Questioning Paul

292Questioning Paul

Liars Lie

…Contradicting God

Pseudomai | I Lie

Into the Darkness...

We do not have a copy of the report Sha’uwl received from the Galatians, but it is obvious from his response to them that they were, at the very least, highly suspect of his credentials and his preaching.

“I did not ascend (oute elthon – I did not travel) into (eis) Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem (Hierosoluma – a transliteration of the Hebrew name meaning Source of Information Regarding Reconciliation) toward the goal of being with or against (pros) the Apostles (apostolos – the messengers who are prepared and sent out, from apo sent out, and stello prepared and equipped) before (pro) me (ego), but to the contrary (alla) I went away, withdrawing (aperchomai – I departed) to (eis) Arabia (Arabia – a transliteration of the Hebrew ‘arab, meaning to grow dark), and (kai) returned (hypostrepho) again (palin – once more) to (eis) Damascus (Damaskos – a transliteration of the Hebrew Dameseq, meaning shedding silent tears in sackcloth).” (Galatians 1:17)

So that you know, Papyrus 46 uses elthon in the first clause, not anerchomai as is suggested in later-compiled manuscripts. Less accurate and verbose perhaps, the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear conveys: “But not I went up into Jerusalem toward the before me delegates but I went off into Arabia and again I returned into Damascus.”

Nothing would have been more compelling, more 293reassuring, with regard to Sha’uwl’s credibility, than a trip to Arabia. It would put Sha’uwl in the same conversation with Moseh. Just as the Torah was revealed to Moseh and the Children of Yisra’el on Mount Sinai in Arabia, affirmations regarding its teaching and guidance would have been revealed to Sha’uwl for the benefit of the rest of the world. Only it did not happen.

The first of five compelling reasons to discount the Arabian sojourn is that Paul’s Galatians testimony cannot be reconciled with his own account in Acts 9, which was written a decade later. In his testimony to Luke, Paul’s portrayal of events following his experience on the road to Damascus does not include a trip to Arabia. In the historical account, he claims that his public mission began within days of his spiritual encounter. And since the book of Acts is far better attested and vastly more detailed than Galatians, logic compels us to favor the historian’s authenticated chronology over Galatians, when they conflict.

In this regard, years after his so-called “conversion experience,” Paul told his associate, Luke, who compiled Acts, that he was specifically instructed to spend time with an especially timid man named Ananias – an individual unknown to history apart from Paul’s telling of the events. And while we will consider Sha’uwl’s recollection of this meeting in a moment, the newly minted “Apostle” told Luke that, after spending a few days recovering in the home of his reluctant benefactor from the trauma inflicted by the harassing spirit who besieged him, he immediately began preaching in Damascus.

We read: “He took some food and regained his strength. Now for several days he was with the disciples who were at Damascus, and immediately he began to proclaim Yahowsha’ in the synagogues, saying that he is the son of God.” (Acts 9:19-20)

294There is a considerable difference between spending a few days in a home in Damascus regaining strength, and a long sojourn across the desert to Arabia. As such, Paul either lied to Luke or to the Galatians. Beyond the discrepancy in time, if we are to believe that Sha’uwl met with the “Healing Messenger” as he has so often attested, why did such an encounter be so debilitating?

This says that Paul was “with the disciples.” If true, it means that either he was meeting with two or more of the eleven surviving men who had walked alongside Yahowsha’, who just happened to be in Damascus. And if so, they were so irrelevant to Paul’s story that they went unnamed. Or Paul was lying once more. Moreover, in Galatians, Paulos specifically stated that he initially avoided all contact with the Apostles.

Also, in direct conflict with Galatians, this time the chronology, the next line in Acts reads: “And all those who heard him continued to be amazed. And they said, ‘Is he not the one who in Yaruwshalaim destroyed those who called on this name and who had come here for the purpose of bringing them bound before the chief priests?’” (Acts 9:21)

Annihilating people, as we are told Paulos had done, is very different than bringing them to trial. Also, since the Romans at this time were mostly ambivalent to a person’s perspective on God, inside the Roman province of Yahuwdah | Judea, the chief priests would have had no jurisdiction in such matters, not in Yaruwshalaim, and most especially not in Galatia. This scenario is not only unattested in history, it is incongruent with the evidence.

