tes stenos pule – the doorway with strict requirements which is highly restrictive, the passageway which is unpopular and seldom walked, an infrequently-trodden gateway whereby a stand will be taken to enable others to stand, to be firmly established, and to be upheld (note: stenos is based upon histemi which provides the concluding insights)) because (hoti – for the reason that 80namely) broad, manmade, and crafted to be wide open (platys – molded, malleable, plastic, and easily crafted and plied, a wide and artificial thoroughfare; from plasso – formed and molded by man, serving as the basis of plastic) is the door (pule – is the gate), and spacious and accommodating (eurychoros – as encompassing as nations, widely regional, and broadly societal; sharing a base with eusebeia – especially religious, speaking of belief systems and their devout and pious practices) is the way (e hodos – is the path and journey, the popular way through life, the well-traveled road and route, the common course of conduct) which misleads and separates (e apago – that takes away, leading through deception; from ago – directs, leads, and guides to apo – separation) into (eis) utter destruction (apoleia – needlessly squandering and ruining the valuable resource of one’s existence, causing it to perish; from apollumi – to be put entirely out of the way, to be rendered useless and to be abolished, coming to an end and ceasing to exist), and a great many (kai polys – the vast preponderance, an enormous number, and to a very great degree, serving as a superlative of great, many, much, and a large number) are those (eisin – are actually the ones (present active indicative)) who are influenced into moving while suffering the consequences of entering (oi eiserchomai – who as a result of being acted upon are affected by taking the first step toward and then going in, manipulated in the process of beginning a journey while experiencing the effect of going out (present middle passive participle nominative)) through it (dia autos – by way of it). (Matthew 7:13)

Certainly (tis – it is certain that), the specific doorway has strict requirements, it is narrow, seldom-tread, and it is an exacting passageway (e stenos pule – the doorway is highly restrictive, the passageway is unpopular and infrequently walked whereby a stand is taken to enable others to stand, to be firmly established, and to be upheld).

81Additionally, it goes against the crowd to the point of persecution (kai thlibomai – it is so totally unpopular the past act influences the future to the point of hardship and harassment, even to oppression and affliction (perfect passive participle nominative)), this one way (e e hodos – this specific journey through life, the singular route and the path) which leads, separating those guided (apago) unto (eis) life (zoe – vigorous and flourishing living, the fullness of a restored and active existence), but (kai) very few (oligos – an extremely small quantity over a very short time) are those (eisin o – exist the ones) finding it (heuriskomai autos – presently learning and actively discovering the location of it, themselves experiencing it).” (Matthew 7:14)

This may be the single most devastating declaration ever made against religion. The one thing religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and mankind’s newfound favorite, Socialist Secular Humanism, have in common is that they are very popular. A great many people have placed their faith in them, ranging from tens of millions to many billions. But Yahowsha’ just said that the popular ways are not only artificial and manmade, they lead to destruction, needlessly squandering countless souls.

While this statement is catastrophic to Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, and Socialist Secular Humanism when Yahowsha’s divine credentials are known, it obliterates any support for Christianity – the most popular religion in the history of the world. Based upon this declaration alone in the midst of Yahowsha’s Sermon on the Mount, the moment Constantine made Christianity acceptable in Rome, and Theodosius declared it the official faith of the Empire, there was no longer any hope that it could be the path to life. It must, therefore, be one of the many ways which lead to destruction.

Now, do not misunderstand. Yahowsha’ did not say 82that Christianity was destructive because it’s popular, but only that the path to life is unpopular. Christianity is deadly because it is based upon Sha’uwl’s delusions.

I am not trying to rub salt into an open wound if you are still a Christian, but I would be remiss if I did not remind you that Yahowah specifically revealed that there would be a “broad path,” a duplicitous and improper way, associated with Sha’uwl. As a result, Christianity is “the plague of death” being predicted in these words...

“Pay attention, he will be puffed up with false pride. His soul, it is not right nor straightforward in him. So, through trust and reliance, by being firmly established and upheld by that which is dependable and truthful, those who are correct, and thus vindicated, live.

Moreover, because the intoxicating and inebriating spirit of the man of deceptive infidelity and treacherous betrayal is a high-minded moral failure, and his is an arrogant and meritless presumption, he will not rest, find peace, nor live, whoever is open to the broad path, the duplicitous and improper way, associated with Sha’uwl.

He and his soul are like the plague of death. And so those who are brought together by him, accepting him, will never be satisfied. All of the Gentiles will gather together unto him, all of the people from different races and nations in different places.

But they do not ask questions, any of them, about him. Terse references to the word they lift up as taunts to ridicule, with implied associations that mock through comparison and counterfeit, along with elusive sayings with derisive words arrogantly conveyed.

There are hard and perplexing questions which need to be asked of him, and double-dealings to be known regarding him.

So they should say, ‘Woe to the one who claims to 83be great so as to increase his offspring, acting like a rabbi, when neither apply to him. For how long will they make pledges based upon his significance, becoming burdened by his testimony?’” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:4-6)

In context, Yahowsha’ has identified the Torah as God’s gift, saying that it is the lone and unpopular path to life. He said that all other ways lead to destruction, “needlessly squandering a person’s existence.” So there is no getting around the fact that this means popular paths – and there are none more popular than Christianity – lead to the death and destruction of those who follow their edicts. This is a profoundly important truth few Christians consider. And yet it is the reason, the only reason, we are examining Paul and his letter to the Galatians.

As an interesting aside, Yahowsha’s instructions regarding eternal life tell us to “begin by entering through a specific doorway.” And that is because the first of seven steps to Camping Out with Yahowah begins by answering His invitation to walk through the doorway labeled “Passover.” This portal, featuring the blood of the Passover Lamb, initiated the exodus from the crucible of Egypt, engendering the liberation of God’s Chosen People from their enslavement by oppressive human political and religious schemes. It represents the doorway to God’s home. And Yahowsha’, as the Passover Lamb, is the living embodiment of this, the entrance to Heaven.

Also relevant, the reason that there are strict requirements associated with this specific doorway is because it is only available to the Children of the Covenant. And to participate in this family relationship with our Heavenly Father, we engage by accepting five very specific conditions. For God to make Heaven enjoyable for the few who are included, He must exclude the many who would tarnish the experience. Pauline Christianity is nauseating, a plague of death, and would make everyone 84sick.

