136Questioning Paul

Liars Lie

…Contradicting God

 

5

Poneros | Worthless

 

Tossing Out the Trash...

The author of the letter to the Galatians began his landscape-altering treatise by changing his name and then boldly announcing...

“Paulos (Paulos – of Latin origin, meaning lowly and little), an apostle (apostolos – a messenger who is set forth, a prepared delegate who is dispatched; from stello, one who is set, placed, and prepared, and apo, to be separate), not (ouk) from (apo – separating) men (anthropon), not even (oude) by the means of (dia – through, by, or on behalf of) man (anthropou), but to the contrary (alla – certainly and emphatically) on behalf of (dia – through, by, and by means of) Iesou Christou (ΙΝΥ ΧΡΥ – Divine Placeholders used by early Christian scribes for Iesou Christou or Chrestou) and (kai) God (ΘΥ – Divine Placeholder for Theos | God), Father (ΠΡΑ – Divine Placeholder for Patera | Father) of the (tou) one having roused and awakened (egeiromai – having caused to stand, raising; from agora – to assemble people for a public debate, to vote, or to conduct business with) him (autos) out of (ek – from) a lifeless corpse (nekros – death, a useless, futile, and vain carcass, an ineffective, powerless, and deceased cadaver, a dead body having breathed its last breath; from nekus – a corpse, carcass, or cadaver),…” (Galatians 1:1)

It is interesting, indeed telling, that this man born 137Sha’uwl would choose to rename himself, disgorging his Hebrew heritage in the process. The language of God’s revelation was rejected to select a Latin nom de plume. Sha’uwl, now Paulos, was thereby estranging himself from Yahowah’s testimony while reflecting his allegiance to Rome – to mankind’s most powerful kingdom. There was no place on earth more overtly religious, more aggressively political, more savagely militaristic, or more covetous than Rome. At this moment, no other nation was as morally bankrupt or ruthlessly oppressive. And it would be Rome that would forever earn Yahowah’s wrath for destroying His Temple in 70 CE, and His city in 133 CE. This change in identity and shifting allegiance should have been sufficient to motivate readers to “sha’uwl – question him.”

The opening line affirms that Paulos, as he now chose to be known, wanted his audience to believe that he was “an Apostle,” and thus was on the same footing with Yahowsha’s disciples. He said that he had been “apostolos – prepared and placed as a delegate and messenger” of “Iesou Christou.” It is also telling that the translators of this statement correctly transliterated Paulos and Apostolos and yet could not accurately render Yahowsha’.

It is interesting, of course, that Yahowsha’ said no such thing. The title “Apostle” was not given to Sha’uwl | Paulos by Yahowah either. In fact, rather than speaking for God, God said that Sha’uwl | Paulos spoke presumptuously and deceitfully for himself. This is proof. Sha’uwl sought status he did not deserve or earn.

Paulos’ claim that his message was unrelated to any man or men is untrue. He, by his own admission, was trained to be a rabbi. And this, like every letter Paul wrote, reads like the Talmud, which is a collection of rabbinical arguments regarding the Torah which are designed to empower men above God.

It should also be noted that, if he had written “ha 138Mashyach Yahowsha’” rather than “Iesou Christou,” even that would have been wrong. Yahowsha’ was the Pesach ‘Ayil | Passover Lamb, not ha Mashyach | the Messiah. That title belongs to Dowd | David, along with Melek | King, Ra’ah | Shepherd, and Ben ‘Elohym | Son of God. Yahowah’s testimony in this regard is comprehensive, consistent, and incontrovertible. Yahowsha’ assuredly knew and supported what Yahowah had said, and he would never have misappropriated a title that had been given by God to His Beloved. It is why Yahowsha’ is never recorded referring to himself as the Messiah or Son of God – repeatedly and exclusively calling himself instead: “the son of man.”

This is not to slight Yahowsha’. The truth is never offensive to God. Furthermore, the name Yahowsha’ | Yahowah Saves and Liberates is a far more impressive moniker than either title! There would have been no Christianity had it been retained.

Please pause a moment and consider the gravity of this realization. Had Christians respected his proper designation, rather than recasting and misrepresenting him – they might have actually understood who he was and what he was doing.

There were two names changed in Sha’uwl’s opening salvo, both away from Hebrew, with one becoming Roman and the other Greek. With the first stroke of his pen, Paul has revealed his magnum opus: Replacement Theology. All things Yahowah had promised to Abraham, Yitschaq, and Ya’aqob, to Dowd, and to Yisra’el and Yahuwdym throughout His Towrah and Naby’ were snatched away from them and awarded to the edifice Paul was creating: the Christian Church.

When we cast both men under their given names, the story is clear. Sha’uwl was trying to hide from the prophecies Yahowah had spoken to condemn him, and 139Yahowsha’s name was obscured so that Yahowah’s name could be abolished along with His role as God and Savior. This is the disingenuous foundation of Christendom – a religion whose very name is predicated upon an obvious fraud. It is right there in the first line of his first letter and it is obvious.

Truth was the initial casualty. Life was the second. Had Yahowsha’ not fulfilled his role as ha Pesach ‘Ayil | the Passover Lamb, death would be the end of life for all of us. There is no other means to immortality. This is what Paul obfuscated, damning Christians.

Yahowsha’ knew who he was and what he was doing. It is Christians who have misidentified and miscast him to promote their religion rather than the relationship he sacrificed himself to achieve. It is their loss.

Whether you concur with Yahowah and Yahowsha’ on this matter at this juncture is your choice. My job is to tell you the truth, to lay all of the words God revealed face up on the table and explain what they mean.

If properly identifying the characters in Yahowah’s story, beginning with God, Himself, and coming to appreciate the roles each play, is important to you, then mark this page and set this book down for the moment. Open Volume One of Coming Home, A Voice Calls Out, and begin reading until you are satisfied. Then, if you are still curious as to the nature of the ploy Paul is presenting, return to Questioning Paul for the sake of the billions still beguiled by his deceit.

Other than the Instruction on the Mount and perhaps the Olivet Discourse, we know very little of what Yahowsha’ actually said. We do not have a single word recorded in the language he spoke retained by an eyewitness. The closest we have is what the Disciple Lowy | Levi is known to have recorded in Hebrew. His recollections of what was conveyed on the two 140aforementioned occasions was incorporated into the “Gospel of Matthew” which was written in Greek by an anti-Semitic imposter around 90 CE by plagiarizing Levi and the hearsay accounts of Paul’s apprentices, Mark and Luke. Those are the facts, whether you like them or not.

There is a reason we have the words of Yahowah’s prophets accurately preserved, in the language God and they spoke, and essentially nothing from Yahowsha’ similarly maintained. Yahowah told His prophets, beginning with Moseh, to write every word down so that His testimony would be accurately preserved for future generations. We are the beneficiaries of Yahowah’s relentless insistence on recording everything He said in writing.

And yet, Yahowsha’ (errantly called “Jesus” by those who do not know him), unlike the great liberator, Moseh | Moses, the articulate judge, Shamuw’el | Samuel, the brilliant lyricist Dowd | David, or any of the prophets such as Yasha’yah | Isaiah, Yirma’yah | Jerimiah, and Zakaryah | Zachariah, did not scribe a single word. He did not even ask his disciples to commit anything he said to writing. Two of them appear to have done so on their own initiative, with one all but lost to the ravages of religious malfeasance and the other altered to the point it is hardly recognizable.

We can bemoan this reality, but we cannot deny it. So perhaps we should seek to understand it. And in this regard, the answer is staring us in the face. Yahowah inspired His prophets to speak to us and Yahowsha’ to act on our behalf. Yahowah’s words led to Yahowsha’s deeds.

Yahowsha’ was not here to provide additional prophecy or commentary, but instead to fulfill what had already been written. We will find everything we need to know about the role and result of the Passover Lamb scribed in the Towrah, Naby’, wa Mizmowr – notably in Qara’ / Called Out / Leviticus and Yasha’yah / Yahowah 141Liberates and Saves / Isaiah, along with the only eyewitness account: Dowd’s 22^nd and 88^th Mizmowr / Songs / Psalms.

While that is a lot to digest, I would like to move on to other, albeit related, matters. Yahowsha’ did not speak for himself. He spoke for Yahowah. And since Yahowah’s words are available to us in the language He conveyed them, we already know what Yahowsha’ said. Further, for Sha’uwl | Paul to have claimed to have spoken for Yahowsha’ is preposterous. He only cited a snippet of one statement Yahowsha’ made, which was about his role as the Passover Lamb and its association with the Covenant. And even at that, Paul got it wrong. It wasn’t an accident, because what Yahowsha’ revealed, regarding the connection between Passover and the Covenant, obliterated Paul’s entire proposition.

To claim to speak for someone, to assert to have been chosen to represent him, and to never accurately quote anything that individual had to say is completely inappropriate and disingenuous. Simply stated: the self-proclaimed and wholly unsubstantiated assertion that Sha’uwl | Paul was chosen to speak for Yahowsha’ or Yahowah is a lie. It is as obvious and simple as that. To deny this reality is to be either ignorant or irrational – or both. But I suppose that is why it takes “faith.”

I wonder if Christians have ever considered why Paul’s new name appeared first in his letter and Yahowah’s name was not even mentioned. Paul would have known it. And he would have known that everyone, without exception, inspired by Yahowah used it. But Sha’uwl | Paul did not. Then he went one step further and removed Yahowah’s name from Yahowsha’.

By doing so, Paul conclusively demonstrated, for anyone familiar with the Towrah’s test, one Yahowah provided for us to use to ascertain whether someone was 142inspired by God or acting on his own initiative (presented in the concluding chapter of Questioning Paul, Metanoeo | Change Your Perspective), that he was not a prophet and did not speak for Yahowah. The penalty is death. Let me explain…

“But the person who claims to speak for God, who presumes to speak a word under My reputation which I have not instructed or directed him to speak, or that speaks in the name of other gods, then that person acting like a prophet shall die. (Dabarym 18:20) And if you say, using your best judgment, ‘How shall we know the Word Yahowah has spoken?’ (Dabarym 18:20) When someone claiming to speak in the name and reputation of Yahowah, if the narrative did not happen or if the prediction does not occur, then those are the words that Yahowah has not spoken. This false prophet, who has spoken it presumptuously, you should neither respect him nor fear him.” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 18:22)

It is almost as if this was written explicitly to warn the world, especially Yisra’el, about Sha’uwl | Paul. Unlike Paul, neither Akiba nor Maimonides ventured into historical narratives or prophecy. And while Muhammad did both, he spoke of “Allah,” not the God of the Towrah. Moreover, he was so pathetic, we don’t need any help rejecting him.

In addition, by excluding Yahowah’s name from his letters and speeches, Sha’uwl | Paul committed the lone unforgivable crime against God and man. Recorded in the Third Statement on the First Tablet, the negation of Yahowah’s name is unforgivable – a crime for which there is no redemption. Having renounced it, and doing this so publicly and egregiously, we can be assured that Sha’uwl | Paul is in She’owl | Hell with ha Satan | the Adversary who inspired him.

143While it is small barley compared to all that we have just considered, had Paulos been correct about Yahowsha’ being ha Mashyach in his letter, the pseudonym and title are reversed. And this is no “paulos – small” mistake. With “Iesou Christou,” the errant name and erroneous title are reversed, giving the false impression that the individual’s name was “Jesus Christ.” More on this in a moment.