But Paulos would have us believe: “And then Sha’uwl kept increasing in power (enedunamouto – in raw strength), confounding (sygcheo – baffling, confusing, and causing consternation among) the Jews who lived in Damascus.” (Acts 9:22) Sure sounds like the 295same arrogant fellow we have been reading about in Galatians. All that mattered was that the world should come to see Paul as great.

Well, and he also wanted the world to come to see Jews as lesser lifeforms. After all, just as the rabbis had been with Muhammad, Torah observant Jews knew that he was lying…

“And when many days had elapsed, the Jews plotted together to do away with him, but their plot became known to Sha’uwl. And they were also watching the gates day and night so that they might put him to death.

But his disciples took him by night, and let him down through the wall, lowering him in a basket. And when he came to Yaruwshalaim, he was trying to associate with the disciples, but they were afraid of him.” (Acts 9:23-25)

This reads just like the Qur’an. In all of the early surahs, the Meccans are shown scheming against Muhammad, only to have Allah alert his apostle and foil the plot. It was never true, mind you, in that Muhammad was little more than a whiney nuisance, but the same could be said for Paul in Damascus.

Most of this was fabricated to make Paul seem important. Just as with Yahowsha’, the Jews plotted to kill him. Just like Yahowsha’ in his infancy, he was spirited out of town to spare his life. And just like Moseh, he was lowered into a basket.

I have received over one thousand death threats after having compiled Prophet of Doom, but not once have I ducked for cover, sought the help of others to save me, or fled town. Yahowah protects those who work with Him.

The detailed testimony in Acts which, like Galatians was provided by Paul, is in direct conflict with his first 296epistle:

“I did not ascend into Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem toward the goal of being with or against the Apostles before me, but to the contrary I went away, withdrawing to Arabia | the Darkness, and returned again to Damascus.” (Galatians 1:17) As such, the only possible conclusion is: Paul lied. And if Paul cannot be trusted to tell you about his own life, why would you trust him to tell you about Yahowsha’s life – or your life?

Please pause here a moment. If you are a Christian, the fate of your soul hinges upon your ability to process what you just read.

While Sha’uwl will self-inflict more than a thousand additional self-incriminating lashes on his credibility, this singular stroke is sufficient to undermine everything he had to say. And there is only one reason that Paul would lie about his calling and preparation: he was perpetrating a fraud.

And that is a serious problem considering what he has just written: “Paulos, an apostle, not from men, not even by the means of man, but to the contrary, on behalf of Iesou Christou and God, Father of the one having roused and awakened him out of a corpse, (1:1) and all the brothers with me to the called out of the Galatias, (1:2) Charis | Grace to you and peace from Theos | God, Pater | Father of us and Lord Iesou Christou, (1:3) the one having given himself on account of the sins and errors of us, so that somehow, through indefinite means, he might gouge and tear out, plucking and uprooting us from the past inflexible and unrelenting circumstances and old system which had been in place which is like pornography, disadvantageous and harmful, corrupting and debilitating, maliciously malignant in opposition to the desire and will of Theos | God and Paters | Father of us, (1:4) to whom the 297assessment of the brilliant splendor, the opinion regarding the glorious radiance and appearance of the shining light, by means of the old and the new systems, Amen, let it be so. (1:5)

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. (1:9)

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?

298Yet 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)

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)

And 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 299healing message among the multitudes, races, and nations, immediately. I did not ask the advice of or consult with flesh or blood. (1:16)

I did not ascend, traveling into Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem toward the goal of being with or against the Apostles before me, but to the contrary, I went away, withdrawing to Arabia | the Darkness, and returned again to Damascus.” (Galatians 1:17)

Paul wanted everyone to believe that he was more important and better prepared than Yahowsha’s disciples, and that his calling superseded theirs. According to Paul, both the disciples and he spent three years (based upon Paul’s testimony in the next verse) in Yahowsha’s presence, but Paul, unlike the others, received private, one-on-one instruction. And yet, since Paul’s testimony was false regarding the keystone of his credibility, the entire edifice of Pauline Doctrine crumbles – as does the religion based upon it.