Yahowsha’ was not yet finished warning Christians about the consequence of disregarding the Towrah. With these words, he would tell everyone willing to listen to him not to trust Paul:

“At the present time you all should be especially alert, being on guard by closely examining and carefully considering, thereby turning away from (prosechete apo – you all should choose to beware, presently paying especially close attention, actively and attentively watching out for and guarding yourself against so as to separate yourself from (present active imperative)) the false prophets (ton pseudoprophetes – those pretending to be divinely inspired spokesmen, from pseudo– deliberately false, lying, deceitful, and deceptive and prophetes – one who speaks of hidden things, declaring what he claims to have received from God) who (hostis) come to you, currently appearing before you (erchomai pros umas – who approach you, moving toward or up to you, making public appearances or statements against you (the present tense reveals that the false prophet is currently in their midst, the middle voice indicates that he is self-motivated, that his statements are affecting him, and that the more assertive he becomes the more he is influenced by his aggressiveness and claims (i.e., one lie leads to another), while the indicative mood affirms that this is actually occurring)) from within (esothen – as an insider and thus from the same race, place, or group) by (en) dressing up in sheep’s clothing (endyma probaton – cloaked in the outer garments of sheep (note: the root of probaton is probaino – to go beyond, to go farther and forward, to go on and on, overstepping one’s bounds)).

And yet (de – but), they actually are (eisin – they correspond to, represent, are similar to, and exist without contingency as (present active indicative)) self-promoting, self-serving swindlers (harpax – vicious, 85robbing, extorting, and destructive thieves, ferocious, rapacious, and snatching con men, extracting and compelling under duress; from harpazo – to violently, forcibly, and eagerly claim and then seize for oneself so as to pluck and carry away) wolves (lykos – fierce individuals under dangerous pretenses who are vicious, cruel, greedy, destructive, overreaching, voracious, avaricious, acquisitive, and insatiable men impersonating beasts of prey).” (Matthew 7:15)

The first word in this statement, prosechete, is a compound of “pros – to one’s advantage with respect to or toward someone or something” and “echo – that which is accepted, grasped unto, held, possessed, considered, or regarded.” It is used to describe “large groups, organizations, or institutions a person might join, attend, participate in, or congregate amongst.” Therefore, by juxtaposing “prosechete – a cautionary and guarded examination and consideration” of “pseudoprophetes – false prophets” and the “prosechete – institutions they would have you embrace and join.” With “apo – disassociation and separation,” Yahowsha’ told us to walk away from religious organizations like churches.

Further implicating Paulos, while he got his lone prediction wrong when he misrepresented the Taruw’ah Harvest and claimed in his first letter to the Thessalonians that the “harpazo – snatching away, or rapture” would occur during his lifetime (1 Thessalonians 4:17), thereby making him a false prophet by any standard, pseudoprophetes is less about errantly predicting the future than it is indicative of “someone who deliberately deceives by falsely claiming to have been inspired by God.” Therefore, because Sha’uwl’s message is consistently deceitful, it is overwhelmingly obvious that he lied about his inspiration.

Also, this admonition was recorded in the present tense, which is to say that the pseudoprophetes was present, 86currently lurking in their midst. That is relevant because, according to Sha’uwl, he was in this very place at this time, learning to be religious at a school for rabbis. And since the only false prophet of any significance during this time and in this place is also the most significant false prophet of all time, there is no mistaking Sha’uwl | Paul as the wolf in sheep’s clothing.

That is not to say that there weren’t other Jews who led people astray in the name of religion. Rabbi Akiba shaped Judaism into the religion which is practiced today. But he never claimed to be a prophet and he lived a full century later. Maimonides, the man who codified Judaism’s thirteen pillars, wasn’t a prophet either, and he wrote over one millennia later in Islamic Egypt, not Yisra’el. Constantine, the gateway to Roman Catholicism in the early 4^th century, could never be mistaken for a lamb. He was not a prophet, and he was neither a Christian nor a Jew, so he too would be disqualified for many reasons. Therefore, who else other than Paulos and his associates meet these criteria?

But there is more. By Yahowah’s definition, Sha’uwl, as a Benjamite, qualified as a wolf. Paulos claimed to be from the tribe of Benjamin in Romans 11:1, saying: “For indeed, I am an Israelite, from the seed of Abraham, from the tribe of Benyamin (Beniamin – a transliteration of the Hebrew Benyamyn).”

And then this heads up from God: “Benyamin is a wolf viciously tearing apart, continually mangling and actually killing, plucking the life out of his victims, in the early part of the day, consistently devouring his prey, and during the dark of night at the end of the day. He divides and destroys, apportioning and distributing that which has been spoiled.” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 49:27)

While there were many Benjamites, there is only one man known to have publicly announced that he was from 87the tribe of Benjamin present in Yaruwshalaim during the time Yahowsha’ delivered His Instruction on the Mount. Beyond this, Sha’uwl admitted to masking his true identity, which is the very essence of a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Proof of Paul’s willingness to change his outward appearance to take advantage of an unsuspecting audience is found in this confession...

“And (kai) I became (ginomai) to the (tois) Jews (Ioudaios – a crude transliteration of Yahuwdym, meaning Related to Yahowah) like (hos) Jews (Ioudaios) in order that (hina) I might make a profit by procuring an advantage over (kerdaino) Jews (Ioudaios).

To those (tois) under (hypo) Towrah (nomon), in such a way to show a weak relationship (hos) under (hypo) Towrah (nomon), not being himself (me on autos) under (hypo) Towrah (nomon), for the purpose that (hina) with those under (tous hypo) Towrah (nomon) I might make a profit by procuring an advantage over (kerdaino). (1C9:20)

To those (tois) Towrahless and thus without the Towrah (anomois), in such a way to show a weak relationship with (hos) Towrahless (anomois), not being (me on) Towrahless (anomois) of God (theou), to the contrary and making a contrast (alla), in the Torah (ennomos) of Christou (Christou – foolishly transliterated from the Greek as “Christ” and errantly used as if a name; from chrio – which speaks of the application of drugs and medicinal ointments) in order that (hina) I might make a profit by procuring an advantage and winning over (kerdaino) those without the Towrah (tous anomois). (1C9:21)

I came to exist (ginomai) to the (tois) incapable and morally weak (asthenes), incapacitated and inadequate (asthenes), in order that (hina) those (tous) impotent and sick (asthenes) I might make a profit by procuring an advantage over (kerdaino).