Turning to the final mistake of Paul’s initial sentence, God did not die. God cannot die. Yahowsha’ did not fall asleep. And with absolute certainty we know that Yahowsha’s corpse was not resurrected. So all of this is a lie in that it is wholly inconsistent with Yahowah’s teaching and prophecy on the subject of the Passover Lamb.

Yahowsha’s represented the perfect Pesach ‘Ayil. Moments before His physical body was sacrificed on our behalf as the Pesach lamb, Yahowah’s Spirit left Him. Yahowsha’ confirmed as much when he cried out, “My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?”

The reason he made this declarative statement was twofold. First, he wanted to direct our attention to the lyrics of Dowd’s | David’s 22^nd Mizmowr | Psalm so that we might understand what was occurring. Yahowsha’ recognized that Dowd had already written the lone eyewitness account of the fulfillment of Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children. He was a prophet after all.

The second reason that Yahowsha’ made this declaration is because it completely undermines the religion that would mischaracterize him and misconstrue his sacrifice. Based upon Yahowsha’s final declaration, God did not die for anyone’s sins. Further, “Jesus Christ” could not have been God. With Yahowsha’s parting statement, there is nothing left of Christianity.

In his own words, or more correctly in Yahowah’s as they were pronounced one thousand years in advance by 144the Messiah and Son of God, God had left him there to die as the Passover Lamb. Please pause once again to consider the implications.

The Passover Lamb died to nurture the family and promote eternal life. Had the Pesach ‘Ayil not been sacrificed on this occasion in concert with the Towrah’s instructions, we would have been deprived of the opportunity to live. Yahowah wanted him to sacrifice his life to accomplish this result. He had made this promise to Abraham when He was affirming the Covenant, saying that He would provide the ‘Ayil | Lamb.

This, of course, negates the foundation of Replacement Theology. According to Paul, Jews were condemned by his god because “they killed Jesus.” And while it was Rome, not Jews, who slew Yahowsha’, had the Jews been responsible for leading the Passover Lamb to the sacrifice, the world should be applauding them not hounding them. They did what Yahowah intended.

Therefore, we can be assured that the Christian mythology underlying Replacement Theology is invalid. God could not be angry with His people for doing what He intended. Just because men are capricious and unreliable, does not mean that God turned away from Yisra’el, withdrawing every promise He had made on their behalf. He did not transfer these sworn oaths to the people who murdered the Lamb of God either: the Romans who became the Roman Catholic Church. The case for Christendom has quickly unraveled.

In accordance with the Towrah, the physical body of the Passover Lamb was sacrificed so that we might live. His soul, however, did not die. It descended into She’owl, the place of separation from God, on the Miqra’ of Matsah, known as UnYeasted Bread, to remove the fungus of religious and political infidelity from our souls. It was the most horrid experience imaginable, and thus hardly a 145snooze.

The consequence of ignoring Pesach and Matsah, which is precisely what Paul did in his opening declaration, is life and death. Without Passover, we remain mortal. Without Matsah, we retain our faults. So while Bikuwrym | Firstborn Children warrants our attention, without Pesach and Matsah, there isn’t anything to celebrate.

Should you credit Paul with an indirect mention of the Passover Lamb, in that he acknowledged there was a “corpse,” there is something far worse than failing to capitalize on Pesach. It is why Pesach and Matsah are one contiguous event, one inseparable from the other. To benefit from Passover while ignoring UnYeasted Bread is to become eternally separated from God. He calls this outcome She’owl | Hell. It is synonymous with Sha’uwl | Paul because he has directed more souls there than any other.

There are deceptions big and small woven into the deceiver’s claim that “God, Father of the one having roused and awakened him out of a lifeless corpse (nekros – death, a useless, futile, and vain carcass, an ineffective, powerless, and deceased cadaver, a dead body having breathed its last breath; from nekus – a corpse, carcass, or cadaver).”

God did not “rouse” Yahowsha’. The Passover Lamb never comes back to life. The Pesach ‘Ayil restores our lives, not his own. There would have been no purpose to the sacrifice if Yahowsha’s body had been reanimated, rising from the dead.

Assuring that the observant individual would never make this mistake, Yahowah told us to incinerate the inedible portions of the Pesach ‘Ayil after being nourished by the meal. Therefore, the same evening Yahowsha’s body served as the Lamb, his body was destroyed, incinerated by Yahowah’s light. (Shemowth / Names / 146Exodus 12:10) There could not have been a bodily resurrection because there was no longer a body.

For those who may protest, saying that the disciples saw him, let’s keep it real. His mother and the women in his life mistook him for a gardener at the dawning of Bikuwrym (John 20:15). The fellows on the road to Emmaus, who had been in Yaruwshalaim as these events were transpiring, were clueless as to who he was when he approached them later that day (Luke 24:13-18). And the same evening with his disciples, he not only passed through a wall – something a physical body cannot accomplish – even they did not recognize him. (John 20:19)

Yahowsha’ was no longer using the tortured body. He was doing as the Covenant’s children will one day do, transferring a small amount of his spiritual energy into matter as a result of Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children. And that is a whole lot better than returning in the body the Romans had mutilated and distorted when they tortured him. It is why I am so disgusted, as is God, by the Christian propensity to worship “Jesus Christ” as a dead god on a stick and then claim that his ravaged body was resurrected.

Physical bodies are burdensome and limiting. They degrade over time. With a body, we cannot leave this solar system, much less explore the universe or enter heaven. Bodily resurrection is counterproductive. The miracle is a result of Matsah, whereby the perfected become Yahowah’s children, empowered, enriched, and enlightened.

During those three days, Yahowsha’s body died as the Passover Lamb, and his body was incinerated, ceasing to exist, in harmony with the Towrah’s instructions. His soul entered She’owl on Matsah to unleaven souls. Then on the Miqra’ of Bikuwrym, known as Firstborn Children, Yahowsha’s / Yahowah’s soul was reunited with the Set-147Apart Spirit, becoming the firstborn of the Covenant. Thereby, the Towrah’s promise to make us immortal, to perfect and adopt us, was fulfilled.

Then as proof that Yahowsha’s corpse was not reanimated or resurrected as Paul has written, the only common denominator amongst the three eyewitness accounts that day was that no one recognized him.

In his opening statement, Paul got everything wrong: his name, his title, his status, his sponsor, his inspiration, Yahowsha’s name and title, Yahowah’s name, the relationship between Yahowah and Yahowsha’, all while promoting the myth that God died, fell asleep on the job, and was bodily resurrected from a corpse. It was not an auspicious beginning.

God, Himself, proves that each of the explanations I have laid before you is valid. In due time, we will consider Yahowah’s position on them because, without sharing God’s view, this book fails to live up to its potential. My goal is not to leave Christians floundering, but instead to replace the lies Paul has sown with the truth. I will take away nothing that is worthwhile, but for those who are receptive, I will provide you with a clear and correct path to God.

In this regard, Sha’uwl | Paul did not say, at least in his opening line, that he was speaking for “God, the Father.” That subtlety is lost on most Christians who have replaced Yahowah with their “Lord Jesus Christ,” in effect focusing on the implement as opposed to the One wielding it.

This issue isn’t insignificant. While Yahowsha’ spoke for Yahowah, and represented Him, they are not equivalent. Yahowsha’ cannot equal Yahowah because Yahowsha’, by His own admission, and by necessity, is at the very most an extremely diminished manifestation of Yahowah. All of God cannot fit into a human form, and the undiminished presence of God would consume our planet. 148This concept was affirmed by Yahowsha’ when he acknowledged: “The Father is greater than I am.” (Yahowchanan / Yahowah is Merciful / John 14:28) There is no prophet who claims Yahowsha’, instead of Yahowah, inspired him or her.

This possibility of a diminished manifestation, if that is the nature of Yahowsha’, is explained by Einstein’s famous equation E=mc². Since Yahowah is Spirit and describes Himself as Light, He is energy. Yahowsha’ as a man was corporeal, and thus matter. Einstein’s formula reveals that energy and matter are exactly the same thing, but they are not equivalent. He proved that matter is a substantially diminished form of energy.

If Yahowsha’ was the equivalent of Yahowah, what’s known as the “Lord’s” prayer (Matthew 6:9) is nonsensical, as it would become Yahowsha’ saying: “Pray to Me who is not in heaven, set apart is My name, My kingdom come, My will be done in earth as in heaven…” Recognizing that they were not the same, it is curious that Paul saw himself representing the representative.

The Greek word that we transliterate “Apostle,” apostollo, when used correctly is important. It means “to be set apart, prepared, and equipped.” While Paulos was the furthest thing from this, even today far too many individuals go off pretending to be witnesses without first studying the Torah and Prophets. As a result, those who are inadequately and improperly enlightened do more harm than good.

By changing his name and then misappropriating the title, the opening line of Sha’uwl’s first letter became inaccurate in multiple ways. Those who knew Yahowah, and thus Yahowsha’, recognized that Sha’uwl was not an Apostle, and that there would never be a Roman in this role. Every one of Yahowah’s prophets, as direct descendants of Abraham, were introduced to us using their Hebrew names. 149Further, Sha’uwl did not walk in Yahowsha’s footsteps, nor personally witness his fulfillment of Passover, nor understand the intent of UnYeasted Bread, Firstborn Children, or Seven Shabats. Nor was he there in the upper room when the Set-Apart Spirit descended upon the disciples during the Miqra’ of Shabuw’ah.

Paul was clearly missing from the most important event recorded in Acts, the fulfillment of the fourth Invitation to be Called Out of Seven Shabats (what Christians have errantly named “Pentecost | Fifty”), during which time Yahowsha’s disciples were filled with the Ruwach Qodesh | Set-Apart Spirit. (Acts 2:1-4) As a consequence, the disciples were “apostollo – set apart, equipped, and prepared, fit for use” and Sha’uwl | Paulos was not. Shim’own, Yahowchanan, and Ya’aqob were enlightened and empowered and Paul remained as he had defined himself, a presumptuous pervert. (Romans 7)

There were twelve Apostles by this definition, all chosen by Yahowsha’. All twelve lived with him and witnessed his every word and deed. And that is why he referred to them as “disciples,” meaning “those who learn.” But from this introduction, as well as from the introductions Paulos wrote to the Corinthians, Romans, Colossians, and Ephesians, we know that Sha’uwl | Paul was too full of himself to be a “learner,” so he passed on the “Disciple” moniker altogether. It was beneath his ego. He would instead be the Teacher.

Still, Paul coveted the title the actual Apostles were unwilling to give him. So in his craving to be seen as important and credible, he arrogantly and presumptuously overstepped his bounds, applying a title to himself he did not deserve. Moreover, he knew that every word of what he had written was a lie – one he would repeat many times.

One of the reasons we know that Paulos intended to convey “Apostle” as a title, rather than use apostolos as a 150descriptive term, is that, in his letters to Rome and Corinth, he writes “Paulos, called an Apostle.” The men and women he fooled called him by the title he craved.

Since Paul claimed to speak for God, it is our responsibility to consider his statements in light of the Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 13 and 18 tests established by God to evaluate the legitimacy and consequence of such assertions. While we will delve into both in future chapters, suffice it to say for now, in the first of these criteria Yahowah reveals that the best way to recognize who is or isn’t speaking for Him is to realize what He, Himself, has conveyed. To accomplish this, we must closely examine and carefully consider His Towrah – which is the approach we have used thus far.