This is not unlike Muhammad’s illusion of the Night’s Journey, in which he claimed to have flown on a winged ass from Mecca to Jerusalem to visit with Hebrew prophets in the Temple – thereby being their peer. Beyond the fact that asses do not fly, the Temple had been destroyed six centuries before the alleged flight. Trying to elicit credibility, Muhammad destroyed his own.

If you are still a Christian, you may not be ready to process what all of this actually means. I rejected Christianity for a relationship with Yahowah twenty years ago, but until a decade ago I could not deal with the errors or the conflicts in Paul’s testimony either.

For example, the “enedunamouto – raw strength” Paul was said to have increased in was a term only he used. The other seven times this verb is found in the Greek texts, they are all in his epistles. Therefore, since it is not said by or of anyone else, we know that this rather egotistical personal 300evaluation came from Paul himself, not his audience or God. Apart from Paul, each time a unique capability is ascribed to an individual it comes from the Set-Apart Spirit and it is called: “dunamis – power,” as it is in Acts 1:8 during the fulfillment of Shabuw’ah | Seven Sabbaths, not “enedunamouto – raw strength”

Also troubling, the first “achievement” Paul would claim on his own behalf was “sygcheo – confounding, baffling, and confusing” Jews. That is the antithesis of Yahowah’s purpose, which is to use His Towrah to teach His children. There is but one spirit who would boast about deceiving others.

A Christian apologist might say that the change in Paul’s behavior and message confused the Jews, but that excuse is undermined by Sha’uwl’s insistence that he remained true to Judaism. Moreover, Luke expressed two separate thoughts, initially saying that those who listened to him were amazed by his oratory. Then after telling us that Paul’s physical power increased, Luke said that Paul went on to befuddle his would-be antagonists. The inference is that he was too clever for them to effectively refute, at least according to Paul.

The alleged plot, whereby the Jews conspired to do away with the self-proclaimed “messenger of god,” which was foiled by way of a revelation and uncanny escape, as I have just mentioned, is virtually identical to the story Muhammad was inspired to tell six hundred years hence at the inception of the Islamic Era. Then, in the immediate aftermath of quoting the Satanic Verses, as I have just shared, Muhammad imagined that he had flown from Arabia to Jerusalem (as opposed to the mythical journey to Arabia) at night, where he visited with Moses and Issa (the Qur’anic “Jesus” which is actually a transliteration of Esau) prior to visiting multiple levels of heaven (something Paul will also claim). Then after the so-called “messenger of god” told the Meccans this tall tale, they conspired to 301kill him, but Allah revealed their plot, and Satan’s messenger slithered out of town by miraculous means under the cover of darkness. It is the same story. So perhaps it was authored by the same spirit. And that is a problem because, in the Qur’an, Allah was modeled after Satan and he brags that he is the best schemer.

The other problems associated with Sha’uwl’s testimony begin with the realization that it is inappropriate for him to have his own disciples – should that be what he was inferring. It is as if he were trying to impersonate Yahowsha’. And further incriminating his account, as I have previously hinted, Jews under Roman dominion had no authority to put anyone to death – especially in Syria – and most especially a Roman citizen, like Paul. The Sanhedrin didn’t have the authority to kill Yahowsha’, which is why they begged the Roman authorities to do it for them. This whole sordid affair is preposterous from beginning to end.

If you are into fairytales, then embrace the notion that this self-proclaimed murderer, this man of enormous physical strength, was, as a newborn prophet “lowered” “in a basket” to save him from baffled and marauding Jews. Surely it was not to replicate the story of Moseh, where God’s messenger was similarly spared from impending death.

The second of five proofs that the Arabian sojourn was a myth is a derivative of Paul’s purpose in writing his first epistle. Galatians was composed to accomplish two goals. Paul wanted to differentiate his message from the Torah, and to accomplish that feat, he would have to be an extraordinarily credible witness. Therefore, the first two chapters focus on establishing his personal qualifications. But since everyone knew that Paul did not walk in Yahowsha’s footsteps and did not thereby benefit from three years of training at his feet as the disciples had done, Paul had to make up a story which would appear to the 302unsuspecting mind to put him on similar footing. Three years in Arabia with Yahowsha’ would do the trick – at least if it were true.