88To everyone (tois pasin) I have become (ginomai) every kind of thing (panta) in order that (hina) surely by all means (pantos) some (tinas) I might save (sozo).” (1 Corinthians 9:20-22)

Even Machiavelli, the man who postured the immoral notion that the end justifies the means, was not this belligerent. And you will notice, Paulos is asserting that he is the savior, able to save anyone and everyone. This, of course, would be in direct conflict with God, in tactics, capability, and numbers.

While the combination of God’s warnings and Paul’s admissions are devastating, leaving Sha’uwl and his associates as the only viable and known potential culprits, there was a subtlety in Yahowsha’s depiction of the wolf. He described the predator using a derivative of the same term Paulos selected to present his “harpazo – rapture.” It was such an odd choice for Paul, especially considering its negative connotations. But since he did, and God knew he would, he gave us yet another clue regarding the identity of this wolf in sheep’s clothing.

I don’t suppose that Yahowsha’ could have made his message any clearer for us. He told us we could rely upon the Towrah and then he told us whom we should not trust, revealing that a self-serving insider would feign an alliance with him so that he could more easily snatch souls away from God. He, of course, was speaking about Paul – and those who have allied themselves with him.

This is especially poignant, because on another occasion Yahowsha’ spoke of the comparative influence he would have versus Paulos. God’s statement is one of the reasons that I consider Paul to be the most influential (albeit not in a positive way) man who ever lived. Yahowsha’ revealed:

“I (ego), myself, have come (erchomai – I have shown myself, appearing and becoming manifest) in the name (en 89to onoma – with the one and only name belonging to the person and reputation (dative singular)) of the Father (tou pater – the masculine archetype parent of the family) of mine (mou), and yet (kai) you do not receive me (ou lambano me – you do not actually accept me nor grasp hold of me, you do not choose or prefer me, and thus you do not take hold of my hand nor take advantage of and experience me).

But when (ean – on the condition whenever) another (allos – completely different individual and entity) comes (erchomai – might appear, showing himself, and coming forth, presenting himself) in his own name (en to onoma to idio – with his own individual, unique, and distinctive, private, and personal name [like Sha’uwl choosing to be Paulos]), that individual (ekeinos – that lone and specific man, him, then and there (the demonstrative singles out the individual, the accusative associates this man and name, while the singular masculine limits this to a single male individual)) you all will actually accept (lambano – you will all receive, choose, and prefer).” (Yahowchanan / Yah is Merciful / John 5:43)

Considering how often the founder of the Christian religion wrote: “but I Paul say...”, it is a wonder more people don’t recognize him as the one who not only came in his own name, one that he actually chose for himself, but also as the one so many would prefer. Paulos even said “imitate me.” He wrote: “if someone teaches in opposition to what I say let him be accursed.” He was not only fixated on himself, he claimed the entire world for himself. And today, the vast preponderance of Christian bible studies, sermons, and quotations are based upon Paul’s letters rather than Yahowsha’s pronouncements – and almost never upon His Sermon on the Mount.

But for those looking for it, second only to Yahowah’s Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, Yahowsha’s testimony is true. He went on to say...

90“From (apo) their (autos) fruit (karpos – that which they produce), by conducting a careful, thorough, and competent inquiry in the future, you all will be able to use evidence and reason to genuinely comprehend (epiginosko – by closely examining and carefully considering, and by processing and evaluating everything logically, every one of you will be able to actually learn, completely understand, and without reservation recognize and acknowledge; epiginosko is to know for certain and to understand to the point of being completely convinced as a result of diligent observation and thoughtful comprehension (translated in the future tense revealing that while the wolf was currently among them, he had not yet revealed his fruit, which is to say some time would pass before Sha’uwl became Paulos and he and his followers wrote their letters, then in the middle voice we learn that those who are observant and circumspect will benefit from what they discover regarding these evil men, and finally in the indicative mood, Yahowsha’ is telling us that while the example is metaphorical, such deceivers are very real)) them (autos).

Is it even rationally possible (meti – introducing a rhetorical question where the answer is always no) to collect (syllego – to pick) a bunch of grapes (staphyle) from (apo) a thorn (akantha – something sharp and pointed often found on a thorny bramble or brier), or from (e apo) a thistle (tribolos – a three-pronged thorny and prickly invasive wild plant that is injurious to other plants), figs (suka)?” (Matthew 7:16)

Just as we can delight in the subtlety of Yahowsha’s use of a “harpazo – rapture” derivative to direct our attention to Paul’s false prophecy, akantha, translated “thorn” in verse 16, is from akmen, which means “point.” God is thereby directing our attention to two of Paul’s most incriminating statements.

“And of the superiority of the exaggerated, 91magnificent, and awe-inspiring aspects of the overstated revelations, therefore, it should be self-evident, in order to not become overly proud, exalting myself beyond what would be justified, there was given to me a sharp goad (skolops – a troubling thorn at the end of a pointed stick used to control dumb animals) in the body, a messenger of Satan, in order to strike and restrain me.” (2 Corinthians 12:7)

And then Satan addressed him and said...

“I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Sha’uwl, Sha’uwl, Why are you actually pursuing me, following me, and really striving with such intense effort to reach me? It’s hard, demanding, difficult, and intolerable for you to resist against the goad (kentron – a pointed sharp stick used to prick and prod and thus control animals, making resistance vain or perilous).” (Acts 26:14)

Having come to know Yahowah, and thus Yahowsha’, I have come to recognize that, while religious deception is something God abhors, He has a sense of humor.

The tribolos suka comparison is also delightful. Tribolos is from treis, meaning “three” and belos, which speaks of “darts being thrown.” Interestingly, belos is derived from ballo, “to thrust aside and toss away, to scatter, giving over to the care of another with an uncertain result.”

That got me to thinking. What are Paul’s most lethal prongs? And I thought, perhaps: 1) His claim that he was an apostle speaking for God beguiling people into believing that his letters should be considered the Word of God. 2) His claim that the Towrah was an incompetent curse and that it had been annulled in favor of salvation through faith in the gospel of grace. And 3) His claim that his new covenant replaced the enslaving old covenant, when there is only one Covenant and it represents the lone 92means to engage in a relationship with God.

And then, of course, there is the even more infamous trio, the Christian Trinity, the Babylonian myth which was incorporated into Christianity. It was the result of Paul’s moronic “the fullness of the godhead resided upon him bodily.”