Yahowah is clear, revealing that no one is authorized to add to or subtract from His Towrah. So if we witness the Towrah’s role in our lives being diminished by anyone, or if we find a writer adding something new, like a new covenant, we should be careful because such a person isn’t speaking for God.

In Dabarym 13, Yahowah reveals that if the prophet stands up and establishes himself, as Paulos has done, he is a false prophet. If he claims to have performed miracles, as Paulos will do, he is a false prophet. If he encourages his audience to go after other gods by other names, like the Roman Gratia or Greek Charis, whom Paulos sponsored, he is a false prophet. If he promotes religious worship, which is the result of Paulos’ letters, he is a false prophet. If his writings fail to affirm his love and respect for Yahowah, then he does not know Him. And that is a problem for Paulos because he implies that Yahowah is incompetent, impotent, and worse.

In addition, a man is a false prophet if he encourages anyone to disregard the terms and conditions of the Beryth or Miqra’ey, which comprise Yahowah’s Way. And of 151such false prophets, God says that they are in opposition to Him, both ruinous and deadly, so we should completely remove their disagreeable, displeasing, and evil corruptions from our midst.

Then in Dabarym 18, Yahowah delineated the six signs of false prophets: they claim to speak for Him, they are arrogant, overstepping their bounds, their words are inconsistent with the Torah’s instructions, they recite the names of foreign gods, their historical presentations are inaccurate, and their prophetic promises fail to materialize. Sha’uwl | Paul failed every codicil of this test too.

In his opening salvo, Paul claimed that he did not represent any man or any human institution, and that would of course include the ekklesia, the Greek term which has been co-opted to represent the Christian Church. And that would have made Sha’uwl a freelance operator and an independent contractor had he not contradicted himself and referred to the ekklesia as his own.

The flip side of this admission is also problematic. If Sha’uwl | Paul did not write on behalf of what he learned from religious teachers in Rabbinical school, then his ubiquitous references to the “nomos” must denote the Towrah as opposed to the Talmud. This being the case, the principal methodology used by those who are Torah observant, to reconcile Paul’s epistles with Yahowah’s Word, was torn asunder by his opening statement. The facts are evident and undeniable. There is no getting around the realization that the “nomos” is an object of scorn and ridicule in this epistle. And at no time does Sha’uwl associate the “nomos” with Rabbinical Law by citing Talmudic sources. Not once – ever. To the contrary, his examples and citations are all from the Torah, clearly identifying the document he is assailing.

Also convicting, if Paulos was speaking for Yahowsha’, why didn’t he quote him? If he was 152Yahowah’s messenger, why is Yahowah’s Word discounted and never cited accurately? Why, if Paul was speaking for God, is his most repeated line, “But I Paulos say....” If Sha’uwl was Yahowsha’s or Yahowah’s apostle, why do his letters contradict God?

Sha’uwl / Paulos / Paul proved that he was out of touch with the truth, and therefore incongruent with Yahowah and Yahowsha’, by his insistence that the Towrah | Teaching and Guidance was a set of binding laws and strict rules. This was the position held by the religious rulers of the day – the Pharisees – whom Yahowsha’ routinely refuted and rebuked. So whether he was referring to the Oral Laws of the rabbis or to the Torah, itself, his conclusions were all wrong – especially since he has told us that he isn’t speaking based upon what he learned while training to be a rabbi.

Based upon his opening stanza, Paul has positioned himself as an authority on God, as someone who spoke for God, but not ostensibly as the founder of a religion – albeit that is what he has become. His greeting displays neither religious qualifications nor an overt religious agenda. In fact, Sha’uwl only used the word religion twice, and both times it was called “the Jews’ religion.” (Galatians 1:13-14) That is a sobering thought if you are a “Christian.”

Paul would, however, contradict himself and establish all of the trappings for a new religion, replete with a paid and empowered clergy and a plethora of personal edicts – all of which he said had to be obeyed. Ironic for a man so steadfast against what he claimed were God’s rules. And he perverted the Towrah and Prophets to make his assertions appear both reasonable and divine. (Read 1 Timothy 5:17-18, 1 Corinthians 9:1-11, and then 16:1-3 for evidence of this.)

I am aware that Christians have been led to believe that “Jesus Christ was the founder of the religion of 153Christianity,” and that “Paul spoke for him,” but those conclusions aren’t supportable. The institution of Christianity is founded on Paul’s writings, not Yahowsha’s words or deeds. After all, Yahowsha’ was Torah observant. Every minute aspect of his life and his teachings were derived from and inspired by the Torah. Therefore, to follow Him, the devotee would have to become Towrah observant. And in so doing, he or she would cease to be a Christian.

To his credit, or shame, Sha’uwl was telling the truth up to a point. He wasn’t entirely inspired by men. In his second letter to the Corinthians, as we have already read, he claimed to be demon-possessed, guided and controlled by one of Satan’s messengers.

But that is not to say that everything Paulos wrote was inaccurate. He correctly referred to God as the Father. But this statement of fact in a sea of lies only serves to make his deceptions appear credible.

For example, far too many people have been beguiled into believing that everything Satan says is a lie. They even believe that in a satanic religion, Satan is worshiped as himself. But this is not how he or his associates deceive and this is not what he wants. Satan usurps Yahowah’s credibility to fool the unsuspecting to worship him, not as the Adversary, but as if he were God. Satan wants to be known by the title Yahowah gave him: “Lord.” It elicits bowing, control, servitude, ownership, and worship.

Our Heavenly Father is the one who enabled the fulfillment of Bikuwrym by reuniting His soul with His Spirit. And while it may not mean much to many, since nekros is based upon nekus, meaning “corpse,” the end of the verse actually reads as I have rendered it: “and God, Father of the one having roused and awakened, raising him out of being a lifeless corpse (nekros – death, a useless, futile, and vain carcass, an ineffective, powerless, 154and deceased cadaver, a dead body having breathed its last breath).”

So while “raising Him from the dead” sounds familiar to Christian ears, such was not the case. Only Yahowsha’s physical body suffered the indignity of death, not the soul nor the Set-Apart Spirit. Further, He was not asleep and his corpse had been destroyed and thus did not rise.

This isn’t a small technical point. Passover is the lone means to eternal life. UnYeasted Bread alone perfects us. Firstborn Children is the only way to be adopted into our Heavenly Father’s Covenant family. If Yahowsha’ didn’t enable these promises, if he slept on the job, if he was ineffective, or worse dead, then we all die estranged from God.

And while Passover is essential, UnYeasted Bread is vastly more important. That is why suggesting that nothing happened on Matsah, and that Yahowsha’ slept through the Shabat, or was dead at the time, completely negates Yahowah’s plan of salvation.

Moreover, Firstborn Children is symbolic of our souls being reborn Spiritually into our Heavenly Father’s Family. And as I’ve previously mentioned, the Torah says the following regarding the body of the Passover Lamb: “And do not leave it until morning, and what remains of it before morning, you are to burn with fire.” (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 12:10)

Moving on to the deployment of the Divine Placeholders, they are often overlooked. Not one Christian in a million knows of their existence. And yet four of the most common names and titles in Christendom were used in this greeting. ΙΝΥ represents “Iesou,” which became “Jesus” in the 17^th century after the invention of the letter “J,” not “Yahowsha’ | Yahowah Frees and Saves.” ΧΡΥ was used to convey either “Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement,” not “ha Mashyach | the Messiah.” ΘΥ 155was used by early Christian scribes to write “Theos | God,” not “‘el or ‘elohym | the Almighty,” in Hebrew. And Yahowah’s favorite title, “‘ab | Father,” based upon the first word comprised of the first two letters in the Hebrew lexicon and alphabet, was misrepresented by ΠΡΑ, written Patera in Greek. Patera transliterated as Papa in Latin, then became Pope, with men attempting to usurp Yahowah’s favorite title.

Examples of placeholders not used in this particular statement, but ubiquitous throughout the rest of the Greek texts, and universally found in every 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, and early 4^th century manuscript, direct us to the Greek interpretations of “spirit,” “lord,” “mother” and “son,” when used in reference to God.

While codices dating to the first three centuries differ considerably among themselves, and differ substantially from those composed after the influence of General Constantine, the use of Divine Placeholders is the lone exception to scribal variation among the early manuscripts. These Greek symbols for the Christian deification of “Jesus Christ,” the “Lord God,” and “Son” are universally found on every page of every extant codex written within 300 years of Yahowsha’s mission, and without exception. But, nonetheless, they are universally ignored by Christian translators, writers, and preachers. By including them here in the text, it is incumbent upon us to expose and condemn 1,700 years of religious tampering and corruption.

The very fact that these placeholders are found on all of the more than one hundred manuscripts unearthed prior to the mid-4^th century tells us that it wasn’t a regional or scribal choice. Instead, they convey something so profoundly important that they were purposefully inscribed throughout the oldest manuscripts. And the best explanation for them is the Christian attempt to deify “Jesus Christ,” the “Lord God,” and “Son.”

156And so while these manuscripts all differ from one another with regard to their wording, the only constant is the one thing every translator has ignored. There isn’t even a footnote in any of the English translations indicating that these Divine Placeholders were universally depicted in all of the oldest manuscripts, including the codices, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. As a result, Christians do not know that these symbols existed, much less that they were later replaced by translators substituting the very names and titles which would have been written out by the original authors had they been intended. (For those interested in a comprehensive presentation and analysis of the use and significance of the Divine Placeholders, study the “His Name” Volume of An Introduction to God.)

Kappa Sigma and Kappa Upsilon, in capital letters with a line over them, were used in place of Yahowah’s name when citing a Towrah text in which it was included. This divine placeholder was also used with regard to the Christian “Jesus.” Both uses are problematic because the placeholders were based upon Kurios or Kyrios, the Greek word for “Lord” which, according to God, is Satan’s title.

This obvious conclusion has been reaffirmed recently by the publication of early Septuagint manuscripts. In them we find a transition from writing Yahowah’s name in paleo-Hebrew, in the midst of the Greek text throughout the 1^st and 2^nd centuries, to using the symbolism of Kappa Sigma to represent Yahowah’s name beginning in the 3^rd century – after the emergence of Christianity. It is, therefore, likely that the Divine Placeholders ΚΣ and ΚΥ were initially used to designate Yahowah’s name in a language whose alphabet could not replicate its pronunciation.

Also, by finding “Yahowah” written in paleo-Hebrew in the oldest Greek translations of the Hebrew Towrah and Prophets, especially in those dating to the 1^st and 2^nd centuries BCE and into the first two centuries CE, we have 157an interesting affirmation that my initial rationale regarding the Divine Placeholders was accurate. Yahowah’s name cannot be accurately transliterated using the Greek alphabet. So to avoid a mispronunciation, the Hebrew alphabet was used. Then after Hebrew became less familiar, due in large part to the Romans murdering, enslaving, and exiling most Jews, Greek symbolism was substituted.