But if Paul’s claim to have met with Yahowsha’ in the Arabian Desert was true then it would make Yahowsha’ a liar. After all, while standing on the Mount of Olives Yahowsha’ warned us: “If anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is the Messiah,’ or ‘There He is,’ do not believe him.” (Matthew 24:23) Yahowsha’ told us that if someone claimed that they had seen a Messiah, just as Paul has done, that they were lying. Do not believe him.

Further impugning Paul, the only one we know of who made these claims, Yahowsha’ went on to say: “For false Messiahs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.

Behold, I have told you in advance. If therefore they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the desert,’ do not go forth, or ‘Behold, He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe him.

For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be. Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.” (Matthew 24:24-28)

This is a deathblow to the veracity of Paul’s testimony. If Yahowsha’ has told us the truth, then Paul was lying about meeting with him along the wilderness road to Damascus and in the Arabian Desert. And if Yahowsha’ was lying, then Paul’s witness on behalf of a liar would be worthless. So since both Yahowsha’ and Sha’uwl spoke about this specific happenstance, and since this issue is central to Paul’s credibility and to the merits of Yahowsha’s advice regarding the reliability of a false prophet claiming to have seen him, a rational person can now close the book on Paul. It is over. His credibility has 303been completely undermined by the very person he claimed to represent. If you have a bible, rip Paul’s letters from its pages.

Yahowsha’ told his disciples that from the moment he left this world to the time Yahowah would return as brilliant as the stars and was seen by everyone at the same time that, anyone who claimed to have seen him, as Paul had now done, was a liar and should not be believed. And yet as clear as this is, as irrefutable as this verdict may be, this realization is but one in many which bury Paul. All that is left for us to do is to watch the vultures gather over his rotten corpse.

Returning to Paul’s desperate, irritatingly repetitive, and almost pathetic attempts at setting himself up as God’s lone authorized prophet to the world, if he had actually met with Yahowah as Moseh had done, his testimony would have been unassailable, should he have described the experience in a written narrative, recounting word for word what Yahowah had said – all in keeping with the Towrah’s narrative. But we have nothing. Not a word from Paul or anyone else has ever been revealed regarding an event which would otherwise have authenticated Sha’uwl’s authority. When you contrast this missed opportunity with Paul’s countless protestations that we should trust him because he was God’s chosen messenger to the world, there is a credibility gap the size of the Great Rift.

Third, in an upcoming chapter (Yaruwshalaim | Source of Reconciliation), we will juxtapose Acts 15 and Galatians 2 in order to demonstrate that Paul’s ability to accurately recount recent events in his life is highly suspect. In this regard, the entire 15^th chapter of Acts is devoted to describing the Yaruwshalaim Summit, sometimes called the “Apostolic Conference,” because this meeting was arguably the most important in Paul’s life, and in the history of Christianity.

304And yet Sha’uwl’s testimony in the second chapter of Galatians conflicts with the historical narrative provided by Luke in Acts in every imaginable way. In fact, it becomes readily apparent that, had Paul not written Galatians, as his rebuttal to Yahowsha’s disciples, his credibility would have been destroyed. But reason tells us that if Paul was willing to write a detailed revisionist account of a meeting, which was well attended and which had occurred within the previous few months, his lone, unsupported assertion that he had gone to Arabia nineteen years earlier to meet with God – for which there were no witnesses nor corroborating testimony – is suspect in the extreme.

Fourth, as it turns out, the reason Sha’uwl was summoned to appear before Yahowsha’s disciples in Yaruwshalaim was that his preaching was in conflict with Yahowsha’s example and the Towrah’s teaching. And since Yahowah’s Word was personally delivered by God to Moseh on Mount Choreb | Sinai in Arabia, the fact that Paul’s message was entirely different means that either the Source of Moseh’s inspiration was hopelessly unreliable or Yahowah was not the source of Sha’uwl’s conflicting mantra. This problem becomes insurmountable when we recognize that should the Towrah be unreliable, Yahowsha’s life, words, and sacrifice were all for naught.

