232Questioning Paul

Liars Lie

…Contradicting God

 

7

Tarasso | Confusing

 

A Different Message...

We are in a better position to ascertain the differences between Paulos’ Graced-based “euangelion – healing messenger and beneficial message” and the alternative, Yahowah and His Towrah. And in this light, if we are going to seriously consider the so-called “Christian New Testament,” it is incumbent upon us to accurately relate the words contained therein so that they can be understood correctly.

If it is to be considered a Godly document, we are not at liberty to change it, at least without consequence. And if it is not Godly, by changing it, we obfuscate the evidence thoughtful people require to evaluate its veracity. Let’s not change euangelion to “Gospel.”

Having introduced his second thought with, “I marvel and am astonished, even surprised (thaumazo) that (hoti) in this way (houto) quickly (tacheos) you changed, departing and becoming disloyal apostates, traitors (metatithemai), away from (apo) your (sou) calling in the name of (kaleo en) Charis (Charis) to (eis) a different (heteros) healing message and beneficial messenger (euangelion),… (Galatians 1:6)

Paulos continued by contradicting himself…

“…which (hos) does not exist (ou eimi) differently (allos – as another, other, different, or contrasting), if not 233(ei me – conditionally or hypothetically negated because) perhaps some (tis – or things) are (eimi) the ones (oi) stirring you up, confusing you (tarasso sou – causing you to be troubled and distressed, causing commotion and agitating you), and also (kai) wanting and proposing (thelo – desiring and deciding, taking pleasure in and aiming, resolving and being of the opinion) to change and pervert (metastrepho – to turn one thing into another, overturn and reverse) the beneficial messenger and healing message (to euangelion) of the (tou) Christou (ΧΡΥ – Divine Placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement to infer Divinity)…” (Galatians 1:7)

So that you know, this same clause was translated in the Nestle-Aland, 27^th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear as: “what not is other except [not applicable] some are the ones troubling you and wanting to turn across the good message of the Christ.”

Since the writing quality is poor, since Paul infrequently defines his terms, since it required the deployment of evidence and reason to ascertain the distinction between Paul’s position and God’s, I suspect that the Galatians were scratching their heads, wondering what Paulos was trying to say. Half a breath ago, he bemoaned that there were two distinctly different approaches. He was angry because so many had abandoned his mantra for the other proposition. Now he appears to be saying that these two messages are not different at all, but that they are only being made to appear to be in discord by some unknown agitators. But how can that be so when, in his previous sentence, he had his Lord snatching us away from the Old System.

In spite of this, our maestro of confusion is calling his rivals “tarasso – confusing.” The man responsible for the greatest upheaval in human history said that those who had challenged his upending of God’s message were guilty of 234perversion. It is the tactic politicians deploy to demean their rivals, projecting their faults upon their opponents. When the party who is not actually guilty of the crime responds, the audience becomes sufficiently confused to question those inappropriately slandered, leaving the actual perpetrator of the crime unscathed, their biggest fault no longer considered. That is precisely what is occurring here. Paul could not have been more disingenuous if he tried.

In these words, we are also witnessing the insecurity of the man, the very trait which made him susceptible to Satan. Paul has thin skin. He cannot tolerate a rival. He pounces on every opponent, every threat to his authority, real or imagined. The liar calls others, perceived more worthy, liars in an attempt to cut them down so that he can rise above them.

And like most all insecure men, he is drawn to those who are confident, in this case Yahowsha’ and His disciples, in hopes of filling the enormous void in his own life, only to turn against them as a result of his own flawed and corrupt character. It is a dance which has been performed thousands of times, and in every walk of life, but never with the stakes this high.

If you have never witnessed the destructive capacity of an insecure individual, you are fortunate. And if, as a result, you do not see this character flaw driving Paul’s inappropriate and angry rant against the Galatians for not believing him, then at the very least I hope that you see his words as mean-spirited and disingenuous. This is a million miles from Towrah.

When this introductory statement is set into the context of Paul’s life and writings as we know them, it becomes obvious that Paul’s message was the only one which was completely different than everyone else’s, including Yahowah’s, Yahowsha’s, and the disciples. And considering the qualifications of the others, Sha’uwl’s was 235hard to believe. The purpose of this epistle was to launch a defense of his authority through a series of counteroffensives.

Consistent with the preview presented in the opening chapter, Paul will continue to undermine, belittle, and besmirch the Torah, separating Yahowsha’ from it so as to nullify his sacrifice. And before long, we will witness him discrediting Yahowsha’s disciples, effectively nullifying what the Passover Lamb had taught them. These things done, Sha’uwl | Paul substituted his own rhetoric while claiming to have God’s authorization.

You may be wondering why I am now so judgmental, tearing Paul to ribbons for mistakes big and small, especially since I admitted to being fooled by him for many years. The reasons are varied. As I have shared, my intent was not to expose and condemn the differences between Pauline Doctrine and the Torah, but instead to resolve them. I began doing what many have done before me. In fact, some have made a religion of it.

By blending Rabbinical Judaism with Pauline Doctrine, they call themselves Messianic. But then I reached a point where I just could not do it anymore. I could no longer find common ground. The chasm grew too large as the conflicts grew insurmountable. And the more I looked to Yahowah and Yahowsha’ for help, the more I found them at odds with Paul.

Ultimately I had to take sides. I could either be with God or be with Paul. And while that was an easy choice, neither Yahowah nor Yahowsha’ are ever easy on those who corrupt their message. Their approach is now mirrored in this book. God is informed, rational, relentless, uncompromising, and especially judgmental. Too much is at stake to take any other approach.

Also I suppose that I’m sympathetic to those who believe, as I once did, that Paul spoke for God. I appreciate 236how enormously difficult it will be for many of you to process and accept the evidence which is being laid before you. While I make no apologies for being judgmental, I nonetheless appreciate the fact that this approach, along with the unpopular nature of this message, will turn many people away who might otherwise have been helped if this review were not so dismissive of Paul’s commentary. And yet ultimately, every one of us will eventually take sides on this argument. I have made my choice.

Surprisingly, it was not especially hard for me to admit that I was wrong – even that I had been played for a fool. In fact, it was a relief, as I hope it is for you one day. There is something wonderfully liberating and reassuring when you come to terms with Paul and everything falls into place, where there is no longer a collection of odd-shaped pegs which must be wiggled and whittled to fit.

But the bottom line with all of this is that you should not trust me any more than you trust Paul. Yahowah alone is trustworthy. Do your own research. Compare their testimony. Then decide.

Speaking of perverting, the King James Version changed “if not” to “but.” They added “there,” and “that” without justification. They ignored thelo, and its meaning entirely, as if the verb was not in the text. “Turned around and changed” was rendered “pervert” and euangelion was replaced with “gospel.” Then to add insult to injury, the KJV replaced “ΧΡΥ (Chi Rho Upsilon),” the Divine Placeholder with a transliteration of a derogatory Greek word which was not actually written in the text, and they wrote “Christ.” Besides all that, they did a pretty good job with: “but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.” The Latin Vulgate reads: “except that there are some persons who disturb you and who want to overturn the evangelium Christi.” To Jerome’s credit, “overturn” is a literal translation of metastrepho and evangelium is an accurate transliteration of euangelion.

237To help all of us retain our footing, the text reads: “...which does not exist differently, if not conditionally or hypothetically negated because perhaps some are the ones stirring you up, confusing you, and also wanting and proposing to change and pervert the beneficial messenger and healing message of the Christou,” (1:7)

Evidently feeling at liberty to write whatever they wanted, the New Living Translation completely ignored the presence of euangelion in their rendering: “You are being fooled by those who deliberately twist the truth concerning Christ.” Yet that was not their only liberty. Tarasso does not mean “you are being fooled.” There is no basis whatsoever for “by those who deliberately” or “the truth concerning.” And the ΧΡΥ placeholder is based upon Chrestus, not Christos, and it represents the Useful Implement, not Christ.

By stating that the Galatians were “being fooled by those who were deliberately twisting the truth concerning Christ,” the NLT exonerates Sha’uwl while condemning Yahowah’s witnesses. Truth had been upended.

As you consider the third clause of the second sentence, keep in mind that there were two messengers who came out of heaven, one trustworthy, the other deceitful. Also note the switch from Paulos, as the ultimate individual, to “we.” I suspect that this is because he wanted his audience to believe that he was now speaking in conjunction with his god. This is something I am particularly attuned to because I have seen it in Muhammad, who also admitted being demon-possessed. He not only used “we” similarly throughout the Qur’an, he positioned himself as errantly and egotistically. At the very least, even if you aren’t yet ready to acknowledge the satanic influence, Paul is elevating himself to the place where he and his god are now speaking with the same voice. Furthermore, he is inferring that he is a messenger from heaven, while stating unequivocally that a person will 238be cursed if they challenge him.

“...but (kai) to the contrary (alla), if (ean) we (emeis – first person nominative plural) or (e – another comparable) a messenger (aggelos – a heavenly envoy and spiritual servant) out of (ek – from) heaven (ouranos – the abode of God (this was written in the singular even though Yahowah and Yahowsha’ consistently use the plural form)) might convey a healing messenger or beneficial message (euangelizo – may announce a helpful and prosperous communication or communicator) to you (sou) which is approximately the same or contrary to, even positioned alongside, what (hos para – which is near, beyond, greater than, associated with, less than, positioned along with, or is in the opinion of some in opposition to that which), we delivered as a beneficial messenger (euangelizo – we announced and told as a healing claim) to you (sou) then a curse (anathema – a dreadful consequence has been set up and) exists (eimi).” (Galatians 1:8)

This not only screams insecurity, which incidentally manifests itself as paranoia, with everyone else seen as a lesser form of life and as a potential foe, but also as delusional, with an insatiable need to be viewed as essential and right – no matter how useless or wrong. And this time Paul has gone so far as to say that he and his Lord are going to curse the opposition even if the competitor is a heavenly messenger.

From this point forward, and we are a mere two sentences into Paul’s first letter, Christians would invoke a curse on any and all who would question their faith. Any opposition to Pauline Doctrine would be demeaned as Satanic. And yet it was Satan, speaking through his Apostle, who was cursing humankind with these words.

In reality, Yahowah, Himself, sent “a Messenger out of heaven to convey his healing and beneficial message.” 239His name explained His purpose: Yahowsha’, meaning Yahowah Frees and Saves. His message was in perfect harmony with the Towrah, making it the opposite of that being conveyed by Sha’uwl. Therefore, a “dreadful consequence exists.”

Satan was also “a messenger out of heaven,” as are all of Yahowah’s mal’ak – to cite the Hebrew term for “heavenly representative.” His message even “approximates” Yahowah’s witness, making it an effective counterfeit, something which appears genuine and yet is contrary to our interests.

Using Sha’uwl in this way, the Adversary has brought a curse upon himself and upon all who are in league with him. Yahowah announced this sentence in the Garden of Eden nearly six thousand years ago, telling us that the serpent would be cursed for having beguiled Chawah by corrupting His testimony. The curse that the Adversary brought upon himself has now found its way into Paulos’ preamble.