But there is more. You see, a tribolos, as a thorny and prickly wild plant, is injurious to other plants. And in this example, the plant the thorny, prickly, invasive, and insidious Sha’uwl would injure was the fig tree which, like the grapevine, is Yahowah’s symbol for Yisra’el. Largely as a result of Paulos’ rampant anti-Semitism first expressed in Galatians, and then elevated to a reprehensible rant in Thessalonians, Jews would become the enemies of Christians, who would ultimately claim what they renamed “Palestine” and the “Holy Land” as their own.

For God’s Chosen People, it would be 1800 years from exile to return, a prophecy Yahowsha’ pronounced by referencing the fig tree. It was a parable God designed to reveal that Yisra’el would blossom again, with Yahuwdym causing the Land to grow after centuries of neglect. And their return would occur less than a generation prior to His return.

“So then from the fig tree (suke) be instructed and learn from this symbolic illustration. No matter how long it takes, when a young and tender shoot is ready to sprout and its leaves grow, producing foliage, you know that summer is near.

And in this way, whenever you may see all of this, you should understand that it is near, at the door. Truly I say to you that there is no chance whatsoever that this generation will perish before all of these things come to exist.” (Matthew 24:32-34) The pervasive influence of Paul’s letters continues to be a thorn in Yisra’el’s side.

Also interesting, in the accusative plural neuter, “sukon 93– fig” is pronounced suka, which is a transliteration of Sukah, the seventh and final Invitation to be Called Out and Meet with God. So while this statement was not delivered in Greek, the transliteration of the Hebrew term may be relevant because it is symbolic of camping out with God in the Promised Land – a place and time devoid of thistles.

If Yahowsha’s next statement is true, a comprehensive examination of Paul’s words should be sufficient to determine whether his message is “kalos – genuine, approved, and commendable” or “sapros – corrupt, rotten, and harmful,” even “poneros – seriously flawed, annoying, and worthless.”

“In this way (houto – thusly, it follows, in like manner), every (pas) good and useful (agathos – valuable, beneficial, and generous, appropriate, and pleasant) fruit tree (dendron) produces (poieomai – creates, makes, and furnishes) exceptionally suitable and commendable (kalos – genuine, approved, magnificent, admirable, advantageous, superior, attractive, fitting, valuable, highly beneficial, and proper) fruit (karpos – production and results).

But (de) a tree (dendron) which is corrupt, rotten, and harmful (sapros – bad, decayed, putrefied, unfit, unprofitable, unsuitable, unusable, and destructive) bears (poieomai – produces, creates, makes and provides) diseased and worthless (poneros – seriously flawed and faulty, annoying and perilous, malicious, troubling, and painful) fruit (karpos – production and results).” (Matthew 7:17)

With the test so simple, with the evidence so plentiful, with the stakes so high, why do you suppose so few people have deployed these criteria to evaluate the fruit of Paul’s pen? Equally troubling, with God being so definitive, expressly saying that cherry picking snippets from a rotten source is not acceptable, why are so many Christians willing to exonerate Paul because they rather like some of 94what he has to say?

“It is not possible (ou dynamai – it is never within its capability nor capacity) for a good and useful (agathos – for a valuable, beneficial, and appropriate) fruit tree (dendron) to produce (poieomai – to create, make, provide, or furnish) seriously flawed or disadvantageous (poneros – diseased, faulty, annoying perilous, troubling, counterproductive, or evil) fruit (karpos – production and results), nor (oude) a tree (dendron) which is corrupt, rotten, and harmful (sapros – bad, decayed, putrefied, unfit, unprofitable, unsuitable, unusable, and destructive) to make (poieomai – to create, produce, or provide) suitable or commendable (kalos – genuine, approved, admirable, advantageous, fitting, valuable, beneficial, or proper) fruit (karpos – production and results).” (Matthew 7:18)

God is not talking about fruit trees. He is not trying to get you to show a preference for apricots over apples or pears over plums. A bad tree can on occasion produce something edible. But such is not the case with a rotten prophet.

The moral of the story is that, if a person is speaking for Yahowah, everything he writes and says is beneficial and reliable. With His prophets, because He is directing them, there are no mistakes and no misleading statements. But if there is a single error, one putrid statement, the smallest corruption, in someone’s testimony who claims his words have been nurtured by God, we must reject that source entirely. So now we have a bushel of reasons to uproot Paul from our lives.

Any one of the statements we have considered thus far from Paul individually is sufficient to reject his letters – designating them as harmful. And that is because, according to God, truth never produces something which is wrong and the product of evil is always poisonous. So even that which may appear appropriate in an inappropriate 95source must be rejected, because that appearance only serves to make the venom more enticing to ingest. It is all or nothing.

When it comes to providing the proper perspective, there are few insights more important than recognizing that Satan and his messengers make their nauseating fruit appear delectable by coloring it with strokes from God’s brush. These resulting counterfeits fool the unsuspecting, the unobservant, and the indiscriminate into believing that a message crafted by the Adversary will lead them to paradise.

Just as a counterfeit bill is completely worthless even when ninety-nine percent of its strokes are genuine, the more a false prophet says which is true, the more deadly he becomes. And that is because, by making his words appear Godly, they become more seductive and beguiling. Credibility is Yahowah’s strong suit, which is why deceivers like Paul misappropriate it to make their lies appear credible. Paul has fooled billions of souls deploying this strategy. And Satan, with the assistance of Paul, Akiba, Muhammad, and Maimonides has deceived billions more, beginning long ago with Adam and Chawah.

“Any and every (pas) tree (dendron) not (me) producing (poieomai – creating or providing) suitable, fitting, and genuine, approved, commendable, and advantageous (kalos – valuable, beneficial, and proper) fruit (karpos – production and results) shall actually be cut off and done away with (ekkopto – shall find themselves reliably cut down, removed, and eliminated (present passive indicative)) and toward (kai eis) the fire (pyr – a metaphor for judgment), it will be thrown (ballo – he shall find himself moved, propelled, and cast, being nudged he will fall (present passive indicative)).” (Matthew 7:19)

Fire is symbolic of divine judgment, where Yah’s light and energy are used to refine and separate good while 96devouring that which is bad. Fire is not, however, found in She’owl, because the Judge is never present in the place of separation. Moreover, without Yahowah, She’owl | Hell is a dark and lightless place, precluding the existence of fire.