The conflict is acute because the central thrust of Galatians is designed to meticulously belittle and then annul the Towrah. Sha’uwl will say that the Covenant memorialized on Mount Sinai was of Hagar and that it was enslaving as a result. He will speak of the Towrah as being of the flesh, so as to demean it, calling it an outdated and cruel taskmaster. He reports that the Towrah was a burden which no one could bear – the opposite of what Moseh said about this same Towrah.

With Paul writing that the Towrah was incapable of saving anyone, he placed himself in direct conflict with Yahowah’s testimony and Yahowsha’s purpose. 305Regardless, Sha’uwl will write that the Torah’s usefulness had come to an end, effectively annulling it – in direct conflict with Yahowsha’s testimony during the Instruction on the Mount. He will go so far as to say that there are two Covenants when God says that His one and only Covenant is everlasting. Since these messages are the antithesis of one another, Yahowah, who is the acknowledged Author of the Towrah, cannot be the same spirit who served as Sha’uwl’s inspiration.

And fifth, the timeline Paul provided in Galatians, delineating the number of years which transpired between his promotion from rabbinical hitman to his god’s lone messenger and then to the Yaruwshalaim Summit, is too great. According to Paul’s testimony in Acts 9, he spent a considerable time in Damascus amazing the locals while confusing the Jews after his “conversion.” (Acts 9:22-23) He is so proud of himself; we can only assume that the Damascenes were graced with his stellar oratory for the better part of a year. Then he claims to have gone off to Arabia for three years before returning to Damascus (Galatians 1:17-18) only to be lowered down the wall in a basket. (Acts 9:24-25 and 2 Corinthians 11:32-33) His memory betrayed him, his story then changed, and he claimed to be fleeing a government official under the Arabian King Aretas who died in 40 CE. After his first brush with power, he is said to have gone to Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem to meet with Shim’own | Peter and Ya’aqob | James. (Galatians 1:18-19)

Sha’uwl’s | Paul’s travelogue continues through Syria and Cilicia, a journey which collectively transpired over the course of a year. (Galatians 1:21) However, in Acts 9, Sha’uwl adds that he went to Caesarea, bypassing Syria, and then to Tarsus. (Acts 9:30) But then Paul tells us that he was summoned to the Yaruwshalaim ekklesia “after the passage of another fourteen years.” (Galatians 2:1) That is a total of nineteen years.

306Dark years, as it would transpire, because we do not have a record of any sermon or any letter from Sha’uwl during the decade after his alleged promotion from murderer to preacher. In fact, during much of this period, it is apparent that god’s self-proclaimed messenger to the world went into hiding. And that is a far cry from the “immediacy” of his mission in Galatians 1:16.

But speaking of time, the timing of the Yaruwshalaim Summit is well-documented. It is dated to 50 CE. So, if you subtract nineteen years, Sha’uwl’s abuse at the hands of the prodding spirit on the road to Damascus would have occurred in 31 CE, two years before Yahowsha’ fulfilled Passover. And if that were not sufficiently incriminating, according to Sha’uwl, he had spent a protracted period of time building an international reputation as a ruthless assassin of Yahuwdym before encountering the flashing light that blinded him. If he was telling the truth about being bad, it would indicate that his “conversion” occurred in 29 CE, a year before Yahowsha’ chose his disciples. That also means that his pursuit of the ekklesia would have begun four or five years before it was conceived.

There is an old adage which says that the problem with lying is remembering what you said. These events represented the pivotal moments in Sha’uwl’s life, so they would have been forever etched in his memory. But since the truth did not serve his interests, and since his reality did not fit his ego, he lied, making up stories of daring do so he could not recall from one occasion to the next. It is why we have three different depictions of his alleged conversion experience, another problem we will detail in upcoming chapters.