By writing this, Paul’s intent was to render any competitive message moot – especially Yahowah’s, Yahowsha’s, and the disciples. He wanted his audience to join him in condemning his foes, God and His spokesmen. This is akin to Islam where Allah warns Muslims to be ever ready to attack, even slander and kill, all who would besmirch the Islamic god’s reputation by telling the truth. So while Allah is Satan, the wannabe god prevails by labeling his opponents “satanic,” and thereby confusing the feeble-minded.

This duplicity confuses people because most cannot fathom why Satan would oppose Satan, as he appears to do in both Christianity and Islam. But the moment a person considers who Satan is and contemplates what he wants, the answer becomes obvious. Satan does not want to be known as “ha Satan – the Adversary,” but instead as the 240Lord. He wants to be worshiped as if he were God. Therefore, it is perfectly rational, even clever, for Satan to oppose his Adversarial title in texts which not only present the Lord as god, but which at the same time undermine the credibility of the real God, His nature and His Covenant.

When the verb euangelizo is changed to a proper noun and becomes “gospel,” as is the case with the KJV, we are left with nothing but the curse: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”

In this verse, the authors of the King James changed alla to “but,” as if Sha’uwl selected de to begin the sentence. They ignored kai, which means “and,” and then mistranslated ean as “though,” as opposed to the preposition, “if.” They transliterated (replicated the pronunciation of) aggelos as “angel,” instead of translating (replicating the meaning of) it as “messenger.” They added “preach” when there is no basis for it in the Greek. They then included the words “any other” without a textual justification, and replaced the first euangelizo, a verb, with the noun “gospel.”

Then the KJV arbitrarily added “unto,” “than,” and “that,” all without textual support. They included a second “we,” rendered the second euangelizo, not as “gospel” this time, but as “have preached,” inadequately representing the word rather than replacing it. They added another “unto,” without textual support, and then included the pronoun “him” as if Sha’uwl had written it. Since there is very little association between what Sha’uwl said and what the King James Version published, it’s easy to see how people have been misled by their product.

So it is fresh in your mind, Paul actually wrote: “...but to the contrary, if we or a messenger out of heaven conveys a healing messenger or beneficial message to you which is approximately the same or contrary to, or 241even positioned alongside what we delivered as a beneficial messenger and announced as a healing message to you then a curse with a dreadful consequence exists.”

If you have disposed of your King James Version for a New American Standard Bible, the “translation” which claims to present a literal rendering of the oldest Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news: it is not much better. It is as incongruent as the KJV, and obviously little more than a revision of its more popular predecessor. “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!”

Again, it was inappropriate to transliterate aggelos, “angel.” But the crux of the issue here is that the verb euangelizo was rendered “preach to you a Gospel” the first time it appears (which is wrong linguistically), and then the second time the exact same verb appears, it was simply rendered “preach,” as if euangelizo was one of many Greek words for “speak.”

Recognizing that the vaulted and acclaimed Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear reads: “But even if we or messenger from heaven might tell good message to you from what good message we ourselves told to you, curse let there be,” the New International Version is equally distant from the Greek: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned.” The common dissimilarity from the words Paul actually penned, combined with their similarity to one another, affirms that these translations were actually revisions of one another.

The NLT, which we have learned is nothing more than a loose paraphrase under the slogan “The Truth Made Clear,” reads: “Let God’s curse fall on anyone, including 242us or even an angel from heaven, who preaches a different kind of Good News than the one we preached to you.” While “preaches…Good News” would have been a slightly more accurate translation of the first occurrence of euangelizo, demonstrating that the words, themselves, are irrelevant to their presentation, they translated the second euangelizo differently, this time without any reference to “different kind” or “Good News,” even though the same exact word appeared twice.

Further, the sentence order in the NLT was reversed, and God’s title was added without textual support. In so doing, the passage now infers that God is the one cursing a specific individual, as opposed to the contrarian message existing as a curse.

Christian theologians are deliberately being inconsistent, because “Gospel” and “Good News” are central to their theology. Christendom is based upon these concepts. It is as critical and errant as the doctrine of the Trinity in this regard.

We find the following in Jerome’s blend of the Old Latin manuscripts: “But if anyone, even we ourselves or an angelus from Heaven, were to evangelizet other than the one that we evangelizavimus to you, let him be anathema.” Once again, we find evidence that Jerome wasn’t to blame for the corruption of euangelizo, but he was to blame for the subsequent treatment of Catholic heretics, due to his personalizing of the curse.

These translations all affirm that Paul wanted his rivals cursed. And by his definition, his opponents were those whose message was contrary to his own. As we will discover as we make our way through this letter, Sha’uwl’s rivals will come to include: Yahowah and His prophets and Yahowsha’ and his disciples. While they all spoke with one voice, their message was contrary to Sha’uwl’s. And that is the bottom line.

243Repeating himself, but this time slipping from first-person plural to singular to underscore the fact that this Benjamite was a lone wolf among men, we are left to question the motivation for the duplication. And with Sha’uwl so overly fixated on his rivals, do you suppose the reason he did not name them was because, had he done so, his credibility would have been destroyed?

The Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear reads: “As we have said before and now again I say, if some you tells good message from what you took along curse let be.” The basis of their translation was as follows:

“As (hos – like) we have said before (proepo – we have said already), and even (kai) just now (arti – simultaneously or immediately thereafter) also (palin – again repetitively) I say (lego – I convey), if (ei – under the condition) someone (tis) delivers as a helpful messenger or communicates a useful message (euangelizo) to you (sou) similar or contrary to, in opposition with or just positioned alongside (para – close to, besides, approximately the same, near, beyond, or greater than in the opinion of some, even associated with) that which (hos) you received (paralambano – you brought in, associated with, or related to), it shall be (eimi – I wish or command that it shall exist as (the present tense means that this state currently exists and that it will continue for an undisclosed period, the active voice means that the subject, Paulos (who is the speaker), is actively engaged bringing about the curse, and the imperative mood serves as either a command or as an expression of the speaker’s desire, or both)) a curse with a dreadful consequence (anathema).” (Galatians 1:9)

Paul is putting everyone on notice that he will not tolerate a rival. He would remain vengeful with dreadful results, cursing the Jews who challenged him. He would not prevail through evidence or reason, nor through logical and attested debate, by which he was sure to lose, but 244instead by vilifying his perceived opponents. He would begin by damning Jews in general and then seek to condemn the three most important Jews on the planet at the time – none other than Shim’own | Peter, Ya’aqob | “James”, and Yahowchanan | John.

He had become an exceedingly dangerous and threatening man. He was, himself, the curse.

Since this is Paul’s first letter, the “as we have said before” is little more than a reference to the previous sentence, something he makes clear by way of “arti – simultaneously and immediately thereafter.” As a result, since Paulos is writing exclusively under his own chosen name, we must consider what he was trying to accomplish by using “we,” and then ponder why then he felt it was necessary to transition back to “I.” Who were his partners and why at times did he exclude them?

It is telling, therefore, that Galatians 1:6 begins: “I am amazed” (first person singular present tense), but then transitions to “we delivered” (first person plural past tense) in Galatians 1:8. Paul’s recent visit to Galatia was with Barnabas, according to Acts, perhaps accounting for the prior and plural message delivery. But in the short period between the Yaruwshalaim Summit and the time this letter was dictated, Barnabas and Sha’uwl had a heated argument and had gone their separate ways, accounting for the present singular perspective. At least that would be the case had Galatians 1:9 not included “we” and “I” in immediate succession. Also interesting, Sha’uwl will take a mean-spirited swipe at Barnabas before this letter is through.

As is the case with everything Paul writes, he never bothers to explain the nature of the argument. All this says is that “I’m always right and everyone else is always wrong.” As such, even if Sha’uwl’s opinions were right, without a basis in fact, this would not be helpful. Thus far, and indeed throughout Paul’s letters, we will be exposed to 245Paul’s opinions, and we will be apprised of his attitude, but nothing else.

Other than omitting the accusative “contrary or in opposition to,” adding “preach” without justification, replacing the verb euangelizo with the noun “gospel,” and adding a pronoun at the end of the verse, the KJV got most of this right: “As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Their inspiration was obviously Jerome’s Latin Vulgate: “Just as we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone has evangelizaverit to you, other than that which you have received, let him be anathema.” The NLT paraphrase reads: “I say again what we have said before: If anyone preaches any other Good News than the one you welcomed, let that person be cursed.” All three versions were unable to translate para, meaning “close, but yet in opposition,” appropriately when it was used in conjunction with their Gospel and Good News. But by changing paralambano to “welcomed,” the NLT was, once again, the least accurate.

Before we move on, I want to underscore a deficiency associated with the previous statements – and indeed with all of Sha’uwl’s letters. For this to be an effective warning, for it to be instructive and useful, we must know what Paul told the Galatians, and also know how his preaching differed from those he was cursing. Without this information, speculation reigns supreme, and false interpretations are far too readily developed.

As it stands, all we have is that anyone who delivers a message which differs from Paul’s should be cursed, all of which sounds hauntingly similar to the Qur’an’s first eighty surahs chronologically. And while that was designed to censure debate, and while it has kept most critics at bay, by repeating this, Paul has tipped his hand. He has said that his skin and doctrine are so thin that neither can tolerate criticism. It is a sure sign of insecurity.

246Those who cannot defend their message attack those who are critical of it. In politics, this strategy is known as “killing the messenger.”

Introductions aside, here is a quick review of Sha’uwl’s second and third sentences:

“I marvel and am amazed, even astonished that in this way how quickly and in haste you changed, deserting and becoming disloyal apostates, traitors away from your calling in the name of Charis to a different healing message and beneficial messenger, (1:6) which does not exist differently, if not hypothetically negated because perhaps some are stirring you up, confusing you, and also proposing to change the healing messenger and pervert the beneficial message of the Christou, (1:7) but to the contrary, if we or a messenger out of heaven conveys a healing messenger or beneficial message to you which is approximately the same or contrary to, or even positioned alongside what we delivered as a beneficial messenger and announced as a healing message to you then a curse with a dreadful consequence exists. (1:8)

As we have said already, and even just now, immediately thereafter, repetitively, I say, if under the condition someone delivers a helpful messenger or communicates a useful message to you similar or contrary to, in opposition with or just positioned alongside, no matter if it is close to or greater than that which you received, it shall be (in fact I command and want it to exist as) a curse with a dreadful consequence.” (Galatians 1:9)

Are you confused or sickened, angry or cursed?

247Living life to its fullest in the loving embrace of the most wonderful woman I have ever met, sitting in my study in America’s paradise overlooking the turquoise blue waters of Caribbean Sea and Virgin Islands, while translating Yahowah’s Towrah and Prophets, including Dowd’s Psalms, I am proof positive that the only thing Paul cursed was himself and those he beguiled.

As we move to the next statement, while the interrogative required to frame the questions presented in most English translations does not appear in the Greek text, it was implied because Paul is asking us to choose. These questions, however, are rather odd considering that Paul has pitted his message against God. Also, the first is advanced using a peculiar verb – one that runs the gambit from perplexing to inappropriate, from conceited to bewildering.