It is therefore instructive to know that sources which are not “kalos – valuable, beneficial, and proper, suitable, fitting, and genuine,” are “ekkopto – cut off,” which means “removed” from Yahowah. Moreover, they are “ekkopto – done away with and tossed aside” following judgment.

Judgment is something rotten sources of information regarding God endure. Yah’s Covenant children will witness trials for clerics and kings in addition to spectacular tribunals for the likes of Paul, Akiba, Muhammad, and Maimonides, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. God’s children, however, as a result of the Towrah’s provisions, will not be judged. Therefore, the sole purpose of judgment is to determine which souls will spend eternity separated from God, as opposed to those souls which will simply cease to exist. The former is a penalty, justly earned for leading others away from God. The latter is a consequence of being misled.

“So then indeed (ara ge – as a result and in reality), by (apo) their (autos) fruit (karpos – production), you will be able, through careful observation and studious contemplation, to actually know and understand them (epiginosko autos – by conducting a careful, thorough, and competent inquiry in the future you all will be able to use evidence and reason to genuinely comprehend them, by closely examining and carefully considering, and by processing and evaluating everything logically, every one of you will be able to actually learn, completely understand, and without reservation recognize and acknowledge them; (translated in the future tense revealing that, since the rotten fruit had not yet been produced, diagnosing the disease would have to wait, and in the middle voice we learn that those who are observant and 97circumspect will benefit from what they discover regarding the illegitimate tree and its deadly fruit, and finally in the indicative mood, Yahowsha’ is telling us that, while trees and fruit serve as metaphors, deceivers actually exist and the consequence is real)).” (Matthew 7:20)

Since epiginosko speaks of that which can be known for certain based upon a close examination and careful evaluation of the available evidence, this concept is being presented as the antithesis of, and thus as the alternative to, faith. Therefore, to the degree that Yahowsha’s statement was accurately translated, this is especially relevant. And that is because faith is Paul’s lone alternative to observing the Towrah.

It is surprising, but nonetheless true, that God and man differ dramatically on the concept which has become synonymous with religion. God, rather than asking us to blindly believe Him, wants us to read His testimony so that we come to know Him. That is why the Towrah and Prophets were written and given to us. And this voyage of discovery which leads to knowing Yahowah is vastly superior to believing that He exists. Similarly, actually engaging in His Covenant is better than believing that you have a relationship with God.

The reason this particular instruction from God is being shared in the opening chapters of this book, one devoted to examining and evaluating the merits of Paul’s letters, is because we are doing exactly what Yahowsha’ asked of us. So if you are a Christian, you now have a trio of choices. You can continue reading Questioning Paul, you can dedicate the time to do a similar study on your own, or you can continue to live a lie, pretending to follow someone whose words you are prone to ignore.

And speaking of ignoring, if you are an agnostic, you would be better served to set this book aside temporarily and read Yada Yahowah or Observations. And that is because you are fortunate. Unlike those whose religious 98beliefs are crafted to repel everything that is averse to their faith, and especially God’s own testimony, being an agnostic, your mind isn’t a house of cards which must be brought down before something sensible can be established in its place. For you, there is no clutter to clear away, no religious mythology which has to be rejected or defended. Nothing has to be exorcised prior to considering Yahowah’s testimony.

As an agnostic, your mind is already open. You are keenly aware of the merits of evidence and reason. So you are prepared to consider God’s testimony on its own merits. For you, it is just a matter of wielding evidence and applying reason in a different venue, and perhaps for the first time observing the Creator rather than His creation. But then once you have come to know Yahowah as He revealed Himself, once you understand what He is offering, once you respond to Him rationally and engage in His Covenant, you will want to return to this book. And that is because once you have come to know Yah, you will want to share what you have learned with Christians who have been misled.

That said, if you are a secular Jew, I’d recommend beginning with Coming Home. You’ll meet Dowd | David, and come to enjoy his brilliant lyrics as he waxes poetic about his relationship with God. In him you will find your Messiah and King, even meet the Son of God. And the time is right, because soon he will be returning to lead the world of survivors.

That is not to say, however, that this book won’t appeal to agnostics, Jewish or otherwise. By reading Questioning Paul, you will find comfort in the wisdom of rejecting the Christian religion. By coming to understand where and how Christians were misled, you will discover that your aversion to religion is something God shares.

This would also hold true for the many agnostic Yahuwdym. Three of the earliest beneficiaries of the initial 99edition of Questioning Paul were Jews: a computer engineer, a pulmonary surgeon, and a leader in the Messianic movement. By seeing Yahowsha’ stripped of his Hellenistic and Pauline, thus Christian garb, and with the foolishness of religion no longer associated with him, the Passover Lamb suddenly becomes credible.

Now returning to his Instruction on the Mount, from the beginning Yahowsha’ has been resolute and precise. There has been no equivocation whatsoever. For example, we were told that not so much as a single one of the smallest strokes of the individual letters comprising any of the words of the Towrah would be negated or annulled. Equally uncompromising, He has said that a rotten tree never produces good fruit and similarly that a sound tree is always beneficial.

With this in mind, as we approach his next statement where he begins: “not (ou – absolutely never under any circumstances shall) any (pas – anyone),” to be consistent, the negation provided by ou when applied to pas must be rendered “not any” rather than “not all.” The former is absolute and the latter is equivocal. Beyond this, with pas scribed in the singular rather than plural, “any,” is a far better fit than “all.” Also, in the nominative form and negated, “not any” serves as the subject of the verb, “saying,” written legon, the present, active, and singular form of lego.

The reason this is important is because a criterion is being established which is excluding either “some” or “all” who refer to God as “Lord” from heaven. Seeking some wiggle room, bibles published by Christian organizations prefer “not all,” but there is no reason to suspect that God is changing course and is being the least bit uncertain here, making “not any” a far better fit in this presentation.

Since context is essential to understanding, and consistency is God’s hallmark, one cannot responsibly translate Yahowsha’s testimony by taking him out of 100character or context. Therefore, we should recognize Yahowah’s overt animosity toward being called “Lord,” not only since it is the derogatory title He uses to describe Satan, but also since as our “Heavenly Father” He cannot be our Lord. Further, knowing His name is essential to our salvation. As a result, we have to either translate the singular pas as “any or anyone” or change God’s nature, plan, and testimony.