Moving on, the placeholders Iota Epsilon (ΙΕ), Iota Nu (ΙΝ), Iota Sigma (ΙΣ), and Iota Upsilon (ΙΥ) were used to convey the religion’s intent to deify Iesou, Iesous, or Iesoun, which became “Jesus” with the invention of the letter “J” in the early 17^th century CE. Rather than attempting to transliterate Yahowsha’ in Greek, they changed his name to suit Greek sensibilities and grammar.

And that means there is very little basis for the 17^th century corruption written as “Jesus.” Beyond the fact that there was no “J” sound or letter in English prior to the 17^th century, and never in the Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, or Latin languages, “Jesus” is not an accurate transliteration of Iesou, Iesous, or Iesoun – which were conceived as a result of Greek gender and grammar rules. But most importantly, none of these names was ever written in the original Greek texts – not once, not ever. It is therefore inappropriate to transliterate something (to reproduce the pronunciation in the alphabet of a different language) which is not actually present. So the name “Jesus” is a fraud purposely promoted by religious leaders desirous of separating Yahowsha’ from Yahowah and to deify their creation.

The title “ha Mashyach | the Messiah” cannot be found on Yahowsha’s lips. He never referred to himself as such. It is a title Yahowah ascribed to Dowd | David, by pronouncing and orchestrating his anointing on three occasions. By contrast, Yahowsha’ was never anointed.

Therefore, the Divine Placeholders represented by Chi 158Rho (ΧΡ), Chi Rho Sigma (ΧΡΣ), Chi Sigma (ΧΣ), Chi Upsilon (ΧΥ), Chi Rho Upsilon (ΧΡΥ), Chi Omega (ΧΩ), Chi Rho Omega (ΧΡΩ), and Chi Nu (ΧΝ) were used to ascribe a Divine character to the Greek concepts of Christos | to administer drugs or Chrestos | depicting a useful implement with integrity. More on these Divine Placeholders in a moment.

The Hebrew ‘el and ‘elohym, meaning “Almighty,” but most often translated “God,” were replaced using the Greek concept of “Theos – God” by using the placeholders Theta Sigma (ΘΣ), Theta Upsilon (ΘΥ), Theta Omega (ΘΩ), and Theta Nu (ΘΝ). And while God’s name and title are not interchangeable, there are times when these placeholders represent “Yahowah” instead of His title, “God,” in cited Hebrew texts.

Ruwach is the feminine Hebrew noun for “Spirit.” Without exception, references to the “Ruwach Qodesh – Set-Apart Spirit” are rendered under the Greek concept of “penuma – moving air, wind, breath, or breeze” using the placeholders Pi Nu Alpha (ΠΝΑ), Pi Nu Sigma (ΠΝΣ), and Pi Nu Iota (ΠΝΙ).

In addition to these two names and three titles, the noun and verb forms of “upright pole,” and “to affix to an upright pillar,” later changed to “crux – cross,” were rendered Sigma Rho Omega Sigma or Sigma Rho Omega followed by Mu Alpha Iota to indicate the verbal form – both with a line over them to signify divinity. Making sure that we wouldn’t miss the Divine connotation of the Christian “cross,” stauros was never written out in the Greek text. The placeholder was changed from “stauros – upright pole” to the Latin “crux,” and then became “cross” in English. This is how the image of a pagan “cross” was deified, becoming the symbol of the religion.

The cross was a common religious symbol used throughout antiquity in Babylon, Egypt, Greece, and Rome 159to signify the intersection of the constellation Taurus (the Bull which represented their god) with the sun during the Vernal Equinox. The closest “Sun”-day to this event was called Easter by these pagans who believed that the Sun impregnated Mother Earth on this day, giving birth nine months later on the Winter Solstice (then December 25^th) to the Son of the Sun. Solar worship, known as Sol Invictus (the Unconquerable Son) was thereby incorporated into Constantine’s new religion – where it remains to this day. This process began with his vision of a flaming cross superimposed on the sun, which was his god, along with the edict: “In this sign conquer.”

Now, returning to “Christ,” and the improper title’s appearance in English translations of the Galatians 1:1 passage, it turns out that the overscored Greek symbols Chi Rho (ΧΡ), Chi Rho Sigma (ΧΡΣ), Chi Sigma (ΧΣ), Chi Upsilon (ΧΥ), Chi Rho Upsilon (ΧΡΥ), Chi Omega (ΧΩ), Chi Rho Omega (ΧΡΩ), and Chi Nu (ΧΝ), weren’t initially based upon Christos, Christou, Christo, or Christon, but instead upon Chrestos – an entirely different word.

Christos means “drugged.” As I have demonstrated, the one time its defining verbal root was written out in the Greek text, it was used to say that the Laodicean assembly should apply a manmade drug, an ointment in this case, to their eyes. Chrestus (which is related to chrestos) on the other hand means “useful implement,” even “upright servant,” as well as “merciful one.” It was used to “depict the good and beneficial work of a moral servant.” This is quite similar to the implications of the Hebrew, Ma’aseyah, which is the Implement Doing the Work of Yahowah. As such, it is useful for you to know that “ha Mashyach – the Messiah” was never written as a title in conjunction with Yahowsha’.

While the 9:25-6 passage was not found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, Daniel is cited using mashyach as an adjective, not a title, to convey the realization that 160Yahowah’s representative would “be prepared and set apart to serve” as a messenger. While the adjective modifying messenger is there for all to see in the Masoretic Text, that has not precluded Bible publishers from giving their readers “the Messiah” they identify with in this passage.

Also interesting, “Ma’aseyah” was written over twenty times in the Hebrew Prophets. It was perhaps indicative of the idea that Yahowsha’ would be the “Implement Doing the Work of Yahowah.”

In this regard, it is not likely that Yahowah would miss this opportunity to associate His Work with His name. Therefore, as a result of this evidence I am on reasonable footing extrapolating the use of “Chrestus” as “Ma’aseyah – Implement Doing the Work of Yahowah.”

The realization that the earliest witnesses may have selected Chrestus, not Christos, as the closest Greek allegory to Ma’aseyah, can’t be distinguished from the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, or early 4^th century Greek placeholders because Chi Rho, Chi Rho Sigma, and Chi Sigma represent both words equally well. But, that isn’t to say that there isn’t a textual affirmation for Chrestus; there is. In all three depictions of the epithet used to describe the first followers of The Way, in Acts 11:26, 26:28, and in Shim’own | 1 Peter 4:16, the Codex Sinaiticus reveals that Crestuaneos was penned initially, not Christianous. The same is true with the Codex Vaticanus. Then, after Constantine in the 4^th century, Crestuaneos, meaning “useful tools and upright servants,” was replaced by Christianous, transliterated as “Christian” today, but literally meaning “those who are drugged.” If you are a Christian reading this, please take the time to not only verify the accuracy of this realization but, also, to consider its implications.

But there is more. The Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27^th Edition reveals that Chrestus (χρηστὸς) 161was scribed in Shim’own | 1 Peter 2:3, not Christos. Their references for this include Papyrus 72 and the Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest extant witnesses of Shim’own Kephas’ | Peter’s letter.

In Shim’own | 1 Peter, which was attested by both manuscripts, Yahowsha’s disciple tells us: “As a newborn child, true to our real nature (logikos – be genuine, reasonable, rational, and sensible), earnestly desire and lovingly pursue (epipotheo – long for and crave, showing great affection while yearning for) the pure and unadulterated (adolos – that which is completely devoid of dishonest intent, deceit, or deception) milk in order to grow in respect to salvation, since we have experienced (geuomai – partaken and tasted, have been nourished by and perceived) Yahowah (ΚΣ) as the Useful Implement and Upright Servant (Chrestus – the Upright One who is a superior, merciful, gracious, kind, and good tool).” (Shim’own / He Listens / 1 Peter 2:2-3)

With the realization that Chrestus was written in the Codex Sinaiticus, and the placeholder ΧΡΣ written in P72 in the same place in this passage, we have an early affirmation that the Divine Placeholder was based upon the Greek Chrestus and may have thus conveyed the meaning behind Ma’aseyah.

The related Greek term, chrestos, means: “kind,” “good,” “useful,” “benevolent,” “virtuous,” and “moral,” as in the sense of “being upright.” Words directly related to chrestos and chrestus speak of “integrity” in the sense of being trustworthy and reliable, “receiving the benefit of a payment,” as in providing recompense and restitution, of “fulfilling one’s duty,” as in being a loyal servant, “doing what is beneficial” in the sense of healing us, “transacting business,” as in fulfilling one’s mission, “providing a Divine message and response,” “being fit for use,” as in being Yahowah’s Implement, and “conveying a beneficial and trustworthy message which produces a good result,” 162which is synonymous with “euangelizo—which is to convey the healing and beneficial message” of Yahowah.

Writing about the great fire of Rome circa 64 CE, the accredited Roman historian, Tacitus (the classical world’s most authoritative voice regarding this time and place), in Annals 15.44.2-8, wrote: “All human efforts…and propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the fire was the result of an order [from Nero]. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Chrestuaneos by the populace. Chrestus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate.”

Also, the Roman historian, Suetonius (69 to 122 CE), makes reference to Chrestus in his Lives of the Twelve Caesars. A statement in Divus Claudius 25 reads: “He expelled from Rome the Iudaeos / Yahuwdym / Jews constantly making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus.” And then in summary, he wrote: “Since the Iudaeos constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.” This event is dated by Suetonius to 49 CE. The historian also wrote in Nero 16: “Nero issued a public order calling for the punishment of Chrestuaneos in the year of the Great Fire of Rome due to the superstition associated with Chrestus.”

These two credible secular sources, in addition to Pliny, who used the same spelling, providing additional and convincing evidence in favor of Chrestus over Christos, of “the Useful and Merciful Servant,” over “the Drugged One,” and Chrestuaneos over Christianios, “those who are useful and merciful servants,” over “those who are drugged.”

The placeholders are errantly called “nomina sacra” by theologians, which is Latin for “sacred names.” This 163moniker is wrong on three accounts. First, only two of the ten placeholders designate a name, while seven convey titles. One represents a thing, in this case Passover’s “upright pole,” and the other speaks of how the Upright Pillar became the Doorway to Haven.

Second, there is nothing “sacred” in the Towrah, only individuals and things which are set apart. The human term “sacred” is religious (meaning “devoted to the worship of a deity in a religious service and worthy of religious veneration”), while the divine designation “set apart” is relational. It explains the association between Yahowah and the Set-Apart Spirit, for example.

Third, the Greek text is already a translation of Hebrew conversations as well as Hebrew citations from the Towrah and Prophets. Therefore, adding the Latin nomina sacra designation is another step in the wrong direction.

Christian scholars use the same hypocritical sleight of hand to explain the universal presence of the placeholders in the Greek texts that Rabbis have deployed to justify their removal of Yahowah’s and Yahowsha’s name from the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. They suggest that the “names were considered too sacred to write.” But if that were true, if the earliest scribes thought that these ten names and titles were “too sacred to write,” then why are they written today? If it was wrong then, it cannot be right now.