Since Sha’uwl has regaled us in a fictitious rendition of his initial ministry, I would like to linger a moment longer in the 9^th chapter of Acts before we return to Galatians. In Paul’s first and second, but not his third, accounting of his adventure on the road to Damascus, he 307was asked to meet with a fellow named Ananias, who was reluctant due to Sha’uwl’s burgeoning reputation as an uncivilized brute. So according to Paul, after Ananias hesitated to tutor the now blind and lame would-be apostle, “the Lord” intervened a second time, saying (according to Paul):

“But then (de) the Lord [o kurios – the ruler and master who possesses (without a pre-Constantine manuscript of this verse, it’s appropriate to deploy the title Paul would have used as he spoke on behalf of his Lord while recounting the affair to Luke)) spoke (lego) to (pros) him (autos), ‘Go (poreuomai) because (hote – namely) he is (estin) my (moi) chosen (ekloge – a selected) instrument (skeuos – object and vessel), the one (outos tou) to carry or carry away (bastazo – to take up and bear, to tolerate and to put up with, to endure and sustain the yoke and weight) my (mou to) name (onoma – and reputation) so that it is seen by (enopion – so as to be witnessed by; a compound of en – in and optanomai – to look at and to be seen (the Lord said of the blind man)) the nations and races (ethnos), kings (basileus), and (kai) children of Yisra’el (uios Israel).

Because (gar) I (ego) by him will provide a glimpse into intimate secrets which have been concealed (hypodeiknymi auto – under him will show and suggest, pointing out using words and arguments to warn; from hupo – by and under and deiknuo – to show and reveal, to indicate and point out), as much as is necessary (hosos – to the degree, amount, and duration), as it is currently required and actually inevitable (dei – it is now compulsory, expected, and in fact necessary, actively binding, and realistically fitting (present tense, active voice, indicative mood)) for him (auton) for the sake of (hyper – because and on behalf of) my (mou) name (tou onoma – the designation, person, and reputation) to suffer through this experience (pascho – to undergo this ordeal, 308vexed, afflicted, and ultimately enduring death (the aorist tense speaks of a moment in time unrelated to any plan or process, the active voice indicates that the subject is performing the action of the verb, meaning that Paulos is causing the speaker to suffer, while the infinitive makes this verb read like an active noun)).’” (Acts 9:15-16)

While I am sharing this to point out yet another inconsistency in Paul’s story, I would be remiss if I did not share why I consider this to be the most egotistical nonsense I have ever read – and that is saying a lot since I have written Prophet of Doom to chronicle Muhammad’s repulsive existence. Dowd | David was Yahowah’s Chosen One, not Sha’uwl. Beyond having Yahowah’s testimony boldly confirming this throughout the 89^th Mizmowr | Psalm for all to witness (Coming Home, Volume 1, Chapter 10, To Dowd or Not to Dowd – The Root of Replacement Theology), one would have to wonder why Dowd is returning with Yahowah to be King of the Earth, and Sha’uwl was presented in the Psalm as “the Son of Evil,” if Paul was God’s preferred implement. Moreover, Paul was diligent in telling us his given and chosen names, but never once correctly conveyed Yahowsha’s name. Further, Yahowsha’s name is not the one that matters, it is Yahowah’s name, and Sha’uwl | Paul never once mentioned it to anyone. Paul, by lying about this, is arrogantly claiming that he was replacing Dowd | David, becoming God’s lyricist.

Even the priorities of Paul’s Lord are telling. Having chosen Sha’uwl to replace Dowd, and inverting the Prophets, the Son of Evil was to go to the Gentiles first, meeting with their kings, and only then to the Children of Yisra’el. And as it would transpire, that is what Sha’uwl | Paul would do. It would not be to share Yahowah’s name, but instead to inspire the kings and their nations to join him and turn on Yisra’el, replacing and then removing them from the Earth.