In this light, you should know that Yahowsha’ delivered his Instruction on the Mount in Hebrew, not Greek. There is no evidence that he ever spoke Greek. Moreover, every report we have from this time regarding Lowy | Levi (the disciple’s actual name (see: Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27)), we know that he presented his eyewitness testimony in Hebrew. So at the very least, the text we are evaluating was translated out of Hebrew and into Greek fifty years or more removed from this time and one thousand miles away from where this was spoken.

Then adding yet another layer of concern, not only were the scribes who copied these manuscripts in Egypt less than meticulous, they were actually encouraged to harmonize texts so that the result would better mesh with the proclivities of those paying the bills – typically a religious institution. This free hand explains why there are over three hundred thousand known discrepancies between ancient and modern manuscripts. Therefore, when conveying the proper meaning of any word Yahowsha’ may have spoken, which was then translated, the best rendering is one which is consistent with the Hebrew thought he was conveying.

That is what I have done here. But since pas is more often rendered “all” than it is “any” or “anyone,” and because it is a translation of the Hebrew “lo’ kol – not anyone,” the selection of other than a primary definition isn’t one I am comfortable making without full disclosure – without you knowing why – especially since so much is 101riding upon presenting these words correctly.

“Not (ou – absolutely never under any circumstances shall) any (pas – anyone (scribed as an adjective in the nominative case in the singular masculine)) one saying (legon – one speaking, calling, or implying (scribed in the present tense active voice participle form in the singular nominative masculine)) to me (moi), ‘Lord, Lord (kyrie kyrie – master, owner, one who rules over, controls, or enslaves),’ will actually as a result enter into (eiserchomai eis – will in the future, and based upon how this influences the speaker, move inside or genuinely experience (scribed in the future tense, middle voice which signifies that those calling Yahowsha’ “Lord” are affected by this decision, and in the indicative mood which means that this statement is describing reality, and in the third person singular)) the kingdom of the heavens (ten basileian ton ouranon – the spiritual realm and abode of God), but by contrast (alla – rather certainly and emphatically) the one presently acting upon (o poieomai – the one currently and actively engaging in (scribed in the present active participle singular nominative masculine)) the purpose and desire (thelema – the will and mindset, the design and determination, the resolve and intent) of (tou) my (mou) Father (patros), the One (tou) in the heavens (en tois ouranois – in the spiritual realm).” (Matthew 7:21)

If you do not know Yahowsha’s name, you do not know him – nor do you know the Father who sent him. His name defines who he is, from whom and why he came. When it is changed, the result is no longer accurate. And when the object of one’s belief ceases to be credible, his faith is in vain.

Similarly, if you do not know Yahowah’s name, you do not know God. If you do not know God, He does not know you. If He does not know you, you can neither be in a relationship with Him nor be saved by Him. This is why 102those who call Yahowah and Yahowsha’ “Lord” are excluded from heaven.

If you are still among those referring to God by Satan’s title, “the Lord,” then you are unaware of Yahowah’s will – which is to serve His Covenant children as their Father. Lord and father are mutually exclusive concepts. God cannot be your Father if He is your Lord.

The only reason Yahowah created the universe, conceived life, engaged in our lives, and provided His guidance was so that we would be able to choose to engage in His family-oriented Covenant relationship. By mischaracterizing God’s nature and purpose in this way, those who refer to God as “the Lord” are negating our Heavenly Father’s most earnest desire. This then bars entry into heaven. And that is because salvation is a byproduct or benefit of the Covenant. It is yet another thing Christians have reversed.

Few things are as revealing in this regard as the misrepresentation of Yahowah’s nature from Father to Lord. It is why referring to God as “Lord” was used as a litmus test to identify those who would be excluded from heaven. And it is why Yahowsha’ spoke of the purpose and desire of “My Father” in heaven. The contrast is between man’s view where their god is a “Lord,” and God’s view where He is our “Father.” This is the very essence of the Covenant and thus of the Towrah. It is why Yahowah chose to rename the first child of the Covenant “‘Abraham – Merciful and Enriching Father.”

And should you be clinging to the myth that God is referred to as “the Lord” throughout the “Bible,” the truth is just the opposite. God spoke or wrote His name, Yahowah, exactly 7000 times in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. Religious institutions then copyedited God, substituting “Lord” for His name.

Equally instructive, if one must act upon the purpose 103and desire of our Heavenly Father to enter heaven, then salvation does not come by way of faith as Paul asserts. To respond to God’s will, His intent, we must first come to know what He is offering and what He is asking in return. And that brings us right back to the Towrah, to the one place Yahowah introduces His purpose and plan.

Since this may come as a shock to those lost in religion, as believers almost universally refer to their god as “Lord,” especially Christians, Yahowsha’ completely destroyed their illusion.

“Many (polys – a very great number and the preponderance of people) will say (erousin – will in the future actually and actively communicate (lego scribed in the future active indicative third person plural)) to me (moi) in that specific day (en ekeinos te hemera – in this relatively distant period of time), ‘Lord, Lord (kyrie kyrie – master, owner, one who rules over, controls, or enslaves), was it not (ou) in your (to so) name (onoma – persona and reputation), we actively spoke genuinely inspired utterances (propheteuo – we prophesied, at some point in time actually making your thoughts known beforehand (aorist active indicative first person plural)), and (kai) in your (to so) name (onoma – persona and reputation), we drove out (ekballo – we sent and threw out, we expelled and sent forth (aorist active indicative first person plural)) demons (daimonion – evil spirits and devils, or inferior gods, minor divinities, and pagan goddesses), and (kai) in your (to so) name (onoma – persona and reputation), many mighty and miraculous things (pollas dynamis – with great supernatural power, extensive political and religious institutions), we made and did (poieomai – we engaged in, performed, worked, and profited from (aorist active indicative first person plural))?” (Matthew 7:22)

While it requires a considerable reorganization of the Greek, thereby moving the negation of ou past the dative article, “the,” past the possessive pronoun, “Your,” and 104past the dative noun, “name,” since the third definition of ou depicts a question in which the speaker expects a resounding “yes” to be the answer, one might assume that Christians, having not listened to what Yahowsha’ just said, might ask:

“Lord, Lord, didn’t we speak inspired utterances in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and establish mighty political and religious institutions in Your name?”