Anyone who has spent fifteen minutes reading any portion of the Torah and Prophets from any one of the hundreds of Qumran manuscripts recognizes that the “too sacred to write” notion is in complete discord with Yahowah’s approach to every name and title in the Towrah and Prophets including His own. Moreover, God, in the midst of criticizing and rebuking religious clerics, said:

“‘Their plan is for (ha hasab – considering everything, their thinking, calculation, decision, devise, and account reveals that they are determined for) My 164people (‘am – My family) to overlook, to forget, and to cease to properly value (sakah – to ignore, to be unmindful of, to lose sight of the significance of, and to no longer respond to) My personal and proper name (shem) by way of (ba) the revelations and communications (ha halowm – the claims to inspired insights) which (‘asher) they recount to (saphar – they proclaim, record, and write to) mankind (‘iysh), to their fellow countrymen and associates (la rea’ – to others in their race and company), just as when in a relationship with (ka ‘asher ‘eth ba – similarly as when engaged in the same relationship with) the Lord (ha Ba’al), their fathers (‘ab – their forefathers and ancestors) overlooked, ignored, and forgot (sakah – were not mindful of and ceased to appreciate the significance of) My personal and proper name (shem).’” (Yirmayahuw / Yah Lifts Up / Jeremiah 23:27)

We know that these clerical copyedits began much earlier because Yahowah is recorded in His Towrah warning that the crime of diminishing the use of His name was punishable by death and separation (in Qara’ / Called Out / Leviticus 24:9-16). The rabbis, however, took the opposite approach and said that the use of Yahowah’s name was a crime punishable by death. It is why religious Jews replaced Yahowah’s name with “‘adony – my Lord,” under the guise that it was “too sacred to say.” Affirming this, the publishers in the preface of most every popular English Bible translation openly admit that they replaced God’s name with “the LORD” because of religious traditions. Surely they are not suggesting that rabbinical instigation provided a license to deceive.

If this same rabbinical mindset was shared by the disciples, we would have proof that their writing style was influenced by religion, and was not inspired by the same God who conveyed the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. And that would mean that nothing in the Christian “New Testament” could be considered inspired, and thus to be 165“Scripture” by modern interpretations.

It is curious, of course, that not one in a thousand pastors, priests, religious teachers, or scholars ever mentions the universal application of the ten placeholders found on every page of every manuscript written within three centuries of Yahowsha’s life. And yet, if any portion of the Greek text was to be considered inspired by God, then these ten placeholders would have been designated by God. It is as simple as that. Ignoring them would then be in direct opposition to God’s will if He intended them, and proof that He did not inspire the text if they were subject to our interpretation.

I am convinced that there is only one rational reason for Yahowah to write out His name 7,000 times in the Hebrew Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. He wants us to know Him by name. Yahowah’s name, Yahowsha’s name, and all of God’s titles convey essential truths in Hebrew which are lost in translation.

The most positive spin that can be placed upon the “nomina sacra” is that the sounds produced by the 22 Hebrew letters differ from the sounds represented by the 24 letters in the Greek alphabet. Of particular interest, there is no Y, W, soft H, or SH in Greek, the letters which comprise Yahowah’s and Yahowsha’s name. And since names don’t change from one language to another, and always sound the same, there was simply no way to transliterate Yahowah or Yahowsha’ using the Greek alphabet. So rather than change His name, or misrepresent it, the translators of the Septuagint began the tradition of using placeholders. New Testament scribes simply followed suit.

I am not the first to recognize this predicament, or the first to deal with it. As I mentioned a moment ago, every extant 1^st and 2^nd century BCE and 1^st and 2^nd century CE copy of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew 166Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, inserts Yahowah’s and Yahowsha’s name into the Greek text using paleo- or Babylonian Hebrew letters. It was only after the scribes were no longer conversant in Hebrew that the Greek placeholders were used to convey God’s name.

A prominent early manuscript scholar offered a different, albeit uninformed, comparison between the Greek placeholders and the presentation of God’s name found in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, of which you should be aware. He claimed that the Hebrew letters YHWH represented a contraction similar to what is found in the early Greek texts. But if that was true, every single word in the Hebrew text would be a contraction. Said another way, Yahowah’s name isn’t written differently than any other Hebrew word or name used in the Towrah and Prophets or throughout Yisra’el. And the reason that this isn’t a problem is that the letters which comprise Yahowah’s name represent three of the five Hebrew vowels – with the Aleph and Ayin representing the other two. Using these vowels, every Hebrew name, title, and word is pronounceable.

The inclusion of these Divine Placeholders tells a story, one completely undermined, however, when Greek words, titles, and errant transliterations were substituted for them. If you were to read the Textus Receptus or the more modern Nestle-Aland, you wouldn’t even know that these symbols ever existed. The same is true with every popular English translation. A stunning amount of crucial information pertinent to our salvation was discarded in the process.

Therefore, to the Christian, Yahowah’s name became “Lord,” Yahowsha’s name became “Jesus,” the Ma’aseyah was changed to “Christ,” and the feminine Ruwach, became the gender-neutral pneuma, which was rendered “Spirit.” It is also how Upright Pillar migrated over time to “cross.” Yet if any of these words, titles, names, or symbols 167were appropriate, the disciples would have simply written them in their Greek manuscripts – but they didn’t, ever.

The truth is: “Lord” is Satan’s title. That is because the concept of lord represents the Adversary’s agenda and ambition. At best, “Jesus” is meaningless, and at worst, it is the name of the savior of the Druid religion (Gesus), where the Horned One is god. Recognizing that Constantine’s initial share of the Empire consisted of Britain, Gaul, and Spain, where the Druid religion flourished, the selection of Gesus could well have been politically expedient, as was incorporating most every pagan holiday into the new religion.

Worse still, as I have previously mentioned, “christos” means “drugged” in Greek. In fact, it is from the rubbing on of medicinal ointments that the anointed connotation of christos was actually derived. The Rx or Rho Chi symbolism associated with today’s drug stores is a legacy of the first two letters in christos.

And most intriguing of all is that the placeholder for Useful Implement, ΧΣ, was based upon Chrestus, not Christos – an entirely different word. And that is why all of the earliest manuscripts say that the first followers of “The Way” were called “Crestuaneos,” not “Christians.” They, like the one who had led the way to their salvation, were “useful tools and upright servants.”

All of this known, and it is important, after dedicating more than a year of my life to Sha’uwl’s letters, I do not think the amanuenses he employed used the placeholders that are now found in the oldest manuscripts – all of which were scribed in Egypt. It would have been awkward in dictation and would have served no purpose. And if he did use them, it would have been because these same placeholders are used throughout the Septuagint. He would have wanted his epistles to look like “Scripture.” But the thing he did not want was for Yahowsha’ to be “Yahowah 168Saving Us.” Yahowsha’ could not be the Ma’aseyah, the Work of Yahowah, without completely undermining the entirety of Sha’uwl’s thesis. So, just as Sha’uwl changed his own name, jettisoning its Hebrew meaning, he most assuredly discarded the message conveyed by the most important Hebrew title and name.

Therefore, while it is essential that you know that Yahowah, Himself, saved us by working on our behalf, which is what the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’ means, Sha’uwl, now Paulos, did not want anyone to realize this. As proof, he never once explains the meaning behind God’s title or name to his Greek and Roman audiences. As a result, in every translation of Galatians, I am going to make the most reasonable and informed assumption: that a scribe in Egypt harmonized Paulos’ epistles with copies of the Septuagint, thereby adding the placeholders which were never intended by Paulos. Moreover, as a former rabbi, he would have been duty bound to avoid all things “Yah.”

The longer I have contemplated their intent, I have become convinced that the function of the placeholders evolved to the point that, once they had served their function, they were eliminated. Originally, Hebrew letters written within Greek translations of the Towrah were designed to properly attest to the fact that every name and title associated with Yahowah and His people were Hebrew, not Greek. But then when Greek proxies were substituted from the Hebrew letters, the “nomina sacra” took on Divine connotations within the Greek nomenclature. And it was this sense of divinity that the early Christian authorities employing the first scribes wanted to associate with their Iesou, with their Christos, their Kurios and Theos, even their Crux. So the nomina sacra were deployed to give the new religion a Godly veneer.

Speaking of religious malfeasance, since Galatians is the principal text used to undermine the Towrah’s 169foundation, and since it is cited to negate Yahowsha’s repeated affirmations that he did not come to annul the Torah, but instead to fulfill it, it’s important that we consider the troubadour of the Christian justification: the King James Bible, as well as the Latin Vulgate upon which this revision was ultimately based. Therefore, recognizing that the Greek text reads, “Paulos, an apostle or delegate, not separating men, not even by the means of man, but to the contrary and emphatically on behalf of Iesou Christou and God, Father of the one having roused and awakened him for public debate, raising Him out of a dead corpse...,” here is the KJV rendition of Galatians 1:1:

“Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)”

It reflects its source, the Latin Vulgate: “Paulus, Apostolus, not from men and not through man, but through Iesum Christum, and Deum the Father, who raised him from the dead.”

In that credulity is important, here is how the most highly respected text, that of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27^th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear, reads: “Paul delegate not from men but not through man but through Jesus Christ and God father of the one having raised him from the dead...”

Sadly, the most recent rendition of Paulos’ letter simply reiterated all of the same mistakes. Consider the New Living Translation’s regurgitation of prior prose: “This letter is from Paul, an apostle. I was not appointed by any group of people or any human authority, but by Jesus Christ himself and by God the Father, who raised Jesus from the dead.”

What is particularly regrettable is that the New Living Translation’s “New Testament” coordinator was none other than Philip Comfort. And yet every book Professor 170Comfort has published on the extant early Greek manuscripts acknowledges the consistent presence of the Divine Placeholders. He is not ignorant of them, and therefore, he is without excuse.

Before we move on, please notice that all three translations transliterated apostolos, rather than translate its meaning. They all ignored the four placeholders found in the Greek manuscripts, and then improperly conveyed Yahowsha’s name, Yahowsha’s title, and Yahowah’s title. Further, egeiromai, meaning “to awaken, rouse from sleep, and get out of bed” was translated based upon a tertiary definition in all three cases, as was nekros.

It is a natural, albeit annoying tendency in spoken communication to use dependent clauses. But in the written word there is no excuse for run-on sentences, some of which comprise a paragraph or more.

Paulos’ first sentence of his first letter began, “Paulos, an apostle or delegate, not separating men, not even by the means of man, but to the contrary and emphatically on behalf of Iesou Christou and Theos | God, Patera | Father of the one having roused and awakened him for public debate, raising him out of a dead corpse,…” and then continued: “…and (kai) all (pas) the (oi) brothers (adelphos) with (sym) me (emoi) to the (tais) called out (ekklesia – out called; from ek – out of or from and kaleo – to call) of the (tes) Galatias (Galatias – the Roman province of Galatia in Asia Minor, bounded on the north by Bithynia and Paphlagonia, on the east by Pontus, on the south by Cappadocia and Lycaonia, and on the west by Phrygia)…” (Galatians 1:2)

First, Paul had a posse. Like all religious founders, he 171sought followers.

Second, there is no basis for anything remotely related to a “church” in the Greek texts. Ekklesia is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Miqra’ey because those who are Called Out are able to separate themselves from human institutions and join Yahowah’s Covenant family by responding to the Towrah’s “Miqra’ey – Invitations to be Called Out and Meet” with God. Second only to the religious corruption of Yahowah’s and Yahowsha’s names through the deployment and later avoidance of the Divine Placeholders, the replacement of ekklesia with “church” is the most lethal copyedit found in the so-called “Christian New Testament.”