If I may, since the writing quality is so poor, let’s begin with the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear. “Now for men I persuade or the God. Or I seek men to please. If still men, I was pleasing of Christ slave not – I was.”

That was clear as mud. So then amplified, we find:

“For (gar – because) currently (arti – or simultaneously, just now) [is it] men (anthropos) I persuade (peitho – I presently, actively, and actually use words to win the favor of, I seduce, mislead, coax, convince, appease, and placate, inducing someone through words to believe so that they strive to please me by tranquilizing them) or (e – alternatively) the (ton) God (ΘΝ)?

Or (e – alternatively by comparison or contrast) [do I] I seek (zeto – I attempt and desire) to please and accommodate (aresko – to oblige) men (anthropos – humans)?

Yet nevertheless (eti – in addition besides), if (ei) 248men (anthropos), I was pleasing and accommodating (aresko – I was exciting the emotions of and lifting up) slave (doulos) of Christou (ΧΡΥ – Divine Placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement which was designed to imply Divinity), certainly (an) not (ou) was me (eimi).” (Galatians 1:10)

The initial verb, peitho, was written in the first person singular, present active indicative, which not only means that Paulos is again operating on his own, but also that the opening sentence literally reads: “Because currently men ‘I presently, actively, and actually use words to win the favor of, I seduce, mislead, coax, appease, and placate, inducing belief through words pleasing to me while tranquilizing them (peitho)’ or the God?” So regardless of which option we choose, this question poses a series of serious problems.

First, the transition from “we” as the sources of the lone acceptable message and as the originators of the curse, to “I” in a question, where “men” and “God” represent the universe of potential answers, is curious. Rather than partnering with men, as “we” might imply, is Paul opposing men in some sort of grand debate? Or rather than partnering with God, as “we” might also suggest, is Paul actually arguing against Him?

And while Paul’s personal confessions, his positions and his approach, affirm that his partner is Satan, there is a hint of delusional arrogance here in this transition back to “I” because, no matter how we translate peitho, Paul is implying that his rhetoric and reason are sublime. It is as if he wants us to believe that he was so much smarter than everyone else, he could take on God and men single-handedly.

Second, “winning favor,” along with “persuade and convince,” is the best we can do with peitho. Every other connotation makes this question substantially worse, 249because it would read: “I presently, actively, and actually seduce, mislead, coax, appease, and placate” men or God?

Third, in spite of what religious zealots have been led to believe, we are not called to “win the favor” of men, and we cannot “win the favor” of God. We are not called to “persuade or convince” men. And the notion of “persuading and convincing” God is nonsensical. It is God’s job to convince, not ours. And even then, Yahowah is not interested in “winning our favor” or in “persuading” us. He lays out the opportunity to form a relationship with Him, He proves that we can trust Him, and He invites us to get to know Him, but that is as far as God goes. Therefore, even if we render peitho as favorably as possible, if the answer to the question is “men,” Paul’s approach is unGodly. And if the answer is “God,” then Paul’s arrogance is in league with Satan.

That is the good news. When any of peitho’s alternative definitions are considered, Paul becomes the Lord of Deceit. The Devil “peitho – seduces, misleads, coaxes, appeases, and placates.” That is why Yahowah called Sha’uwl the Father of Lies.

As you might suspect, peitho is almost exclusively Pauline. It is used in Paul’s letters and attributed to him throughout Acts. One of the few times it is found in association with Yahowsha’, the Book of Matthew shows him translated using it to convey the religious mindset of the opposition by writing: “but the chief priests and elders peitho the multitude that they should ask for Barabbas and destroy Yahowsha.” Shortly thereafter, in 28:14, and now in a political setting, the imposter writing under the pseudonym, Matthew, is translated using peitho again to say: “and if this comes to the governor’s ears, we will peitho him.” Luke, who was Paul’s attaché, in his hearsay account, translates Yahowsha’ using peitho twice, but neither translation is credible in that Luke wasn’t an eyewitness and Yahowsha’ never spoke Greek.

250Now I understand that religious individuals do not see any issue with men persuading other men on behalf of their god, but that is because they have been deceived into believing that it is God’s will that we “win souls for Him.” They see a “conversion” to their religion as a favorable event, as something that bolsters their faith. They not only send out evangelists to persuade people into believing as they do, the Church has used the threat of violence to convert the masses for centuries.

But not only is Paul’s message opposed to God’s message, winning souls is not God’s style. Yahowah is only interested in people who are interested in Him. And all He wants from any of us is to understand who He is, what He is offering, and what He expects in return. That way we can choose of our own volition to get to know Him, to ignore Him, or to reject Him. With God, it is all about freewill.

These things known, there is no way to overemphasize the consequence of this question. No matter the answer, it proves that Paul did not speak for God. It also demonstrates that his use of “we” did not include God.

But it does not get better from here. After posing a question where both options have horrendous ramifications, indeed religious implications, Sha’uwl spins his question, posing it a different way. And yet, we ought not try to accommodate or please men. Yahowah does not. Yahowsha’ didn’t. In fact, God’s approach is the opposite. He is resolutely intolerant. He does not accommodate the views of the vast preponderance of people. He is displeased with humanity. While it is Yahowah’s desire for us to get to know Him, He only accommodates the few who do.

Also problematic, with the juxtaposition of the first and second “e – or,” we cannot isolate Paul “seeking to please men” from the possibility that he is “attempting to accommodate” God. The first option is disingenuous and 251pathetic while the second is ludicrous.

Not only were these questions left unanswered, which leaves one wondering why they were posed, they were followed by “eti – nevertheless” and “ei – if,” strongly suggesting that Paul actually wanted us to think that he was capable of sparring with God. Further, aresko, the next verb Paul deploys, is not a cerebral concept, but instead speaks of “exciting and enticing emotions.” And the object this time is “Christou,” indicating that God, rather than being predictable and dependable, can be swayed by an emotional appeal. While Yahowah has an emotional component to His nature, everything that we know about God affirms that He values an informed and rational response over misdirected feelings.

Paul routinely infers that he died to become “Christ,” which is what “of Christou, certainly not was me” conveys. However, if one sees Paul’s Iesou Christou as the new and mythological caricature upon which the Pauline religion was contrived, then the author of this letter is the living embodiment of the Christian “Jesus Christ.” Paul is to “Jesus Christ” as Muhammad is to Allah. They are one and the same. If you know one, you know the other. If you like one, you will like the other.

If we were to dispense with the dubious connections and evaluate Paul’s rhetoric as if this were a debate, he’d flunk that test too. Sha’uwl deployed a non sequitur. The initial question was not answered by his hypothetical. And there was no quid pro quo between “accommodating man” and “serving his Christou.” Moreover, how is it that Paul, who fashions himself as the one who liberated the faithful from bondage to the Torah, is now positioning himself as a slave? And not just anybody’s slave, he is now in servitude to the same Christou whose death supposedly freed everyone from slavery. So this has become a litany of contradictions.

252And the fact remains, only an egomaniac would suggest that someone might wonder whether or not this man was “persuading God.” And that is especially troublesome since the opening stanza of this letter affirms that Paul was not effectively “persuading and convincing men.”

Beyond this, perhaps we can deduce that Paul’s intent was to convince his audience, by displaying hostility toward the Galatians at large, as well as against any other messenger or message, that he was demonstrating, even proving, that he was out to please God and not men. But nothing displeases God more than denouncing and discarding His testimony.

This is a serious problem for thinking Christians. When Paul was not focusing on himself, he was focused on presenting an errant characterization of Yahowsha’. Neither perspective has merit. Even Yahowsha’ told us that we should focus on the Father and not on him. But since Paul is opposed to Yahowah and His Torah, that is not possible.

I am keenly aware that there is a limit to the amount of criticism an audience will endure. And while we are called to love our enemies, we are encouraged to expose and condemn God’s foes, which is why questioning Paul is so essential. But to be appropriate, our criticisms need to be bolstered by evidence and reason, they need to be consistent with God’s testimony, and they should be focused on an individual, an institution, or on a specific message. However, in Paul’s case, his blanket dismissal of an entire province and nation is not appropriate, nor is criticism without justification, and Paul seldom if ever provides any. This letter opened similarly to the Romans 7 diatribe, with a universal condemnation.

While it is appropriate to constructively criticize religious documents and institutions, it is not appropriate 253to rail against their victims en masse. And yet, Paul is lashing out at everyone, while undermining everyone, because he suspects everyone is his foe, from heaven to earth, and he feels compelled to cut them all down. In this regard, his tone will evolve from condescending to vicious – becoming stunningly uncivilized. And while never appropriate, since Paul posed the question, his wholly antagonistic attitude toward men reveals the answer to the questions he has posed. In his mind, he was debating God. Moreover, as the evidence will demonstrate, Paul’s rage was universally misplaced. Sha’uwl’s adversaries were leading the Galatians to Yahowah, while Sha’uwl was taking them for a ride in the opposite direction.

Apart from the errant title, “Christ,” my concern with the most influential translations is that neither were consistent with the actual text. They both added a plethora of words to artificially elevate the writing quality. While Paul wrote:

“For because currently or simultaneously, [is it] men I presently persuade to win the favor of, seducing, misleading, and coaxing, even convincing, appeasing, and placating, or alternatively, the Theos | God? Or alternatively by comparison and contrast, [do I] I desire to please and accommodate humans? Yet nevertheless, even regardless, if men, I was obliging and accommodating, exciting them emotionally, a slave of Christou, certainly not was me,” the KJV published: “For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.” While Christians no doubt see this as a rhetorical question, the deeper we dig into Paul’s mantra and mindset, the more likely it becomes that Paul thought himself qualified to persuade God to change His plan of salvation. LV: “For am I now persuading men, or God? Or, am I seeking to please men? If I still were pleasing men, then I would not be a servant of Christi.”

254Unlike the King James and Vulgate, the New Living Translation reads beautifully. It is a shame God didn’t inspire Paul to write as eloquently. “Obviously, I’m not trying to win the approval of people, but of God. If pleasing people were my goal, I would not be Christ’s servant.” While there is an extremely remote possibility that this may have been what he meant to say, it absolutely was not what he wrote. And should they have magically captured Paul’s intent, we are incapable of “winning the approval…of God.” That is the reason God conceived a plan whereby He did all that was required to make us acceptable.

Next, we find Sha’uwl professing that the message he was revealing was his own. And Paulos wanted everyone the world over to recognize that the mantra which would become known as “the Gospel” was “hypo ego – by, under and through me, by reason and force of me, because of and controlled by me.”

“But (de – therefore, however, and nevertheless) I profess and reveal (gnorizo – I perceive and tell, I provide the knowledge I’ve gained to make known, I recognize and declare) to you (sou) brothers (adelphos) of the (to) beneficial messenger and healing message (euangelion – the rewarding envoy and helpful communication) which (to) having been communicated advantageously (euangelizo) by (hypo – under and through, by reason and force of, because of and controlled by) myself (ego), because (oti) it is not (ou eimi) in accord with (kata – according to) man (anthropos).” (Galatians 1:11)

This, of course, means that Paul was solely responsible for his “gospel.” He conceived it all by himself, and he, alone, was authorized to declare it. As such, Paul was solely responsible for the mythology which became Christianity. There is no one else to credit or to blame. If his personal and individual revelations are not true, the religion he conceived is wholly unreliable.