But the answer to that question is a resounding “no!” Not one Christian in a million knows or uses Yahowsha’s name. In fact, once a person comes to know his name and understand what it means, he or she can no longer be a Christian. And that is because Yahowsha’s name means “Yahowah Frees and Saves.” As a result, the means to salvation is found in the Towrah rather than in the “New Testament.”

Yahowsha’s name means that Paul was wrong – about everything! Yahowsha’ is not God, Yahowah is God. Yahowsha’ is not our Savior, Yahowah holds that distinction. Yahowsha’ is not the one we should be asking to help us, enlighten us, lead us, save us, liberate us, or inspire us. It is Yahowah. The truth is found in Yahowah’s Towrah, Naby’, wa Mizmowr | the Teaching, Prophets, and Psalms – not in a New Testament replete with Paul’s poison pen.

The entirety of the Christian experience is wrongly focused. It is why those who refer to Yahowsha’ as “the Lord” are excluded from Heaven. This is not God’s doing; it is their fault. Christians do not know Yahowah, and as a result, they do not know God. They do not appreciate what Yahowah is offering and have no interest in even knowing what He is asking in return. They have no interest in the Towrah where these things are found.

To the Christian, Yahowah’s interests are immaterial. 105And that is the reason they are universally excluded from the Covenant. Yahowsha’ just explained why man’s most popular way leads to the death and destruction of souls.

But then again, why would a Christian want to trust Yahowsha’, even Yahowah, when they can cuddle up to Paul and believe him instead?

You will not find a church in which the sermon is delivered in Yahowah’s name, not even in Yahowsha’s name. Christians speak on behalf of Paul and his mythical “Jesus Christ.” They are inspired by Paul’s pathetic and patronizing pathogens. They prefer Sha’uwl’s convoluted and contradictory epistles to the brilliance of Yahowah’s Towrah. With Hebrew and Greek stitched into one book, they read the story backward through a warped and occluded lens which perverts and inverts everything they see.

As bad as that may sound, it is actually far worse. Most Christians dislike everything about the so-called “God of the Old Testament,” His name, Yahowah, His place and people, Yisra’el and Yahuwdym, His Towrah, Beryth, and Miqra’ey.

In all of their many books, in all of their vast libraries, in all of their Bible studies, in all of their radio and television programs, and in all of their religious institutions, they never speak or write in the name of God. Most do not even know it. And therefore, Yahowsha’ was correct when he said that their claim to have spoken inspired utterances in his name was untrue.

As for driving out demons, the moment you come to understand that Christian clerics, because of Paul, are indirectly inspired by Satan, it is easy to see why they would be able to exorcise demons. The Adversary controls them. So casting out demonic spirits becomes the perfect ruse – a spectacle to stupefy those seeking miracles rather than enlightenment.

106Easily confused by this sleight of hand, Christians have made this claim to validate their godly credentials. And yet, Yahowsha’ is translated suggesting that they will have professed to throwing out “daimonion – inferior gods and pagan deities.” What is funny about this possibility is that Paul’s strategy was to replace Yahowah and Yahowsha’ with his Iesou Christou, thereby, demoting the “inferior and impotent god of the obsolete and arcane Old Testament” with the “all accepting, always nice, graceful god of his superior New Testament.” But in actuality, the only real God was replaced by faith in the Gospel of Grace – the evil spells of pagan goddesses.

Equally stimulating is pollas dynamis which, while I translated “many mighty and miraculous things,” could just as accurately have been rendered “extensive political and religious institutions.” Paul’s minions do both, but are better at establishing the latter. It will come as a tremendous shock to the systems of Christians when they learn that their institutions, their churches, nations, and denominations were not established in the name of God – not a single one of them.

Further, “mighty deeds and miracles” are so often claimed by those inspired by the Adversary that Yahowah tells us that when we see them we ought to be especially wary. Yahowah is not a showoff but Satan is. God does not have to prove His status or power, but Satan tries. Moreover, Christians almost universally claim that their lives or those that they love have been miraculously transformed, something they errantly attribute to God. So Yahowsha’ is telling them that these things are neither provable nor valid, neither good nor appropriate.

In an informed and rational world, Yahowsha’s conclusion would have scuttled Pauline Doctrine and destroyed the religion of Christianity with it. And so it is ironic Christians believe that their religion was inspired by the individual who castrated it before it was born.

107“And then (kai tote – so at that time) I will profess to them (homologeo autois – I will admit, assert, and declare to them (future active indicative)) that, because (oti) I never at any time knew you (oudepote ginosko umas – at no time was I acquainted with you, not even once or for a moment did I acknowledge you or understand you), you all must depart from me (apochoreo apo emou – you are now ordered to leave, going away and separating yourselves from me (present active imperative)) those (oi) of you involved in (ergazomai ten – you all actively engaging in (present middle participle plural)) Towrahlessness (anomia – who are in opposition to and have attempted to negate the Towrah, thereby those of you without the Towrah, who demonstrate a contempt for the Towrah and are thereby in violation of the allotment which provides an inheritance).” (Matthew 7:23)

There are two reasons the multitudes will be sent away, both of which are related, either of which results in being rejected by God. Initially, Yahowsha’ said that he “never knew them,” which means that Christians do not know him either. If they are involved in a relationship with god, their god is not real.

When God says “at no time was I acquainted with you,” it means that these individuals have all failed to capitalize on the Covenant. No matter what they may have felt or believed, they have not been in a relationship with Yahowah.

Beyond this, when Yahowsha’ says that “not even once for a moment did I acknowledge you or understand you,” it means that he never heard any of their prayers and that their opinions, even conclusions, regarding him and their religion were incomprehensible. Beyond Yahowsha’ being the wrong individual to pray to, Yahowah wants us to approach Him by listening, not pleading. Paul was, therefore, wrong yet again when he told the world to “pray without ceasing.” (1 Timothy 5:17)

108Collectively, Yahowsha’s response to the religious who have been duped by the Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing is to pronounce the obvious: they are Towrahless – and thus estranged from God. Every argument Christians pose to justify their opposition toward Yahowah’s name, toward observing His Towrah, or toward engaging in the Covenant has been negated. God is not interested in their names, scriptures, rhetoric, institutions, or pleas.

The point Yahowsha’ is making here is one that took me a very long time to fully assimilate. But God’s position is both simple and reasonable, even necessary. Salvation is only afforded to the children of the Covenant. It is facilitated by way of the Miqra’ey | Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God. His approach begins with immortality as a result of Pesach | Passover, becoming perfected on Matsah | UnYeasted Bread, being adopted during Bikuwrym | Firstborn Children, so as to be enriched and empowered on Shabuw’ah | the Promise of the Shabat. These are the benefits of the Covenant.