Third, the “book” of Galatians is actually an open letter, or epistle. Paulos was responding to a myriad of opponents who had criticized his preaching in Galatia. We are witnesses, however, to only one side of this debate – in similar fashion to the never-ending argument which permeates Muhammad’s Qur’an. And in our quest for accuracy, the proper pronunciation of the name ascribed to this audience is Gal·at·ee·ah.

Unlike what we find in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, where Yahowah is seen dictating His message to a prophet or scribe who then writes down what he has heard in his native Hebrew tongue, Sha’uwl’s letters are the result of dictating a stream of consciousness to one of his devotees, to someone who was not a professional scribe, in Greek, a language foreign to him, rather than his native Hebrew, Aramaic, or Latin. Further, Paulos’ continued focus upon himself and his repetitive use of “but I say,” where “I” represents Paul, not Yahowah, differentiates this self-proclaimed Apostle’s epistles from God’s Word. It also positions Paulos as the lead candidate for the wolf in sheep’s clothing who would come in his own name and still be popularly received.

172As a result of this stylistic choice, Sha’uwl’s letters contain some of the most difficult passages to translate. There are many missing words, and Paul’s epistles are famous for their run-on sentences. Moreover, in Galatians, Sha’uwl is being attacked, and he is clearly on the defensive, trying to justify his persona, authority, and teachings, especially those in conflict with the Torah of the God he is supposedly representing. His claim of being an “Apostle” was being questioned, because he was not a witness to Yahowsha’s words or deeds.

Galatia, itself, was a Roman province in Asia Minor which extended to the Black Sea. The Galatians were originally Gauls who moved down the Rhine to mingle with Greeks and Jews. They were known for their quick temper, prompt action, inconsistency, and malleability. Sha’uwl knew them well, as he grew up south of them and later traveled throughout their land in the pursuit of his mission.

Now as we will do throughout this review of Galatians, here are the Nestle-Aland, the Latin Vulgate, and the King James renditions of the second verse. The NA reveals: “and the with me all brothers to the assemblies of the Galatia.” Next, the LV conveys: “and all the brothers who are with me: to the ecclesiis Galatiæ.” Of which, the KJV published: “And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:” In this case, the most egregious error cannot be blamed on the Latin Vulgate.

It is worth restating that few things in Christendom have been as harmful as changing the ekklesia, which means “called out,” to “church.” It created the impression that “Jesus Christ” had conceived a new Christian institution to replace the Chosen People, and that this religious construct was somehow unrelated to Yahowah’s seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with Him, or even the Sabbath. And that led to the notion that the Feasts were nothing more than quaint “Jewish holidays.” But 173now, at least you know who to blame for this devastating corruption of the text. The Rosicrucian Francis Bacon, serving the political interests of King Iames | James, was the first to perpetrate this grievous and damning corruption. His predecessors, such as John Wycliffe, either transliterated ekklesia or wrote “assembly.”

In their desire to be politically correct, the revisionary paraphrase known as the NLT suggested: “All the brothers and sisters here join me in sending this letter to the churches of Galatia.” There is no Greek textual basis for “and sisters,” “here,” “join me,” “in sending,” or “this letter.” And ekklesia means “called out,” not “churches.” Equally misleading, the NLT created a new sentence, replete with a verb, to make it appear as if Paulos wasn’t engaged in a long-winded diatribe.

Also worth noting, of Sha’uwl’s first five letters, only Galatians went out under his name alone. First and Second Thessalonians were sent from “Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy.” First Corinthians was from Paul and Sosthenes, while the immensely troublesome, indeed demonic, epistle of 2^nd Corinthians bears Timothy’s name in addition to Paul’s. In today’s vernacular, Sha’uwl wrote Galatians before his posse was popular.

The evidence suggests that this letter was dictated in haste immediately after the Yaruwshalaim Summit, immediately before Paul befriended Timothy. Equally telling is that while Sha’uwl will acknowledge Barnabas in this epistle, since the two severed their relationship in the immediate aftermath of the Yaruwshalaym Summit, he was excluded from the greeting and demeaned in the midst of a rather mean-spirited rant.

This next dependent clause is a great example of why it is so difficult to determine what Paulos was trying to say, and for us to ascertain why he chose to be so provocative. At issue here: there is no verb, and Charis (Greek) and 174Gratia (Latin) serve as the name of the popular trio of pagan goddesses.

“…Grace (charis – the name of the lovely and lascivious Greek goddesses of merriment, known to the Romans as the Gratia, from which “Grace” is derived) to you (humeis) and (kai) peace (eirene – harmony and tranquility, freedom from worry) from (apo) God (ΘΥ – a placeholder for Theos | God), Father (pater) of us (emon), and (kai) Lord (ΚΥ – a placeholder used to convey kurios, giving the Greek word for lord and master a Divine sheen), Iesou (ΙΗΥ – a Divine Placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Iesou which became “Jesus” in the 17^th century after the invention of the letter “J”) Christou (ΧΡΥ – a placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement)…” (Galatians 1:3)

Thankfully, charis is not found in the earliest book, which is Mark or even in Matthew, which was based upon it. The Christian fixation on Charis, and its Roman manifestation, Gratia, is therefore a direct result of Paul. Charis appears 107 times in the self-proclaimed Apostle’s letters, and another 14 times in Acts, a book written mostly about Paul and for Paul.

The only other mentions of charis in the Greek texts appear after the publication of Paul’s epistles. We find charis used in just one conversation in Yahowchanan / John (1:14-17). It is found four times in Luke, a book written from Paul’s perspective (of which there is no 1^st, 2^nd, or 3^rd century manuscript to verify these inclusions). Of the remaining 16 occurrences, we find all but two sprinkled in the poorest attested books. Ten are found in Shim’own’s | Peter’s letters (of which there are no reliable 1^st, 2^nd, or 3^rd century manuscripts (the late 3^rd century Papyrus 72 is extremely free (meaning imprecise and subject to substantial alterations), which suggests that it was heavily influenced by Marcion)). Charis appears twice 175in Ya’aqob | James (of which there is no pre-Constantine manuscript of the 4:6 passage in which it appears), once in 2^nd Yahowchanan / John (of which there is no pre-Constantine manuscript), and once in Jude (but P78 does not include Charis in the 4^th verse indicating that it was added later by a scribe whose agenda was other than accuracy).

The first use of charis in Revelation (1:4) is attested only by a fragment too small to validate. It was written by an untrained and unprofessional scribe (as determined by his penmanship) in the early 4^th century on Papyrus 18, and is thus unreliable. The second purported inclusion of charis is found in Revelation 22:21, but no pre-Constantine manuscript covers anything past the beginning of the 17^th chapter, so it cannot be validated. Therefore, apart from the one poorly attested inclusion, there is no verification that charis was used by anyone other than Paul prior to the early 4^th century.

The reason that this is an issue is because Charis is the name of the three Greek Graces, known as the Charities (Charites). The English word “charity” is a transliteration of their name. These pagan goddesses of charm, splendor, and beauty were often depicted in mythology celebrating nature and fertility. They were overtly erotic. Collectively they make four appearances in Homer’s Iliad and three in The Odyssey. In the order of their appearances, they are depicted offering bedroom attire to Aphrodite, participating in a ruse to trick Zeus, and serving to lure Hypnos astray with promises of sex such that he would mislead the father of the gods. They are seen as objects of beauty when splattered with blood, as the source of feminine attractiveness for handmaidens, as those who pampered Aphrodite after she was caught being unfaithful to her husband, and finally as a means to enchant through erotic dancing. And in the case of Aphrodite, the Graces “bathed her, anointed her with ambrosial oil, and dressed 176her in delightful apparel so that she might resume her loving duties” after having been caught in “the loving embrace of Ares,” the God of War. As such, Homer used the enchanting lure of the Graces to depict what he called, “the beauty of war.”

Some accounts attest that the Graces were the daughters of Zeus. Others claim that Charis were the daughters of Dionysus and Aphrodite. And that is particularly troubling because Paul claims to hear one of Dionysus’ most famous quotes during his conversion experience on the road to Damascus. And as it would transpire, Paul’s faith came to mirror the Dionysus cult (Bacchus in Roman mythology), which is one of the reasons why so many aspects of Pauline Christianity are pagan. (These troubling associations are detailed for your consideration in the “Kataginosko – Convicted” chapter of Questioning Paul.)

The Graces were associated with the underworld and with the Eleusinian Mysteries. Their naked form stands at the entrance of the Acropolis in Athens. Naked frescoes of the Charites adorn homes in Pompeii, Italy which means that they transcended the Greek religion and influenced Rome where they became known as the Gratia. Their appeal, beyond their beauty, gaiety, and sensual form, is that they held mysteries known only to religious initiates. Francis Bacon, as the founder of the Rosicrucians, would have loved them.

At issue here, and the reason that I bring this to your attention, is that Yahowah tells us in the Torah that the names of pagan gods and goddesses should not be memorialized in this way. “Do not bring to mind (zakar – remember or recall so as to memorialize) the name of other (‘acher – or different) gods (‘elohym); neither let them be heard coming out of your mouth.” (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 23:13)

177And: “I will remove and reject the names of the Lords and false gods (ba’alym) out of your mouth, and they shall not be brought to mind and memorialized (lo’ zakar – remembered, recalled, and mentioned) by their name any more (‘owd shem).” (Howsha’ / Salvation / Hosea 2:16-17)

And yet the name of the Greek goddesses, Charis, is the operative term of Galatians – one which puts Sha’uwl | Paul in opposition to the very Towrah | Teaching and to God which condemns the use of their names. Simply stated: the “Gospel of Grace” is pagan. It is literally “Gott’s spell of Gratia.”

In ancient languages, it’s often difficult to determine if the name of a god or goddess became a word, or if an existing descriptive term later became a name. But we know that Greek goddesses, like those in Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, and Rome, bore names which described their mythological natures and ambitions. Such is the case with the Charites. They came to embody many of the things the word, charis, has come to represent: “rejoicing, pleasure, loveliness, charming speech, and delightful experiences,” in addition to “licentiousness, sensuality, hedonism, merriment, and eroticism,” although the latter are typically censored from religious lexicons as unchristian. So while we can’t be certain if the name, Charis, was based on the verb, chairo, or whether the verb was based upon the name, we know that it conveys all of these things, both good and bad.

There is a Hebrew equivalent to positive aspects of this term – one used in its collective forms 193 times in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. It is chen, from the verb, chanan. As a noun, it means “favor and acceptance by way of an unearned gift,” which is why it is often mistranslated “grace” in English Bibles. To be chanan is “to be merciful, demonstrating unmerited favor,” and as such chanan is errantly rendered “to be gracious.” The author of the 178eyewitness account of Yahowsha’s life, whom we know as “John,” was actually Yahowchanan, meaning “Yahowah is Merciful.”

For the second time in a row, Paulos has reversed the proper order of title and name, and I suspect to imply that “Iesou’s last name was “Christou,” a ruse Christians have swallowed as if the poison was laced with Kool-Aid. But this is like writing “Francis Pope” rather than “Pope Francis.” It is akin to saying “George King” instead of “King George.” So even if the title “Christou” was accurate, and it is not, even if he was the Messiah and Greek, and He was not, writing Iesou Christou is wrong on every account.