255Christian clerics universally recognize and readily admit that Paul opposed Yahowsha’s disciples. This statement merely explains why. His message was his own while theirs was Yahowsha’s. And set into the context of debating God, this is an incriminating confession.

But even if you were unaware of Paul’s underhanded slap at his adversaries, both human and divine, it was either egregiously presumptuous or an outrageous confession to write “gnorizo – I reveal and provide” the “euangelion – beneficial messenger and healing message” and I “euangelizo – communicate it advantageously” “hypo ego – by myself.” If Paul were speaking for God, shouldn’t he be touting His words and not his own? Said another way, someone who is speaking for God knows that it’s His message which matters, not the one who delivers it.

Had this been anything more than Paul claiming the world as his own, he would have done what we are doing, which is to dissect the errant message, showing through evidence and reason where it is wrong. Sha’uwl should have delineated pertinent examples of the euangelion which differed from his own. But the only message Paulos has condemned is God’s, discrediting and discarding His Torah.

The McReynolds Interlinear reveals that the Nestle-Aland text reads: “I make known for to you brothers the good message the having been told good message by me that not it is by man.” In order to make those words appear credible, euangelion and euangelizo had to be rendered differently, even though their etymological basis is identical in the KJV: “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.” That was incriminating. The King James Version accurately asserted that Paul “certified” that “the gospel which was preached” was “of me.” In a rational world, this would have been sufficient to bury him.

256Jerome’s blend of Old Latin texts was both less accurate and less convicting. LV: “For I would have you understand, brothers, that the evangelium which has been evangelizatum by me is not according to man.” But ever in form, the NLT ignored six of the twelve Greek words, and they added ten English words of their own choosing. Still inadequate to support their theology, they grossly misrepresented, and inconsistently translated euangelion. “Dear brothers and sisters, I want you to understand that the gospel message I preach is not based on mere human reasoning.” The use of “mere” implies that “human reasoning” was a contributing factor. And that suggests that Yahowah’s message was incomplete or inadequate, and that He required the contribution of Sha’uwl’s considerable intellect.

When you combine Paul’s arrogant and incriminating statements with the Christian interpretation of them, you have the crime and confession laid at your feet. So why have so few people held Paul accountable?

What follows is the other half of Sha’uwl’s defense. He is saying that he was not influenced by any human agenda or institution, while implying that those who oppose him are in opposition to God. The opposite, however, is true. Paul’s approach and style are rabbinic, and it would be hard to find someone more opposed to God than him.

Now if only someone could have taught Paulos how to write. It is the one thing you would have thought they would have taught him at rabbi school. But perhaps this explains why he flunked out...

“But neither (oude – nor or not) because (gar – for the reason then) I (ego) by (para – among, from, or for) man (anthropos) associating myself with (paralambano – I received, learning and accepting) it (autos). Nor (oute – but neither) was I taught (didasko – was I instructed as a 257disciple).

But to the contrary (alla – by contrast) by way of (dia – through) a revelation (apokalypsis – an appearance or disclosure, an uncovering or unveiling) of Iesou (ΙΗΥ – 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 – Divine Placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement to usurp the Septuagint’s credibility and infer Divinity).” (Galatians 1:12)

Contradicting his previous statement, while at the same time contravening Yahowah’s and Yahowsha’s approach to teaching, Paulos would have us believe that he did not associate with men and that he was not taught. He is evidently not ready to disclose the fact that he has been in rabbinic school for many years.

According to Paulos, his message had been previously undisclosed, and he alone had the right to convey what was miraculously unveiled, appearing to him in a revelation attested by no one. So it raises the question: if this is so, why did Yahowah bother with His Towrah – Teaching? If this were so, why did Yahowsha’ bother with disciples. If this were so, why did Yahowsha’ bother to say or do anything? If this were so, why did Yahowsha’ direct those with questions to the Torah and Prophets for answers? If this were so, how could Paulos be speaking for Yahowsha’ when God’s attitude, approach, and affirmations were the antithesis of what is being written here?

Since it would be natural to assume that I am sabotaging Paul by making him appear illiterate, please note that the scholastic Nestle-Aland published: “But not for I from man took along it nor was I taught but through uncovering of Jesus Christ.”

Beyond the fact that I now understand the purpose of 258Galatians was to separate Yahowsha’ from the Torah, and thereby negate his sacrifice while nullifying the means to our salvation, to say that he “was not taught” his message is to say that he did not learn the truth in the same place Yahowah and Yahowsha’ directed all of us to go for understanding: the Torah. Neither Sha’uwl, you, nor I need private instruction regarding God’s public disclosure. Proving this, the Disciple Yahowchanan recorded: “Yahowsha’ answered him, ‘I have spoken openly to the world. I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple where all of the Yahuwdym come together. And I spoke nothing in secret.” (Yahowchanan / Yah is Merciful / John 18:20) This, of course, would also mean that what Paul just wrote was a lie. Yahowsha’s statement and Paul’s cannot be reconciled.

This was not Paul’s only claim to “secret” revelation. In the New American Standard Bible’s rendition of Romans 16:25, we read: “Now to him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past but is now manifested.” “According to my gospel” confirms the obvious, but nonetheless I appreciate the confession: this is the “Gospel of Paul” and not the “Gospel of ‘Jesus Christ.’” But God does not keep secrets – at least not regarding anything vital to our relationship with Him. Mysteries form the sum and substance of the myths which permeate pagan religions. And since Paul never once cited Yahowsha’s “preaching,” in a rare moment of truth, calling the “gospel” he was preaching “his own” should have been sufficient for Christians to reject him and their religion. God does not have a “gospel,” nor should you.

And speaking of revealing something important regarding Yahowsha’, this is now the third time in three tries that Paulos has not only placed the inappropriate “title” after an erroneous rendition of his “name.” The 259backward approach gives the impression that “Iesou’s” last “name” was “Christou,” further distancing him from Yahowah.

Paul’s fixation on unverifiable secret revelations, on mystery and mythology, was further advanced in his letter to the Ephesians when, according to the New American Standard Bible, he wrote: “...if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace which was given to me for you; that by revelation there was make known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief.

And by referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit...of which I was made a minister...to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things.” (Ephesians 3:2-9)

Funny thing though, the prophets never spoke of mysteries, and to the contrary, Yahowah used them to dispel myths. The disciples never spoke of mysteries either, nor did Yahowsha’. For those who are open to Him, Yahowah is an open book. Open His Towrah and you will find Him there. In fact, the only reason that God authored His Torah was to reveal Himself to us so that we might come to know Him.

King Dowd (more commonly known as David) was inspired to share the following insight into the nature, purpose, and effect of the Torah:

“Yahowah’s () Towrah (towrah – source from which teaching, instructions, guidance and directions flow) is complete and entirely perfect (tamym – without defect, lacking nothing, correct, right, helpful, beneficial, and 260true), returning, restoring, and transforming (shuwb – turning around and bringing back) the soul (nepesh – consciousness).

Yahowah’s () eternal testimony (‘eduwth – and restoring witness) is trustworthy and reliable (‘aman – verifiable, confirming, supportive, and establishing), making understanding and obtaining wisdom (hakam – educating and enlightening oneself to the point of comprehension) simple for the open-minded (pethy).” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:7)

Few things so essential to life are this succinct. And that is why you have seen this verse before and will see it again.

But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the murderer who had been Sha’uwl, who by his account was forced to become an apostle during a rather nasty encounter with a prodding and debilitating spirit on the road to Damascus, was a special case, that he was too remarkable an individual to learn about God the way the rest of us mere mortals have done – by observing the Torah as God suggested. It is certainly God’s prerogative to teach someone individually if He so desires.

The disciples had some group instruction, most of which they made public. And their subsequent message, unlike Sha’uwl’s, was wholly consistent with everything Yahowah and Yahowsha’ proclaimed publicly. If God had a private meeting with Paul, why was there no prophetic affirmation of it, and why was everything they allegedly discussed the opposite of what had been conveyed so many times before? And why do you suppose, if this revelation occurred as Paul professes, that there isn’t a single quote from Yahowsha’ in the entirety of Paul’s letters?

Rather than write, “Yahowsha’ said, “...,” Paul wrote: “But I say....” Beyond not citing anything from their mythical private meeting, the self-proclaimed Apostle only 261quoted one snippet of something Yahowsha’ said publicly, and in his lone citation, Sha’uwl bungled the quote. As such, Paul’s entire premise is ludicrous – particularly since, in the citation Sha’uwl misappropriated and misquoted, Yahowsha’ was explaining how his role as the Passover Lamb would enable the Covenant’s promises.

And most revealing and incriminating of all is the realization that Paul’s message is the antithesis of everyone else’s, including Yahowah, who just happens to be God, all of Yahowah’s prophets, Yahowsha’, and Yahowsha’s disciples. It was one man against the Word and world. Everything Yahowsha’ did and said affirmed the importance of the Torah. And yet the primary thrust of Sha’uwl’s testimony is to belittle and demean the Torah. His claim to a secret revelation from God for which he alone has a license to promote is not only rationally impossible, it is preposterous.

While I am admittedly flogging a dead pig, since so many seem oblivious to the obvious, if Sha’uwl spent time one-on-one with Yahowsha’, as he claims, why didn’t he tell us anything about his encounter? Why, unlike everything else God has revealed, wasn’t there a single prophecy which could be used to validate the inspiration?

The Torah, by contrast, is set into the context of history. It details Moseh’s meetings with Yahowah, in addition to their interactions with the Egyptians and the Children of Yisra’el over the course of time. There are not only thousands of witnesses, the Towrah is filled with historical and prophetic insights which serve to verify its validity. Moreover, its primary purpose was to explain the purpose of God. And that means that Yahowsha’ was not only included, but was also explained and predicted in this very same plan. And now we are to believe that all of those promises and predictions were for naught, and there was no reason for any of it.

262Also relevant, since most of the Torah consists of Yahowah speaking in first person through Moseh, which is the same format used throughout the Prophets, why is Galatians written in Paul’s voice? The Prophets Zakaryah, Yasha’yah, Yirma’yah, and Mal’aky, to name a few, routinely get out of the way and allow Yahowah to speak through them. Their personalities, their styles, their messages, and their reputations are never an issue. But the same cannot be said of Paul.

There are seven signs, all along the same path, all pointed in the same direction, all conveying the same message, all from the same God, and then there is Sha’uwl | Paul. And his sign is on a distinctly different path, it points in the opposite direction, and it conveys an entirely different message. And yet for each individual choosing to follow the path laid out by the seven in concert with God, hundreds of thousands prefer Paul’s instead.