It would be senseless, even irritating, for God to save those who do not know Him – those who hold contrarian views toward Him. After all, God has to live with those who are saved for eternity.

As a result of this, Christians would be wrong believing that God’s intent is to save everyone, or even that salvation is His priority. Yahowah is receptive to a relationship, something which is worthless unless both parties participate and benefit. For this reason alone, salvation cannot be the byproduct of faith. A person has to engage with God in accordance with the conditions of His Covenant in order to receive its benefits.

When Yahowsha’ said “anomia – Towrahless,” it was a wholesale denunciation of Paul, the New Testament, and Christianity. If a person is without the Towrah, he is estranged from its Covenant. And if he is not a participant in the Covenant, he cannot enter God’s home in heaven 109because he is neither God’s child nor saved.

Beyond this, Yahowsha’ has just delineated the issue which will define our debate. According to Yahowsha’, to reject the Towrah is to be rejected by God. This is a point Yahowah makes abundantly clear through the prophet Howsha’ | Hosea. But according to Paul, the inverse is true. He writes that a person must reject the Towrah to be accepted by God.

So who do you suppose is right? Is salvation, as Yahowsha’ just declared, a product of the Covenant relationship and Yahowah’s Towrah Instructions or is it as Paul professes: a result of faith?

But since Paul claims to speak on behalf of the individual his letters contradict, how could he be right? Said another way, based upon Yahowsha’s statement regarding admission into heaven, why would anyone in his right mind believe that Paul was telling the truth?

With your soul hanging in the balance, thoughtfully reflect upon everything Yahowsha’ stated prior to considering the conclusion to His Instruction on the Mount…

“Everyone (pas), therefore (oun), who (ostis) presently and actively listens to (akouo – who currently pays attention and really seeks to hear and understand (present active indicative)) these (toutous) statements (logos – treatise, testimony, and words, discourse, teaching, and instruction) of mine (mou), and (kai) he or she genuinely acts upon them (poieomai autous – he or she actively and actually engages as a result of them (present active indicative third person singular)), will be likened to (homoioo – will become like, compared to, and be considered similar to, resembling) a wise (phronimos – an intelligent and astute, a prudent and sensible, a thoughtful and judicious) individual (andros – a person) who (ostis) edifies and strengthens (oikodomeo – builds 110and constructs, restores and repairs, establishes and erects) his or her (autos) house (oikia – home, family, household, and relationship) upon the (epi ten) rock (petra – bedrock).” (Matthew 7:24)

Christians seem somehow unaware that Yahowah and Yahowsha’ spoke with the same voice. And while Christians will acknowledge Yahowchanan’s | John’s assertion that Yahowsha’ is the Word of God, there is a disconnect in their minds between that statement and the realization that Yahowsha’ was therefore the living embodiment of the Torah and Prophets.

To understand Yahowsha’, you will have to read the Towrah and Prophets. After all, that is why he began this instruction affirming the validity, value, and enduring nature of the Towrah and Prophets.

In this regard, Yahowsha’s statement mirrors Yahowah’s constant recommendation throughout His Towrah, whereby God encourages us to “shama’ – listen to” His Guidance. But more than this, Yahowsha’s statement also reflects Yahowah’s consistent counsel, whereby God instructs us to “‘asah – act upon” His advice. Therefore, for us to participate in a relationship with God, we must first come to know Him, understand what He is offering, and then respond by choosing to engage in the Covenant in accordance with our Heavenly Father’s terms and provisions.

Emphasizing the benefits of listening to and observing the Word of God, Yahowsha’ is translated as “likening” such individuals with phronimos, being “intelligent and astute, prudent and sensible, especially thoughtful and judicious.” And then speaking of what flows from this understanding, Yahowsha’ makes a connection between the “beryth – family-oriented Covenant relationship,” which is from “beyth – family and home,” when his testimony was translated into Greek using “oikia – household and family.” So you’ll note, a “family and 111home” is being edified and established, not a church or religious institution. God is still pointing thoughtful individuals toward His Covenant family and Heavenly home.

Also relevant, Yahowsha’ is translated using petra to convey “bedrock.” He is speaking of the role the Towrah plays in establishing a firm foundation for the Covenant. This is illuminating because it undermines the basis of Roman Catholicism and thus Christianity. The Church claims that “Peter,” which is a transliteration of petros, meaning “stone,” is the “rock” upon which their “church” was built. It is why they claim that their pope “sits on the seat of Saint Peter.” But it is obvious when we read Yahowsha’s exchange with Shim’own (He Listens) Kephas (Hebrew and Aramaic for “Rock”), that the “Rock” upon which God’s Called Out are established and edified is the Disciple’s realization that Yahowsha’ is fulfilling Pesach, the first of the Miqra’ey. As such, he is serving as the Rock of our Salvation.

Members of the Covenant are not immune from challenges, which provides the opportunity to shine brightly when storms come our way because we have the wherewithal to survive them.

“And even when (kai) the rain (e broche – a besprinkling (akin to a baptism)) descends (katabaino – falls down), (kai) the rivers (oi potamos – a torrent or floods; from pino – libations) come (erchomai – appear moving people from one place to another), and the rapidly shifting winds (anemos – violent, agitated, and tempestuous (emotional, stormy, passionate, uncontrolled, and even hysterical) changes in doctrine) blow (pneo), descending upon (prospipto – rushing upon and striking against, bowing and battering) this specific (te ekeine) home and household (te oikia – the family), then (kai) it shall not fail (ouk pipto – it will not fall, will not be bowed, it will not be destroyed, it will not become inadequate) 112because (gar) the foundation was previously established and is enduring (themelioo – the foundation was firmly laid in the past and is now providing ongoing benefits (pluperfect passive indicative)) upon (epi) bedrock (petra – solid rock).” (Matthew 7:25)

While Christians will tell you that Paul won the argument over whether the Towrah is the foundation of our relationship with God or the Gospel of Grace, methinks Yahowah disagrees. He recognizes that His Towrah | Guidance provides the most effective protection against the torrents of rapidly shifting sentiments others may bring against us. As long as we are grounded in the Towrah, our family is secure.

This is where the journey begins.