Worse, now that Satan’s title, “Lord,” has been associated with Iesou Christou, those who are cognizant of the Adversary’s agenda see his demonic influence on this letter. Satan could not dissuade Yahowsha’ from fulfilling his role as the Passover Lamb, so ha Satan did the next worse thing: he inspired Sha’uwl to contravene his purpose such that the Christian Christ could be used to advance the Lord’s agenda.

Beyond this, absolutely no attempt was made in any English Bible to translate or transliterate the Hebrew basis of Yahowsha’s name, or even the title they were trying to ascribe to him. And yet, the Greek charis, which is used as if it were a title in the phrase “Gospel of Grace” throughout Paul’s letters, was neither translated nor transliterated from the Greek, but instead was conveyed by replicating the name of the Roman version of the Greek goddesses’ names, and therefore as “Grace.” Inconsistencies like this are troubling, because they prove that the translators cannot be trusted.

While it is a smaller distinction, Yahowah and Yahowsha’ convey “shalowm,” which speaks of “reconciliation.” It is used to describe the “restoration of a 179relationship.” Paulos, on the other hand, speaks of “eirene – peace,” which is the absence of war. They aren’t the same.

Continuing our review of the sources of Christian corruption, the NA reads: “favor to you and peace from God father of us and Master Jesus Christ.” Next, the KJV begins verse 1:3 by offering the pagan goddesses to the Galatians: “Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ.” This time, their inspiration was the Latin Vulgate, which reads: “Gratia and peace to you from the Father, our Domino, Iesu Christo.”

I am always interested in knowing how pagan terms enter into the religious vernacular. In this case, we just learned that “Grace” comes to us by way of the Roman Catholic Vulgate. Gratia was the Latin name for the Greek Charis. And that is why they are known as the “Graces” in English.

In Pagan Rome, the three Gratia, or Graces, served as clever counterfeits for euangelion – Yahowsha’s healing and beneficial message. So all Christendom has done is transliterate the Roman name into English, and then base a religious mantra, “the Gospel of Grace,” upon the name of these pagan deities.

This is deeply troubling. It is a scar upon the credibility of the texts. It is a mortal wound to Paul’s epistles, and it is an irresolvable deathblow to Christendom.

In the NLT, rather than Paulos offering the Galatians “Grace,” the Father and Son are depicted doing so. “May God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ give you grace and peace.”

All three translations got one name right, that of the pagan goddesses, “Grace.” The other name and titles, they got wrong – and those belonged to God. In fact, throughout 180this review, you will find that all of the most important names and titles – Yahowah, Mashyach or Ma’aseyah, Yahowsha’, Towrah, and ‘Edown | Upright One – are always rendered errantly while all of the made-up or less meaningful names and titles are transliterated accurately in most every English Bible translation. And that is incriminating.

Sha’uwl’s rambling introductory sentence continues with:

“…the one (tou) having given (didomi – having produced and allowed) himself (heautou) on account of (peri – concerning and regarding) the (ton) sins (hamartia – wrong doings, wanderings away, and errors) of us (emon), so that (hopos – somehow, as a marker of indefinite means) he might possibly gouge or tear out (exaireo – he might choose to pick, pluck, root, or take out (in the aorist tense this depicts a moment in time, in the middle voice, he, not we, is affected by his actions, and in the subjunctive mood, this is a mere possibility)) us (emas) from (ek) the (tou) past inflexible and unrelenting circumstances of the old system (aionos – the previous era, the long period of time in history operating as a universal or worldly system, something that was existent in the earliest or prior times that continued over a long period of time; from aei – circumstances which are incessant, unremitting, relentless, invariable, and inflexible) which (tou) had been in place (enistamai – had occurred in the past but was influencing the present circumstances in which we had been placed, depicting from where we had come, and now found ourselves, presently threatened by a previous edit (in the perfect tense this is being used to describe a completed action in the past which still influences the present state of affairs, in the active voice the subject is performing the action, and as a participle in the genitive, the circumstance into which we have been placed is being presented as a verbal adjective which is 181being described by the following)) which is disadvantageous and harmful (poneros – which is wicked and worthless, evil and faulty, immoral and corrupt, annoying and mischievous, laborious and criminal, unprofitable and useless, unserviceable and malicious, malevolent and malignant (in the genitive, this adjective is modifying the previous genitive participle)) in opposition to and against (kata – extending downward from, with regard to, and opposed to) the desire and will (to thelema – the wish, inclination, intent, choice, pleasure, and decision) of the (tou) God (ΘΥ – Divine Placeholder for Theos | God) and (kai) Father (ΠΡΣ – Divine Placeholder for Paters | Father which became the basis of Pope) of us (ego)…” (Galatians 1:4)

While it is a fairly small copyedit, modern Greek texts use hyper between “giving himself,” and “us missing the mark,” but on Papyrus 46, we find peri, instead. While these words convey similar thoughts, hyper, meaning “for the sake of and in place of,” makes a stronger case, which is why scribes may have replaced peri with it.

This known, there are some insights to be gleaned from this declaration – all of which are horrendous. First, once we come to understand that Yahowsha’ was not the Messiah and that Yahowsha’ means “Yahowah Frees and Saves,” we realize that Yahowah is the one who personally gave of Himself to save us. However, when these clauses are joined, we find Paulos claiming that the “Lord Iesou Christou,” was “the one having given himself.” This is not a small distinction. It defies the very purpose and nature of God. This error in perception is akin to calling our Father “Lord,” and thus Satanic.

Paul expressly denounces this connection with hopos, which is a “marker of indefinite means.” By including it, this introductory statement implies that Paul said that the methods deployed by God to save us were “not planned,” they “did not unfold on a fixed or appointed schedule,” and 182that His “means were unclear, vague, and imprecise.” Since this is all untrue, it’s instructive for you to know that Yahowah provided the Passover Lamb. In this way, Yahowsha’s body served as the sacrifice while Yahowah’s soul, once associated with our mistakes, was placed in She’owl on the Shabat to honor the promise to perfect us on UnYeasted Bread.

But none of this occurred according to Paul. His Lord slept through it all – or was dead at the time. And he must have awakened in a horrible mood, at least based upon the angry and violent verb this “apostle” ascribed to him – exaireo: He might gouge, tear, and pluck out.

Or perhaps, the transformation from Sha’uwl, the murderous wannabe rabbi, to Paulos, the Lord’s Apostle, was a bit overstated. By any standard, and most especially in this context, exaireo was a poor choice of words. It literally speaks of “gouging and tearing out,” in addition to “plucking and rooting out.” Yes, exaireo can also convey “to rescue, to remove, and to take out,” but when these softer approaches are connected with what the “Lord Iesou Christou” is allegedly delivering us from, it only gets worse.

In the Complete Word Study Dictionary, the primary definition of exaireo is “to pluck out” an eye. They provided this example because both times Yahowsha’ is translated using the verb, it is to depict the plucking out of an offensive eye to keep one’s whole body from being cast into Hades. While it is probable that he said no such thing, there is no missing the fact that the Greek word is traumatic and violent.

The only time exaireo is used by other than Paul, the mythical creation who has become known as “Stephen” is presented in Acts 7 telling the High Priest that Yowseph was “exaireo – delivered from” his afflictions. Reflecting this usage, the secondary definition in the Complete Word 183Study Dictionary is “to take out of affliction.” So in a moment we’ll consider the source of affliction from which this Lord is supposedly “rescuing” believers.

The Dictionary of Biblical Languages concurs with its peers, reporting that exaireo principally means: “take out, gouge out, and tear out.” Secondarily, they attest that it can convey “to rescue and set free.” Then they point us to its root and reveal that exaireo also means “to choose.” But this too is a problem. While Yahowah has every right to choose whomever He wants, for the most part, the option is ours. We were given freewill so that we might choose to engage in a relationship with God.

Moving on, the Exegetical Dictionary lists “pluck it out” as its favored definition. This is supported by Strong’s Lexicon which presents “to pluck out” as the most accurate depiction of exaireo. This is not a loving embrace.

Nonetheless, Paulos deployed exaireo in the aorist tense, which depicts an isolated moment in time without any respect to a process. As such, the sacrifices made by Paul’s Lord were random events, neither promised nor part of a plan. They didn’t even occur on a prescribed schedule – all of which is untrue. In the middle voice, his Lord is being affected by his own actions, which could only be valid if the Lord is Satan, not Yahowsha’. With regard to Yahowsha’s sacrifices, it is Yahowah’s Covenant children who benefited from them. But if Paul’s Lord is Satan, then it is the Adversary who is most favorably affected by this inversion of the truth. And last but not least, by using the subjunctive mood, faith becomes operative, because it presents a mere possibility.

This has been a horrendous beginning, with the rejection of his Hebrew name, the selection of a Roman moniker, the unfounded boast of being named an apostle, denying his rabbinical training and its influence, inverting the order of Yahowsha’s name and the title he errantly 184afforded him, not once but twice, then implying that God slept through the most vital aspect of His mission. Pagan Graces are now operative agents in Pauline Doctrine, and Paul has revealed that his god was the Lord. He conveyed that there had been no plan and that God’s schedule and timing were irrelevant. Then he protests that his Lord was now plucking us away from something. But from what do you suppose was Paulos’ Lord tearing us away?

To answer that question we have to isolate the specific “aionos – prolonged circumstance, old system, or era” Paul is labeling “corrupt and worthless” with the adjective “poneros – annoying harassment, toilsome labor, burdensome hardships, and bad-natured.” And fortunately, our first hint comes from “enistamai – the threatening system in which we had been placed” by the inclination of God. With the verb scribed in the completed variation of the past tense where there is a lingering effect, we can be fairly certain that the subject this verb and adjective is addressing with aionos is a “previous or old system” under which people, at least according to Paul, were still being adversely influenced. So while the identity of this entity should be obvious, since knowing for certain is vital to our understanding of Sha’uwl’s intent, please bear with me a while longer as we uncover something which is, well, disturbing.

Aionos can be used to address something which has been present from the beginning. It speaks of prolonged periods of time, even of so many lifetimes that these epochs might seem to last forever. It reflects eons and ages, which is why it is often translated “forever” or “into perpetuity.” Aionos is used to describe “worldly systems” and “universal circumstances.” But not every condition can be conveyed using aionos because it is based upon “aei – circumstances which are incessant, unremitting, relentless, invariable, and inflexible.” This is telling because this is similar to how Sha’uwl describes Yahowah’s Towrah.

185Paul uses aionos as if it were synonymous with the “world as it presently exists” in 1 Corinthians 8:13. It is used to mislead people into believing that there is an “order of” Melchisedec in Hebrews 5:6. Then in Ephesians 3:9, Paulos again deploys aionos to speak of a mystery which has been hidden by God from the “beginning of the world.”

But it is his selection of aionos in Colossians 1:26 which is especially telling. Once again, in association with “mysterion – religious secrets which are mysterious, remaining a mystery and not to be understood, confided only to the initiated and not to mere mortals” and also “apokrypto – deliberately hidden and concealed by those keeping secrets,” we find aionos depicting “past ages,” especially with regard to previous generations.