Other than misrepresenting the second most important name and title in the universe, the KJV and LV handled the rest of the words appropriately enough. The King James reads: “For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” LV: “And I did not receive it from man, nor did I learn it, except through the revelation of Iesu Christi.”

Unable to restrain themselves, the NLT felt compelled to add their own personal embellishments to an otherwise simple statement. “I received my message from no human source, and no one taught me. Instead, I received it by direct revelation from Jesus Christ.”

Incidentally, and forgetting about the Divine Placeholders for a moment, just because the Greek reads: “Iesou Christou,” that does not automatically mean that it is always appropriate to order the name and descriptive title this way in English. In Greek, like Hebrew and Latin, in fact in many languages, adjectives follow the nouns they 263are modifying. But in English the opposite is true. For example, the Hebrew reads “Ruwach Qodesh,” but in English, it is written “Set-Apart Spirit.” So then the issue is whether the intent of Christou was an adjective or a title, and if it is a title, why is the definite article routinely omitted? Also, since Paul has already deployed Satan’s title, “the Lord,” writing “the Lord Iesou Christou,” why is the improper title in the proper place but the proper title is not?

You can be the judge as to whether this was incriminating, or affirming:

“For because currently or simultaneously, [is it] men I presently persuade to win the favor of, seducing, misleading, and coaxing, even convincing, appeasing, and placating, or alternatively, the Theos | God?

Or alternatively by comparison and contrast, [do I] I desire to please and accommodate humans?

Yet nevertheless, even regardless, if men, I was obliging and accommodating, exciting them emotionally, a slave of Christou, certainly not was me. (1:10)

So therefore, I profess and reveal to you brothers of the beneficial message which having been communicated advantageously by and through myself, because it is not according to or in accord with man. (1:11)

But neither because I by man associating myself with it. Nor was I taught (like a disciple). But to the contrary, by way of a revelation, an appearance serving to uncover and unveil Iesou Christou.” (1:12)

Perhaps a little education, and learning to write, may have done him some good. Nah, don’t think so…

Sha’uwl’s animosity toward the Torah began before his conversion. As a rabbinical student, he had been trained to argue against God. So Paulos was not so much reflecting his former association with Judaism, but instead revealing the mindset which permeated his writings.

Initially, at least before I discovered that each of the hundreds of times that “towrah” was written in Yahowah’s Word as a proper noun that it was translated using nomos throughout every extant copy of the Septuagint, I was hopeful that by confessing his affinity for Judaism and the religion’s oral traditions, Paul would associate his use of nomos with the Talmud instead of the Towrah. But that did not happen and it is not possible. While he knew the Talmud’s Oral Laws like the back of his hand, Sha’uwl never made any connection to Rabbinic Law. And he routinely associated the “nomos” he was assailing with Yahowah’s Torah. Moreover, the notion of rendering nomos as anything other than “Torah” is torn asunder by Paul’s own translation in Galatians 3:10. So now, listen carefully to what he says:

“For (gar – because indeed) you heard of (akouo ten – you received news of) my (emos) unruly behavior (anastrophe – wayward conduct and upside-down way of life) at a time and place (pote – whenever, speaking of an undisclosed point in the past or future; from pou – where, addressing a place and te – not only and both) during the practice of Judaism (en to Ioudaismos – in association with the Jewish religion), namely that because (hoti – since) regarding (kata – coming down from and regarding this) showing superiority, surpassing any measure of restraint (hyperbole – to an extraordinary degree, preeminently, excessively, beyond measure, and better than anyone else) I was aggressively and intensely 265pursuing (dioko – I was hastily striving toward, systematically running after, persecuting, oppressing, and harassing) the (ten) Called Out (ekklesia – from ek – out and kaleo – call) of (tou – the) God (ΘΥ – Divine Placeholder for Theos | God), and (kai) I was and am devastating her, continuing to annihilate her (portheo autos – I was and am attacking and overthrowing her, I was and am undermining and ravaging her, continuing to destroy her; from pertho – sacking (in the imperfect tense, this ongoing action began in the past but there is no indication when it might cease if ever, in the active voice, Paulos was and is personally engaged ravaging and destroying, and in the indicative, these attacks are being presented as actually occurring)).” (Galatians 1:13)

The Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear presents this same revolting pallet of words using a slightly sparser array of colors: “You heard for the my behavior then in the Judaism that by excess I was pursuing the assembly of the God and was ravaging her.”

The King James Version helped fan the flames of anti-Semitism by combining “Jews’ religion” and “beyond measure I persecuted the church of God.” “For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:” What’s interesting here is that there is actually no basis for or indication of a “conversion” in Paul’s letter.

And the British translators cannot blame the Roman apologist for Christianity’s deadly opposition to Judaism. The Latin Vulgate rendering was somewhat more accurate. Jerome’s Latin translation reads: “For you have heard of my former behavior within Iudaismo: that, beyond measure, I persecuted the ecclesiam Dei and fought against Her.” But here again, while “former” is a superior rendering of pote than is “conversion,” it isn’t accurate. It speaks of “any place and time, of some place and time, of 266an undisclosed point in the past, present, or future” and is, therefore, by no means limited to a “former” time.

This is not a minor point, because Paulos specifically used the imperfect tense in association with portheo to say that he had and was continuing to ravage and destroy” those who have chosen to be with God. He never stopped attacking.

The New Living Translation turned back the clock even further on truth by completely ignoring pote, by rendering ekklesia “church,” and by failing to communicate the ongoing nature of the final imperfect verb. “You know what I was like when I followed the Jewish religion—how I violently persecuted God’s church. I did my best to destroy it.” God has a lot of things, but “church” is not among them.

In this passage, Sha’uwl was not putting himself in opposition to Judaism, nor suggesting that he was no longer practicing the religion, but instead was stating that the Jewish religion was in opposition to God’s people. In fact, later in Acts, before a Jewish assembly, Paul will speak of Judaism as if it remained the love of his life. And yet throughout this letter, and in others, his comments are decidedly anti-Semitic, fueling the animosity Christians would harbor against Jews. This duplicity is an enigma unless perceived from the perspective that Paul wanted to be seen as both in league with and in opposition to everyone and everything.

And there is no question that Sha’uwl was and continued to be religious. It is therefore instructive to know that Ioudaismos is based upon Ioudaizo, which in turn is defined as “the adoption of Jewish customs, traditions and religious rites, even the observation of the ritual law.” Thereby Ioudaismos describes: “Rabbinic Judaism.”

Being a fundamentalist practitioner of Judaism made Sha’uwl opposed to a redeeming Mashyach, to a suffering 267servant, as opposed to a conquering warrior, but that still does not explain his unbridled animosity toward those who quietly elected to follow him. Judaism, unlike Islam, indeed even unlike Christianity, has never inspired rage. From the religion’s fledgling beginnings circa 200 BCE to the present day, Jews have fought six defensive campaigns, the first three of which failed, all hoping to liberate their homeland from invaders: the Greeks once, the Romans twice, and more recently on three occasions against Muslims. The religion is not sufficiently aggressive or violent to inspire the kind of rage Sha’uwl expressed. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that Sha’uwl was anything more than a lone wolf – singularly vicious and out of control.

This is the second time Paul has revealed that his cravings were insatiable. First it was libertine lusts, sexual perversions, which he blamed on the Torah. And now he is attributing his unrestrained annihilation of passive and peaceful people on his religion. And yet, lost in his arrogance, he wants us to believe that he alone was selected by God to slander Him and undermine His Torah.

But I know someone similarly perverted and violent – Muhammad. His bloodlust and appetite for sexual abuse were hallmarks of his life where terrorism was used to supply an endless stream of booty and babes. His religion grew out of his lust. Paul’s may have as well.

As we consider Paulos’ claim, I would be surprised if more than a handful of people, most of whom would have been relatives of his victims, would have heard of him. I suspect that Sha’uwl was a legend in his own mind.

And the evidence indicates that Judaism was not responsible for his actions. There is no historical evidence to suggest that others were operating similarly. There is no record of such orders in any rabbinic archive, and you would be hard-pressed to find any group more committed 268to documenting their aims and arguments.

That may be one of many reasons that Paulos provided no specificity with regard to time or place. And if you are wondering why he would admit these awful things, especially if they were exaggerated, it is because he thought that the comparison between the old Sha’uwl and new Paulos would serve to demonstrate the relative merits of the Old System compared to his New Testament. The same strategy is deployed in Islam which is why I recognize the ploy.

And while these are all serious and deeply troubling issues, they don’t measure up to juxtaposing “hyperbole – showing superiority surpassing any measure of restraint,” “dioko – aggressively and intensely pursuing,” and “portheo – devastating and annihilating,” especially when scribed in the imperfect and directed at God’s children. Had Paulos wanted to say that he had been conceited, that he had been out of control and intensely aggressive in the past while annihilating, which is to murder in mass, God’s Covenant children, he would have used the perfect tense, which describes actions which were completed in the past which led to the present state of affairs. The fact he did not, not only confirms that his assault on the Covenant was ongoing, indeed never-ending, but also that he had no respect for his audience, believing that they were so inferior to his intellect that they would never figure it out no matter how obvious he made it for them.

We do not know many of the details of Sha’uwl’s life. He told us that he went to school to be a rabbi, but not if he ever became one. As a young man, he claims to have studied under the famed Gamaliel, which would have put him in Jerusalem while Yahowsha’ was there. But an undisclosed time thereafter he claims to have been making tents back in his hometown of Tarsus, in what is now southwestern Turkey. Since there was no shortage of rabbis in Yaruwshalaim to harass the followers of The Way, 269should that have been their unofficial mission, why recruit a vicious and egotistical unbridled libertine?

That makes no sense, unless, of course, Sha’uwl was so immoral, myopic, and uniquely savage that he became an ideal candidate for all the wrong reasons. But even then, how depraved would an individual have to be to engage in a mission where the goal was to mercilessly bludgeon your own people, ripping innocent families apart who had broken no laws, only because you disagreed with their conclusions? A moral and rational individual could never have done such a thing. Since Sha’uwl has confessed to all of these acts and attributes, and since the attitude required to actually have done these horrendous things permeates this letter, it is incumbent upon us to consider the character flaws which motivated him.

Returning to the passage itself, the ekklesia, describing those who were “called out” of the world and unto God, is a translation of the Hebrew qara’ – itself the basis of Miqra’, the title of Yahowah’s seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with Him. It is telling that the ekklesia is feminine. This is because it represents Yahowah’s “beryth – Covenant,” also feminine, and because inclusion in it is facilitated by the “ruwach qodesh – Set-Apart Spirit, the feminine manifestation of God’s nature.”

Beyond this, Yisra’el, like beryth, ekklesia, and ruwach, is feminine, with the first two representing Yahowah’s bride – at least symbolically. Before the divorce decree was announced through the prophet Howsha’ / Hosea, based upon Yisra’el’s infidelity, the Familial Covenant Relationship was a marriage between Yahowah and His Chosen People. But when God’s bride chose to cavort with Ba’al (the “Lord” in Hebrew), Yahowah announced the divorce, a split which He has promised to resolve on the Day of Reconciliations two thousand years after He healed the rift with Yahowsha’s and the Set-Apart Spirit’s fulfillment of the first four 270Miqra’ey. In so doing, Yahowah honored each of the five promises He had made to His Covenant children, with our Spiritual Mother enriching and empowering the “ekklesia – called out” on “Shabuw’ah – Seven Sabbaths.”

It had been on this Miqra’, after tangibly demonstrating the purpose of Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children on the way out of Egypt, that the Towrah was revealed to God’s children. It is another connection Christians seldom acknowledge.

Sir Francis Bacon was the occultist that King Iames, as he was then known, hired to shepherd his self-serving translation. Along with the politically savvy theologians who served with him, he must have felt that since the opening verb of Galatians 1:13 was “you heard,” they had liberty to change “wayward behavior” to “conversation.” After all, they could be pretty sure Paulos wasn’t going to object. I suspect it sounded more racist to say “the Jews’ religion,” rather than “Judaism,” which explains that decision as well. But no matter what their justification may have been for copyediting Sha’uwl, as a consequence of replacing “ekklesia – called out” with “church,” the lone aspect of the message which had any merit was lost, and a devastating misnomer was born.

While I have attempted to hold Sha’uwl, himself, accountable for the severe character flaws required to perpetrate savagery on innocent kin, he must also bear the burden of his legacy. His positioning of Judaism as a ruthless enemy of God’s “church” has fanned the flames of racial hatred and caused horrible and needless suffering. Translators exacerbated the problem to be sure, but it was Paul who presented Judaism as the enemy of his faith: Christianity. The foreseeable and inevitable consequence was to rally Christians to persecute Jews out of a misguided sense of divine retribution.

This is a glaring red flag, a dire warning signal, a dead 271canary in the coal mine, which most have missed. Satan’s religions engender a hatred for Yahowah’s Chosen People. In the Torah we read: “For you are a set-apart people unto Yahowah, your God. Yahowah, your God, has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a treasured possession above all of the peoples on the face of the earth.” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 7:6) God’s love for His people is unmistakable and unshakable. But so is Sha’uwl’s animosity.

The Babylonians and Assyrians, as the first practitioners of Satanic sun-god religious schemes, were especially savage toward Jews (or correctly, Yahuwdym, meaning Related to Yahowah and Beloved of Yah), plundering their towns and hauling the people off into slavery. The Egyptians, who practiced the same religion under different names, held the Yisra’elites captive for four centuries.

Practicing the same religion, the Seleucid Grecian Empire, which was created as a result of Alexander’s conquests, ruthlessly sacked Yaruwshalaim under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (“the Manifestation of God”), as is described in the books of Maccabees. The Romans, who worshiped the same gods, but also under different names, were even more barbaric in their treatment of Jews than were the Babylonians and Assyrians. They razed Yahowah’s Home, salted the land so that nothing would grow, and then renamed the Promised Land “Philistina,” solely because the Torah presents the Philistines as Yisra’el’s most annoying enemy, from whence we get the myth of a “Palestinian people.”

Constantine’s Christians, governed as they were by Pauline Doctrine, were so anti-Jewish, observing any aspect of Yahowah’s Torah became a crime punishable by death. Then came Islam, a religion born out of plundering, enslaving, raping, and murdering Jews en masse. But they were not alone. Such discrimination and lack of moral 272judgment lingered throughout the reign of Catholicism in Europe, facilitating the horrid treatment of Yahowah’s Chosen People under the dominion of the first Socialist Secular Humanist regimes: Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia.

The common denominator in each of these religions, including the faith conceived by Sha’uwl, is a ruthless animosity directed at God’s Covenant Children, especially those who were naturally born: Yisra’el and Yahuwdym. It is Satan’s trademark. It is why Yahowah predicted that the Serpent would “bruise the heel of man.” Ya’aqob, who was named Yisra’el by Yahowah, is based upon the Hebrew word for “heel.” Therefore, Sha’uwl’s animosity toward God’s chosen people should have been seen as a red flag of monumental proportions.

Displaying the kind of arrogance that is the hallmark of the most grossly insecure individuals, Sha’uwl continued to brag. But rather than isolate his next statement from his previous one, let’s join them because one flows out of the other. And as you read these words, please note that the selection of the imperfect tense, which made Paul’s last statement so indicting and devastating, is used again in his follow-on comments, thereby, conveying two things: First, Paul is suggesting that Judaism was the cause of his bloody rampage; second, he is saying that he is still progressing in the religion.

“For because you heard of my unruly behavior at a time and place during the practice of Judaism, namely that because of my superiority, surpassing any measure of restraint, to an extraordinary degree better than anyone else, I was aggressively and intensely, even systematically pursuing it by persecuting, oppressing, and attacking the Called Out of God as I was and am devastating her, continuing to undermine, overthrow, and annihilate her.” (1:13)

273“And so (kai) I was and continue to progress (eprokopto – I was accomplishing a great deal, and I persist moving forward, advancing; a compound of pro – before and kopto – cutting, striking, and smiting (scribed in the imperfect, where the writer is portraying the action as an ongoing process which, while initiated in the past, is continuing to occur with no assessment of when if ever it will end, in the active voice, which signifies that the subject, Paulos, is performing the action, and in the indicative mood, whereby the writer is saying that his assessments are genuine and his accomplishments are real)) in (en) the practice of Judaism (Ioudaismos – the Jewish religion), over and beyond (hyper – to a greater degree and for the sake of) many (polys – the preponderance of) contemporaries (synelikiotes – people of similar age) among (en) my (ego) race (genos – progeny, descendants, ethnic group, kin, or nationality), excessively (perissoteros – abundantly and to a much greater degree) enthusiastic (zelotes – zealous, jealous, and excited, devoted, emotional, and burning with passion, vehemently adherent; from zeloo – to burn with zeal, heated, envious, and angry, boiling over) to belong to (hyparcho – to be identical to, to exist with and possess, to be equivalent to and yield to, and to be present with and assimilate (in the present tense Paulos, at this very moment and moving on into the future, is currently striving to embrace Judaism and to incorporate its Oral Law, in the active voice, Paulos is doing whatever it takes to achieve this state, and as a participle, and thus as a verbal adjective, his desire to belong is influencing him with regard to)) the traditions and teachings handed down by (paradosis – to being given over to the word of mouth which has been passed on by) my (ego) forefathers (patrikos – ancestors).” (Galatians 1:14)

First things first. By successively deploying the imperfect tense, Paulos has left no doubt that his unrestrained and depraved behavior and his participation in 274this degenerate religion were not limited to the past experiences but was an ongoing devotion. He was and would continue to be a religiously inspired assassin. And indeed, Paul morphed many of the worst characteristics of Judaism into Christianity, thereby spreading its devastating consequences from a few to many, from Yahuwdym to Gowym.

This confession means that there was no conversion experience on the road to Damascus. Paulos is what Sha’uwl was. Nothing changed. He did not progress from attacking God’s Covenant children to nurturing them, from rabbinical traditions to the Christian religion.

If, as Yahowah asserts, it was Satan, under the guise and moniker of the Lord, who had influenced the Yisra’elites to oppose His Towrah and to reject His Covenant in favor of their Oral Traditions, then as Sha’uwl will later admit, it was the same spirit who appealed to the founder of the Christian religion on the road to Damascus. In his opposition to God, Paulos would display the same attitude and approach now extant throughout the Talmud. And he was just like the authors of Jewish traditions who, while claiming to speak for God, did the opposite.

Likewise, and in the manner of the rabbis, Sha’uwl’s characterization of Yahowsha’ would bear no resemblance to most of the promises made about the Passover Lamb in the Torah or Prophets. The Christian Christ, like the Rabbinic Mashyach, would be estranged from Yahowah. And most penalizing of all, there would be no connection between the Lamb and his fulfillment of the Miqra’ey in the Talmud or these Epistles.

Also, as was the case with the rabbis, Paulos would deploy arguments which made his testimony, at least in the eyes of his adherents, more relevant than, even vastly superior to, God’s. To this day, religious Jews hold their Talmud over the Towrah, just as every religious Christian 275values their “New Testament,” comprised chiefly of Paul’s letters, over the Word of God – and most especially over His Towrah. Nothing changed except the audience.

In these words, Sha’uwl has conveyed and indeed embraced the rabbinical mindset, defining what it means to be an adherent of Judaism. The religion was conceived to zealously indoctrinate the descendants of Ya’aqob so that every religious Jew would have their lives defined and governed by these Oral Traditions. Christianity has had a remarkably similar influence on Gentiles, with nations, communities, and cultures for vast swaths of time often being indistinguishable from the religion.

While we should not have been surprised, the Greek word designating the religious teaching and traditions of Sha’uwl’s elders, paradosis, also means “to surrender, to give up, and to deliver oneself into the hands of others.” It is based upon paradidomai, whose tertiary definition after “surrender” and “to be delivered into custody,” is “to be judged, condemned, punished, put to death, and be anguished because of treachery.”

The fourth connotation conveys “to be taught in such a way as to be molded as a result of verbal reports.” In the realm of etymology, this is especially revealing because it exposes the cause and consequence of religious traditions and teachings. Paul loved his religion. He just hated his people. They would not honor him the way Gentiles have done.

Regarding Sha’uwl’s affinity for Judaism, please consider this confession. Having climbed some stairs to rise above his audience, motioning for them to be silent, and then speaking in Hebrew, Sha’uwl proclaimed: “Men, brothers and fathers (andros adelphos kai pater), you must listen to me (akou mou – now I command you to hear me (aorist active imperative)), to this regarding and against you (tes pros umas – with this advantageously), 276the current and present (nuni – this moment’s) defense and justification (apologia – answer and retort). (Acts 22:1)

As is the case throughout Paul’s letters, he is defending and justifying his credentials and message, not Yahowah’s or Yahowsha’s. It is a broken record figuratively and literally. Rather than encouraging us to listen to God, Sha’uwl is demanding that we listen to him.

Then rather than tell the uplifting story of Yahowsha’, the troubled troubadour continued to tout Sha’uwl from Tarsus...

And then (de) having heard (akouo) that the Hebrew language (oti te Ebraida dialektos) he had been and was continuing to use to address them (prosphoneo autois – he was summoning them, calling them to him by speaking to them (imperfect active indicative)), the more (mallon) they continued to be (parecho) quiet (hesychia – still and silent). And he declares (kai phemi – so he says and affirms), (Acts 22:2)

This serves as one of several indications that the conversations later recorded in Greek throughout the so-called “Christian New Testament” were originally spoken in Hebrew – the language of Yahowah and Heaven. Therefore, any name or concept derived from Greek rather than Hebrew should be discarded. Inclusive of religious perversions, this includes Jesus, Christ, Christian, Gospel, Cross, Church, Grace, resurrection, religion, obedience, worship, holy, hell, and angels in addition to Peter, Paul, John, James, and Matthew, in addition to Jew, among the list of invalid names and corrupt concepts. There is no support for the following in the Greek text: Christmas, Easter, and Sunday as the Lord’s Day, as well as the Eucharist, Communion, and the Trinity were derived from the pagan religious practices of Babylon, Egypt, Greece, and Rome. They cannot be blamed on, but are merely 277reflected in Christianity’s New Testament.