So let’s turn to that letter and examine what Paulos had to say about the mysterious and hidden aionos. This discussion begins with the self-proclaimed apostle arrogantly and erroneously presenting himself as the “co-savior” and “co-author” of his new religion in Colossians 1:24-25:

“Now (nyn – at the same time), I rejoice (chairo – I embrace and hail, I thrive and benefit (present tense, active voice, indicative mood)) in (en – by and in association with) the sufferings and misfortunate afflictions (tois pathema – the evil calamities and adverse emotional passions) for your sake (hyper sy – for the benefit of you, beyond you and over you), and (kai – also) I actually complete (antanapleroo – I fill up and fulfill, I make up for that which would otherwise be deficient (in the present tense the writer is portraying his contribution as being in process, in the active voice, he is signifying that the subject, which would be either Sha’uwl or the afflictions is performing this, and with the indicative mood, the writer is portraying his fulfillment of the sufferings as being actual, and thus real, even though he may not believe it himself)) that which is deficient and lacking (hysterema – that 186which is needed, missing, wanted, and absent from, addressing the deficiencies associated with that which is left to be done due to prior failures and inferior performances) of the (ton) afflictions (thlipsis – pressing troubles, anguishing distresses, burdensome tribulations, oppressive pressures, straits, and persecutions) of the (tou) Christou (ΧΡΥ) in (en) the (te) flesh (sarx – corporeally) of me (mou) for the benefit of (hyper – for the sake of, on behalf of, beyond and over) the (tou) body of (soma – the human and animal nature of) him (autou) who (os) is (eimi – he presently, and by his own accord, exists as (present active indicative)) the (e) called out (ekklesia – called-out assembly, congregation, meeting), of which (hos – that means), I (ego), myself, exist as (ginomai – myself conceive and bring into existence, become, cause, belong to, appear as, and possess similar characteristics to) a servant (diakonos – one who serves without necessarily having the office) extended down from (kata – in accordance with or against, with regard to or in opposition to) the administration and arrangement (oikonomia – the management, task, job, oversight, dispensation, or plan) of this (tou – the) god (ΘΩ), the (ten) appointment having been produced and granted (didomi – one caused, assigned, entrusted, committed, and given for his advantage (in the aorist participle this one time appointment was in antecedent time, in the passive this god was influenced and acted upon, and in the accusative singular this appointment was solely granted)) to me (moi – to and for myself (in the dative, Sha’uwl is saying that this belongs to him)) to (eis – for and into) you all (umas) to complete and fulfill (pleroo – to fully provide, completely enable, and finish, bringing an end to) the (ton) word (logon – statement, speech, and account) of the (tou) god (ΘΩ).” (Colossians 1:24-25)

In addition to calling himself the “co-savior,” Paulos would have us believe that he is the “co-author” of God’s Word. If we are to believe him, God personally granted 187Paulos the authority to complete His testimony and Plan of Salvation. It all sounds a bit Muhammadan, doesn’t it? On a one to ten scale of presumptuousness and ego, of intoxicating and deadly deceit, this would be off the scale.

So now after revealing that he is both “co-savior” and “co-author,” God’s means to make up for His own deficiencies, Paulos turns to mythology. His enormous contributions and this marvelous accommodations had been unknown to the Jews, to the descendants of Abraham and the Covenant, because they were blinded by the old system. He writes:

“The mystery and mythology (to mysterion – the sacred secrets, used as a technical religious term in the pagan cults of Greece and Rome to depict a secret rite or esoteric knowledge confided only to the initiated and not spoken to mere mortals) of the one having been hidden and concealed (to apokrypto – the one kept a secret) from those of (apo) the past age (ton aionos – the old system), and from (kia apo) their generations (genea – those fathered, the descendants who were related, successive members of the same ethnicity, thus speaking of the offspring of the old system who were Abraham’s descendants, a.k.a., Yahuwdym), but right now at this exact moment (de nyn – however presently at this time as part of this current discourse) it is being revealed (phaneroo – it is being disclosed and displayed) to (tois) his (autou) holy and pure ones (hagios – dedicated, consecrated, sacred, and set-apart saints).” (Colossians 1:26)

Since this has been all about Paul’s contributions, it would be reasonable to assume that he was implying that God wanted him to become known to the world in this way – by Paul’s own hand. But that is not why we turned to the Colossians letter. We were seeking to define aionos which, now having been linked to the “genea – descendants,” can be none other than the Towrah and its Covenant. In Paul’s 188mind, that was the “old system.” It is known today as the “Old Testament” as a result of Paul’s malfeasance.

And speaking of Paul’s state of mind, his affinity with the rabbinical community may be showing. Orthodox Jews view the most devout as “holy and pure ones.”

Returning to Galatians 1:4, as I mentioned before, with “enistamai – had been placed in” scribed in the perfect tense, thereby describing something that had been completed in the past but with a legacy influence, we have yet another affirmation that aionos was being deployed to depict an “old, or previously existing, system.” And then when these circumstances are presented in context to “to thelema – the intent, determination, and decision” of God, the aionos is most assuredly the Torah.

That is a problem for a number of reasons. First, Paulos is describing God’s “old system,” His Towrah, saying that it is: “poneros – disadvantageous and harmful,” when Yahowah’s perspective on His Towrah is the opposite. Just imagine having the gall to call God’s teaching and guidance “wicked and worthless, evil and faulty, immoral and corrupt, annoying and mischievous, laborious and criminal, unprofitable and useless, unserviceable and malicious, malevolent and malignant.” No. Sorry. Not even remotely. Just the opposite.

Second, Paulos is introducing the myth which would forever haunt Christendom: that of an “Old Testament” being replaced by a “New Testament.” And yet God only has one testimony. His message has not changed. Likewise, Yahowah only has one Covenant, and it has yet to be renewed. Yahowah and Yahowsha’ emphatically affirm that the Towrah is forever. Nothing can be added to it or taken away from it. And yet here, it is being discarded as trash – literally as “poneros – porn.”

Third, why would anyone in his right mind believe that God authorized someone to be His Apostle so that he could 189malign and discredit Him? Associating poneros with His system, with His Way, is about as slanderous as words allow.

And fourth, if God’s original system was so worthless and immoral, why would anyone suspect that His revision would somehow be worthy? How is it that the Author of such a disadvantageous and harmful scheme could ever be credible? Moreover, if this is God’s history, if what He has revealed and promised through His previous prophets is so awful, so counterproductive, why believe this “impostle? “

And as mind-bendingly atrocious as all of this is, and it is as bad as bad ever gets, there is yet another implication so rotten, so insidious, once I saw it, I had to put my response off for a day just to cool down. Paul is saying that his “Kurios Iesou Christou” is “tearing us away from” the Torah. It is the unspoken undercurrent of Christianity.

While Yahowsha’ bluntly and boldly declared to all who would listen that he came to fulfill and affirm the Towrah, and that no one should think that he came to discredit or discard it, Paulos is refuting and upending all of this. He is literally turning everything Yahowsha’ represents upside down. After demeaning the Word of God, he is tossing it away as if it were “poneros – trash.”

To believe Paul, Yahowah’s entire plan has been torn asunder. Yahowsha’s mission is now for naught. The Covenant is meaningless. The Invitations to Meet with God will go unanswered. The Torah is public enemy number one. And yet by writing in a counterfeit of God’s name, by claiming God’s authorization and sponsorship, Paulos, with the stroke of a pen, has handed billions of unsuspecting souls over to Satan.

We are witnessing the creation of Christianity. Paul’s religion would be based upon the lie that the “Lord Jesus Christ came to save us from the evils of the Torah and from its mean and incompetent God.” In Christendom, rather 190than Yahowsha’ being the Passover Lamb saving us by affirming and fulfilling the Torah’s promises, the “Lord Jesus Christ” would be “kata – in opposition to” the “thelema” will and intent” of God, “exaireo – ripping us away from” His “poneros – disadvantageous and harmful” “aionos – Old System.”

I am reminded of what Yahowah said of this man some 2,500 years ago:

“Pay attention, he will be puffed up with false pride. His soul, it is not right nor straightforward in him. So, through trust and reliance, by being firmly established and upheld by that which is dependable and truthful, those who are correct and thus vindicated shall live. (2:4)

Moreover, because the intoxicating and inebriating spirit of the man of deceptive infidelity and treacherous betrayal is a high-minded moral failure with his meritless presumptions, 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, receiving him, will never be satisfied. All of the Gentiles will gather together unto him, all of the people from different races and nations in different places. (2:5)

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

There are hard and perplexing questions which need to be asked of him, and duplicitous dealings to be known regarding him. So they should say, ‘Woe to the 191one who claims to be great so as to increase his offspring, acting like a rabbi, when neither apply to him. For how long will they make pledges based upon his significance, becoming burdened by his testimony?’” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:6)

While it is a painful reminder, in his opening line, Paulos actually wrote:

“…the one having produced and given himself on account of the sins and errors of us, so that somehow, through indefinite means, he might possibly gouge or tear out, pluck and uproot us from the past circumstances and old system which had been in place which is disadvantageous and harmful, corrupt and worthless, malicious and malignant, and in opposition to the desire and will, the inclination and intent, of God and Father of us…” (Galatians 1:4)

Reflecting some, but not all of this, the McReynolds translators, who provided the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear, opted to ignore the caustic and confrontational nature of Paulos’ greeting when they offered: “the one having given himself on behalf of the sins of us so that he might pick out us from the age the present evil by the want of the God and father of us.” And not surprisingly, the dark side of the message laden within the Greek text was also ignored in the version of Galatians 1:4 found in the KJV: “Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father,” Other than “present wicked age,” the Vulgate is identical.

The NLT, however, decided to be more creative: “Jesus gave his life for our sins, just as God our Father planned, in order to rescue us from this evil world in which we live.” While the inclusion of a subject is required, “Jesus’” name isn’t part of this clause. Further, arbitrarily 192adding a subject to the clause artificially elevates the writing quality, giving the false impression that this could have been inspired by a rational being. Furthermore, there is no basis for “his life” in the Greek text.

The first run-on sentence within the most wretched document ever penned began with these words…

“Paulos (Paulos), an apostle (apostolos), not (ouk) from (apo) men (anthropon), not even (oude) by the means of (dia) man (anthropou), but to the contrary (alla) on behalf of (dia) Iesou Christou (ΙΝΥ ΧΡΥ) and (kai) Theos | God (ΘΥ), Patera | Father (ΠΡΑ) of the (tou) one having roused and awakened (egeiromai) him (autos) out of (ek) a lifeless corpse (nekros), (Galatians 1:1) and (kai) all (pas) the (oi) brothers (adelphos) with (sym) me (emoi) to the (tais) called out (ekklesia) of the (tes) Galatias (Galatias), (Galatians 1:2) Charis | Grace (charis) to you (humeis) and (kai) peace (eirene) from (apo) Theos | God (ΘΥ), Father (pater) of us (emon) and (kai) Kurios | Lord (ΚΥ), Iesou (ΙΗΥ) Christou (ΧΡΥ), (Galatians 1:3) the one (tou) having given (didomi) himself (heautou) on account of (peri) the (ton) sins (hamartia) of us (emon), so that (hopos) he might possibly gouge or tear out (exaireo) us (emas) from (ek) the (tou) past inflexible and unrelenting circumstances of the old system (aionos) which (tou) had been in place (enistamai) which is disadvantageous and harmful trash, indeed pornography (poneros) in opposition to (kata) the desire and will (to thelema) of the (tou) Theos | God (ΘΥ) and (kai) Paters | Father (ΠΡΣ) of us (ego),…” (Galatians 1:4)

If you believe that this man was speaking for the God he was excoriating, please give this book to someone else.