Sha’uwl then admitted...

‘I am (ego eimi – I exist as) a Jewish man (aner Ioudaios – an adult male Jew; an inaccurate transliteration of Yahuwd, meaning Related to Yah), having been born (gennao) in Tarsus (en Tarsos – from tartaroo – being appointed to decide who is held as a captive and cast into hell) of (tes) Cilicia (Kilikia – due south of Galatia in modern-day Turkey).

But then and now (de) having been reared, nourished, and educated (anatrepho – having been brought up, cared for, and trained; from trepho, fed by suckling at the breast, and ana, into the midst) in (en) this (taute) city (polis) alongside (para – from beside) the feet (pous) of Gamaliel (Gamaliel – a transliteration of the Hebrew Gamly’el, from gamal ‘el, meaning to deal with God by repaying God), having been educated and trained (paideuo – having been taught and guided, having been instructed and disciplined in youth, having been chastised, criticized, and reprimanded with words; from pais, a child, slave, servant, attendant, or minister) with regards to (kata – according to) the most perfect and strictest conformity to, being absolutely accurate in exacting accord with (akribeia tou – the very careful, precise, and thorough approach to the fundamentalist and rigorous application of; from akibestatos – the most precise, the strictest, the most exacting and careful interpretation and observation of the most minute precepts of) the forefathers’ (tou patroos – the ancestral) apportionment which was received (nomou – allocation of inheritance which is parceled out), a zealous enthusiast and adherent (zelotes – a devoted and emotional zealot), present and existing (huparchon – equivalent and identical to, belonging to and found at the hand) of God (tou ΘΥ – Divine Placeholder for Theos | God), according to and in the same proportion degree as all of you 278(kathos pas su – inasmuch as you all, just as, and when compared to you all).” (Acts 22:3)

This single proclamation contains several exceptionally inappropriate statements. This man, who claimed to speak for Yahowsha’, wallowed in the idea of being “educated and trained” by a rabbi, the leader of those Yahowsha’ had said “were born of serpents.” It would have been one thing for him to admit in passing that he had once been one of Gamaliel’s students, but it is another altogether to speak of this acclaimed rabbi as if he was filling the role of the Set-Apart Spirit. It is obvious that Paul admired a man Yahowsha’ would have despised.

The problem Yahowsha’ had with Rabbinical traditions, known as the Oral Torah (later codified in the Talmud), is that it changes, corrupts, counterfeits, and conceals Yahowah’s actual “Towrah –Teaching.” So why did Paul call the inheritance which was received from his forefathers “precisely accurate” when Yahowsha’ said the opposite? And speaking of perfect, Sha’uwl used the perfect tense with reference to the training he had received from Gamaliel, saying that while his education was complete, it had lingering effects. Therefore, we must ask: why did Sha’uwl claim to be a religious fundamentalist, to be a zealot in strict conformity with that which was parceled out by his forefathers?

This question is vital because it also suggests that Paul was either a compulsive liar who cannot be trusted or he never converted from Judaism to Christianity – not that one was better than the other. Further, based upon this statement, since Sha’uwl claimed to be in absolute accord with Judaism and its Oral Traditions, the argument cannot be made that he was assailing the Talmud instead of the Towrah throughout his letters. Also, Paul will twice attest that he had not been taught by men, and yet now when it suits him to gain credibility with this audience, he is admitting to have received training from the most 279acclaimed religious scholar of his day. Was he lying then or now?

This is one of the few times Sha’uwl specifically identifies whether it was Yahowah’s Towrah that he was addressing, or the religious traditions of the Jews. And it is one of the few times he speaks favorably of the text. For those who know and love Yahowah, this juxtaposition is sufficient to demean and discount everything Sha’uwl wrote and spoke.

Reinforcing this reality, by placing nomou amongst qualifiers such as the teaching of the Jewish religious scholar Gamaliel, rabbinical training, conformity, being a fundamentalist, adhering to the traditions of the forefathers, and being a zealous enthusiast, the “Torah” Sha’uwl was declaring his loyalty had to be Rabbinic, and thus could not have been Yahowah’s Towrah. So when we are finally given some clarity, the picture being presented is the antithesis of the one painted by God. Set into the context of his overt animosity for Yahowah’s Word, this is especially a-Paul-ing.

It’s becoming apparent through his testimony that Paul loved the religious Law Yahowah and Yahowsha’ despised, and hated the Towrah Yahowah and Yahowsha’ loved. And perhaps that was why he so seldom differentiates between them in Galatians. If he had made his allegiance this obvious in his initial letters, his message would have been summarily rejected by all those who actually knew Yahowsha’.

In this regard it should be noted that of the 219 times the Hebrew word towrah, meaning “teaching, direction, guidance, and instruction,” is found as a proper noun in Yahowah’s Word, in the Greek Septuagint translation of it, towrah was rendered nomos, meaning “an allocation of inheritance which is parceled out,” each time. Recognizing, therefore, the enormity of the Septuagint’s influence on the 280Greek texts which comprise the so-called “Christian New Testament,” a statement including nomos must reference unequivocal modifiers, such as are evident here in Acts, to render nomos as anything other than Yahowah’s “Towrah.” Therefore, throughout this book, unless the context dictates otherwise, we will continue to default to Torah when nomos is found in the Greek text. There is no other informed or rational option.

Addressing Sha’uwl’s concluding comment, “present and existing (huparchon – equivalent and identical to, belonging to and found at the hand) of God,” while religions such as Judaism, while religious leaders such as Gamaliel, and while religious traditions and customs such as those manifest in the Oral Traditions now found in the Talmud seek to nourish “a zealousness for god,” their god isn’t Yahowah. The religious god is a false deity modeled after the men who conceived him.

Some fifteen paragraphs ago, I suggested that Sha’uwl became Paulos and sought the acclaim of Gentiles largely because his own people refused to believe him. Already prone to anger, he became enraged. Should you want additional proof that Sha’uwl despised Yahowah’s Chosen People, consider these impassioned words from his second letter, where he rails against his race for doing what he had done: “You suffered, and under your own countrymen, just as also themselves under the Jews, the ones having killed the Lord Iesoun and the prophets, and having pursued and persecuted us, not pleasing God and hostile adversaries against all men, hindering us as we speak to the races so that they might be delivered. For they are filled to capacity with continuous and eternal sins. So upon them is furious indignation and wrathful judgment unto the end of time.” (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16)

If this unjustified and unbridled religious rant does not bother you, you cannot be bothered. An entire book could 281be written about the many ways this is wrong. Woven as it was on a single thread of truth, this repositioning of Yahowah’s Chosen People as being permanently disinherited, and as being the enemy of all humankind, as being completely evil, has the Adversary’s fingerprints all over it. But at the very least, consider this: was Sha’uwl not a Jew?

Returning to Galatians 1:14, the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear conveyed Paul’s arrogance thusly: “...and I was progressing in the Judaism beyond many contemporaries in the kind of me more exceedingly jealous existing of the fathers of me traditions.” So it is not that the King James is wrong, albeit it is poorly worded, but that it is inadequate, saying: “And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.” Jerome did the passage justice, however. In the LV he wrote: “And I advanced in Iudaismo beyond many of my equals among my own kind, having proven to be more abundant in zeal toward the traditions of my fathers.”

Under Philip Comfort’s guidance, the NLT suggested: “I was far ahead of my fellow Jews in my zeal for the traditions of my ancestors.” It is as if the authors of the New Living Translation felt compelled to change even the simplest messages. Ioudaismos describes “Judaism—the practice of the Jewish religion.” It is not the Greek word for “Jew.” “Judaism” is a religion. “Jews” are a race. The difference is gargantuan.

Sha’uwl’s next statement is also untrue, feeding the myth of predestination and the mythos which became Calvinism. And speaking of mistakes, you should know that the independent clause depicted within the brackets below is not included in the text of Papyrus 46, the oldest extant witness of this letter.

“But (de) at a point in time (hote – when) it pleased 282(eudokeo – it was chosen, preferred, enjoyable and better) for God (ΘΥ – Divine Placeholder for Theos | God), the one (o) having appointed me, setting me aside (aphorize ego – having separated me) out of (ek) the womb (koilia) of my mother (mou meter) [and having summoned me by name (kai kaleo) on account of (dia) his Grace (charis autos)], (1:15)

...to reveal and disclose (apokalypto – to uncover and unveil) the Son (ton ΥΝ) of Him (autou) in (en) order that (hina) I (ego) could announce the healing message and beneficial messenger (euangelizo) among (en) the races and nations (ethnos – the multitudes of people in different places), immediately (eutheos – straightaway, forthwith, without hesitation). I did not ask the advice of or consult with (ou prosanatithemai – I did not confer or communicate with) flesh (sarx – corporeal mass, physical nature, human or animal kind) or blood (kai haima).” (Galatians 1:15-16)

Unpolished in the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear, Paul’s words as he wrote them, read: “When but thought well the God the one having separated me from stomach of mother of me and having called through the favor of him to uncover the son of him in me that I might tell good message him in the nations immediately not I conferred in flesh and blood.”

Sha’uwl wants us to believe that God not only chose him but did so even before he was born. And yet, since this only occurred with Yirma’yah and perhaps, Yahowsha’, Sha’uwl is trying to put himself on par with God’s actual prophets.

It is one thing for God to have known us before we were born, as that simply attests to the nature of His Light, where He can see the past, present, and future as if they were all right now. But choice is sacrosanct with God. The entire purpose of the universe, of life, and of the Towrah is 283for us to have the opportunity, and thus the choice, to know and love God. These options are ours and they necessitate freewill. Even with Abraham and Moseh, arguably the most important individuals in human history, Yahowah asked them. He did not appoint them.

That is not to say, however, that Yahowah was unaware of Sha’uwl. I have already shared two foreboding prophecies about him, and in due time you will be exposed to many more very specific predictions pertaining to the most influential man who ever lived.

Paul will soon speak of a three-year fanciful sojourn to Arabia, the heartland of the Torah, where he claims to have met with God. And yet while the timeline prepared by the historian Luke in Acts makes this trip impossible, the very notion of preparation is contrary to what this passage asserts.

While Paul’s message is nothing more than “reject the Torah and believe in my Gospel of Grace instead,” his condescending attitude and circuitous style make it readily apparent that Paul is a pathological liar with a faulty memory.

He began this letter in Galatians 1:1 with: “Paulos, an apostle and messenger who is dispatched not from men, not even by the means of man,” which would only be true if Gamaliel, Yisra’el’s most acclaimed teacher, was not a man and if Judaism was not a manmade religion.

Then in Galatians 1:12, when he continued with: “But I profess to you brothers of the beneficial messenger which having been communicated by myself, because it is not in accord with man.” This would mean that Paul was lying when he said that he was in full accord with the strictest application of the religious traditions of Judaism in Acts 22:3. Also, his follow-on statement, “But neither because I by man associating myself with it, nor was I taught,” would have to be dishonest if he told the truth 284about the many years he spent in the classroom learning how to argue against the Torah in Rabbinical school at Gamaliel’s feet.

But forgetting for a moment that Paul contradicted himself in the book of Acts when he stood up on the stairs to promote his religious credentials, he undermined his credibility in the 13^th and 14^th statements in this letter when he spoke of his “practice of Judaism,” stating that he “continued to progress in the practice of Judaism over any beyond his contemporaries,” and that he was “excessively enthusiastic to conform to the traditions and teachings handed down by [his] forefathers.” While it is possible to have been taught by both men and God, learning from each, Paul has both emphatically denied and enthusiastically embraced human teaching. And the notion that he was taught by God can only be considered valid if he, a known liar, is considered trustworthy.

So then now in Galatians 1:16, when Paul finally tells the truth, it only makes the situation worse. It is obsessively true that he: “did not ask the advice of or consult with flesh and blood.” But only because the “aggelos – messenger” prodding and controlling him was, by his own admission, Satan’s messenger. Satan is not “flesh and blood.”

It should also be noted that Paul’s unique path was completely unlike (if I may use the errant versions of some of their names for a moment to make a point) Adam, Enoch, Noah, Job, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moseh, Aaron, Yahowsha’, Samuel, David, Ezra, Nehemiah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Joel, Jonah, Hosea, Zechariah, Malachi, Daniel, Yahowsha’, or Yahowsha’s disciples, none of whom received any religious training. There was nothing for them to reject or unlearn as a consequence. And perhaps that is the reason behind Sha’uwl’s conflicting story. There is no denying that he continued to be extremely religious, and it is especially difficult for religious people to deal with the 285truth because they first must abandon most everything they have valued, and then change their attitude, perspective and thinking. Very, very few overtly religious people are capable of doing so. Paul was not.

And it was because Sha’uwl’s past was so dissimilar to those who had previously spoken for Yahowah that he spent a considerable portion of his life promoting his credentials – but never as aggressively as in Galatians. Most new religions grow out of old religions. Buddha’s teachings were considered viable because they grew out of Hinduism, the most popular religion in that part of the world. Muhammad’s Qur’an derives all its credibility from the Talmud, just as rabbis surreptitiously usurped their authority from the Torah. Religions are seldom made from whole cloth but are instead a patchwork of previous traditions. That is what makes them so seductive and ultimately popular. And there is no better example of one religion growing out of another than Pauline Christianity.

It is also interesting to note that, with both Christianity and Islam, their inspiration became their enemy. Muslims turned on the rabbis who had provided the many hundreds of Talmud citations which were bastardized and plagiarized to form the Qur’an, ostensibly because they could prove that rabbis, not Allah, had served as Muhammad’s inspiration. Similarly I suspect, Sha’uwl turned on Judaism because, had he not done so, it would have become obvious that he had stolen their strategy and style.

Shakespeare wrote the line in Hamlet, “the lady doth protest too much, methinks,” to convey what is occurring here. By vociferously repeating his denial, we know, that more than anything else, Paul wanted his audience to believe what he knew to be untrue: that his message came directly from God, as opposed to having originated from man.

286In truth, had Paul been telling the truth, he did not need to convey any of this ad nauseam. Yahowah had long ago established a method for us to determine who spoke for Him, and who did not. God’s test is detailed in Dabarym / Deuteronomy 13 and 18 – so rest assured, we will determine with absolute certainty whether Paul can be trusted regarding his claims of inspiration.

According to the Towrah, there are three aspects to being a productive messenger. The first task is to cull the audience. There is no reason to waste time speaking to religious individuals because the truth will simply bounce off their veneer of faith as they struggle desperately to cling to their beliefs. Next, the ground must be prepared around those who remain. For the seeds of truth to take root, religious swamps must be drained of their stagnant waters, and the weeds of deception must be pulled. In this regard, the most effective weed pullers and swamp drainers are those who are cognizant of the delusions which permeate our societies and have polluted most people. This requires study. And speaking of preparation, we must come to understand Yahowah’s Torah before we try to educate others. Simply stated, to share the truth, you first must know the truth.

During my first pass through this material, I erroneously assumed that Sha’uwl had come to recognize the truth and knew that his forefathers had crafted counterfeit rules and rituals, known as the Oral Law, to compete with Yahowah’s Torah. I had hoped, therefore, that rabbinic tradition had become his primary foe, thinking that he was motivated to expose and condemn the suffocating religious regulations which had enslaved his people. Ideally, I would have liked to have seen him differentiate between man’s religious rites and the healing and beneficial message conveyed in the Torah – the one lived out in history by Yahowsha’. But alas, it was not to be.

287And since Sha’uwl’s story is not going to turn out well, I thought I would substitute my own journey from Christianity to the Torah, from religion to relationship, from believing to knowing, and from faith to trust. I was like Paul in a way. In my youth, I was the youngest ordained ruling elder in the Presbyterian Church. I provided a keynote address while in my teens at the national assembly on denominational reconciliation. I taught evangelism at a very young age, and devoured Christian literature at a prodigious pace. But a time came when I could no longer prop up my faith. There were way too many obvious conflicts between religion and reason for me to believe in Christianity, the religion of my youth, any longer.

A time came when I devoted my life to secular pursuits. As an entrepreneur, and with the help of others, I built three companies from business plans into corporations with sales exceeding one hundred million dollars. I had the privilege of taking two of those companies public. And as a result, at least for a brief moment, I became a billionaire. But a year after having left the management of my last enterprise, I found myself on the cover of an international publication, being publicly humiliated for things I had not done. It was my moment on the road to Damascus (albeit there were no flashing lights).

Fortunately for me, as I wished it had been for Paul, all my prior experiences, the successes and failures, were refined during this crucible of life. It was then that a dear friend taught me to write, and together we wove a word picture of what had happened at my former company, Value America. That story became the book, In the Company of Good and Evil.

Then, almost the moment we were done, Yahowah, the God I barely knew, asked me if I would be willing to do to Islam what I had erroneously anticipated Sha’uwl having had done to Judaism – expose and condemn it based solely 288upon its religious texts. After a brief negotiation, my literary friend and I were off to Israel to ascertain the mindset of Islamic suicide bombers. It was immediately after September 11^th, 2001. Our meeting with al-Qaeda is retold in Tea with Terrorists. It was during this time that I began a journey which would lead me through the pages of the Towrah to the Covenant.

Unlike Sha’uwl, who was already an expert on Jewish scriptural literature, in my quest to expose Muhammad, I had to find and study the oldest Islamic sources to effectively condemn the religion. But like Paul’s alleged experience in Arabia, I spent three years preparing to engage in the spiritual battle against a satanic foe. The result of being immersed in the scriptures of mankind’s most repulsive swamp led to the production of Prophet of Doom – Islam’s Terrorist Dogma in Muhammad’s Own Words. I would ultimately invest five years of my life exposing and condemning Islam on behalf of Yahowah, doing nearly 5,000 hours of talk radio interviews before God finally let me know that we had accomplished what we had set out to do.

But we were not finished working together. Having known what it was like to be a Christian, having traveled to over 150 counties around the world, having learned how Islam corrupts its victims’ ability to think, Yahowah encouraged me to engage in another mission: Yada Yahowah – A Conversation With God. Recognizing that I was utterly unqualified to contribute to what is known about God is perhaps one of the reasons that I was asked. Making flawed instruments shine is one of Yahowah’s specialties. It was present again in An Introduction to God which I would encourage you to consider. The first of these two books recounts Yahowah’s scientific, historic, and especially prophetic testimony to prove beyond any doubt that He exists and that He inspired the Torah and Prophets. The second book reveals what He wants us to know about 289Him. And since that time I have written the five volumes of Observations and the first two of Coming Home.

I share this story with you because, initially, I thought that I understood Paul. I thought that his flaws were my flaws. I initially saw the best and worst of myself in him. But that is no longer the case.

I now see myself as more flawed than ever. After all, I was fooled by this man for a long time. And yet the truth was blatantly obvious, even ubiquitous, but blinded by the religious indoctrination of my past, I missed it. Yet no longer. I now understand Sha’uwl. I know his mindset and strategy. And I recognize his character flaws and his inspiration. Turns out, I have written a book detailing the life of a slightly more perverted and violent version of Paul, but that is a discussion for another chapter.

As I mentioned briefly once before, after coming to realize that Paul was a fraud, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, I wrote other books, each designed to clear all the clutter away so that Yahowah could speak to us directly, Father to child, and reveal His Covenant relationship through His towrah teaching – just as He had with me.

As we return our attention to a more modern swamp, we find that the King James Version continues to render euangelizo inconsistently, preferring “gospel,” unless the context precludes the use of this inaccurate designation. Further, their inclination to translate ethnos, the basis of the English word “ethnic” and “ethnicity,” as “heathen” on some occasions and as “Gentiles” on others is both incriminating and unprofessional. Moreover, there is no basis for the title “God” in the Greek text of this passage. This known, the KJV reads: “But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:” Since “grace” cannot be found in the original 290Greek manuscripts, the King James must have picked it up elsewhere. The Vulgate, perhaps…

Jerome wrote: “But, when it pleased him who, from my mother’s womb, had set me apart, and who has called me by his gratiam, to reveal his Son within me, so that I might evangelizarem him among the Gentibus, I did not next seek the consent of flesh and blood.”

Should God have set Sha’uwl apart out of the womb to conduct this mission, then God would have been with him when he was a pervert and when he was an assassin. God would have been at his side when he was religious and when he was denouncing his religion. And that would make Paul’s god every bit as schizophrenic as his wannabe apostle.

The NLT, obviously infatuated with Grace, not only adds its alluring religious charm without any textual support but calls Grace “marvelous.” The idea of being “set apart” was evidently lost on these theologians. “But even before I was born, God chose me and called me by his marvelous grace. Then it pleased him to reveal his Son to me so that I would proclaim the Good News about Jesus to the Gentiles. When this happened, I did not rush out to consult with any human being.”

By way of review, here is the third stanza of Sha’uwl’s initial epistle:

“For because you heard of my unruly behavior at a time and place during the practice of Judaism, namely that because of my superiority, surpassing any measure of restraint, to an extraordinary degree better than anyone else, I was aggressively and intensely, even systematically pursuing it by persecuting, oppressing, and attacking the Called Out of God as I was and am devastating her, continuing to undermine, overthrow, and annihilate her. (1:13)

291And so I was and continue to progress, accomplishing a great deal, and I persist moving forward in the practice of Judaism, over and beyond many contemporaries among my race, enthusiastic, zealous, and excited, especially devoted and burning with passion to adhere to and assimilate with the traditions and teachings handed down by my forefathers. (1:14)

But at a point in time when it pleased and was chosen to be better for Theos, the one having appointed me, setting me aside out of the womb of my mother (1:15) to reveal and disclose, uncovering and unveiling the Son of Him in order that I could announce the healing message among the multitudes, races, and nations, immediately. I did not ask the advice of or consult with flesh or blood.” (Galatians 1:16)