309Yahowah has conveyed His message in His Towrah, through His Prophets, and within Dowd’s Psalms. There is nothing more we need to know – especially God’s “secrets,” the things He has deliberately concealed because they are not needed for us to respond as we should to His instructions. In the Towrah, we read: “That which has been deliberately concealed and not revealed (ha sathar) is for Yahowah (la Yahowah), our God (‘elohym ‘anachnuw), while (wa) that which has been made known, revealed and exposed (ha galah) is for us and for our children (la ‘anachnuw wa la beny ‘anachnuw) as an eternal witness for all time (‘ad ‘owlam) so that we may engage, acting upon (la ‘asah) everything that is conveyed through the words (‘eth kol dabary) of this Towrah | Guidance and Teaching (ha Towrah ha zo’th).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 29:29) Trying to present himself as more insightful and vital than Moseh, Sha’uwl has scuttled his credibility once again.

As for causing Sha’uwl to “pascho – suffer,” that is indeed the sentence he has earned. Paul will endure it with his Lord and inspiration, the Adversary, in Hell.

Previously, Paul claimed that Ananias told “the Lord” that: “he had heard from many about the man who had to the greatest extent possible done immoral and injurious things to your holy ones in Jerusalem, and that here [in Damascus, Syria] he [Paul] has authority from the chief priests to forcefully bind and imprison everyone calling on your name.” This was just another contrived fable designed to make Paul look as if he were the chosen one, even of the High Priests – a man to be reckoned with or else….

Contradicting Paul’s claim, historians of this period acknowledge that there were no Jewish “high priests” outside of Jerusalem, much less in Damascus, Syria. And outside of Israel, the priests would have had no authority whatsoever. And had there really been a man named 310“Ananias,” since it is based upon the Hebrew Chananyah, meaning “Mercy is from Yahowah,” he would have known that Yahowah did not need or want the help of an incarcerating rabbi.

Turning to the alleged testimony from Sha’uwl’s Lord, knowing that Yahowsha’ chose twelve disciples at a time when Sha’uwl was available in Jerusalem and not selected, we are now to believe that Paulos, as a reward, I presume, for being especially immoral and injurious, was the chosen one. This resolutely religious and evil man claimed to be the “implement” of God, which is tellingly similar to “Ma’aseyah – the Implement Doing the Work of Yahowah,” even to Chrestus | Useful Implement. It is yet another attempt to position himself as God’s co-messenger, co-savior, messiah, and king of kings.

But consider what this “Lord” wanted Sha’uwl, the man who changed his name to Paulos, to do with his “onoma – name and reputation.” “The Lord” did not select Sha’uwl to introduce his name, explain his name, share his name, proclaim his name, invite people to Yahowah using his name, or save people in his name, even say his name, all things which would have been vitally important, and none of which Paul actually did. “The Lord,” which is Satan’s title, from the name, “Ba’al,” chose Sha’uwl to “bastazo – remove and carry away the burden” of his name and reputation. That is something Satan craves and Yahowsha’ disdains. This is because Yahowsha’s name is uplifting, describing the means God deploys to carrying away our burdens.

However, Satan’s reputation as the “Adversary” needs to be jettisoned for him to beguile souls into worshiping him as if he were God. By selecting bastazo, “the Lord” has to be Satan, who is the only one who would benefit from having the “burden” of his adversarial name and reputation “removed and carried away.” It would be senseless and counterproductive for God to ask for such a 311thing.

And then we find Sha’uwl’s Lord mimicking Paulos’ mantra, which is revealing secrets. Sha’uwl even has his Lord say that the selection and implementation of Paulos was not only inevitable, it was actually compulsory and required. As for suffering, Yahowsha’s sacrifice on our behalf was not only part of a very specific plan, it was also now long past, so once again, he cannot be Paul’s Lord. But Satan’s ordeal would endure.

If we are to believe Sha’uwl’s testimony here, the three years Yahowsha’ spent with his disciples was a colossal waste of time. All of the prophecies and instructions that Yahowsha’ shared with Shim’own | Peter would be hereby nullified. His name would have not only been irrelevant, it was a burden he wanted removed. And to believe Paul, the Lord had no choice, no say in the matter, no freewill. He was compelled to turn to Paul.

Not that we require more evidence to distrust Sha’uwl, but this statement contradicts Paulos’ testimony throughout Galatians, where he divides the world, giving Shim’own, Ya’aqob, and Yahowchanan | Peter, James, and John responsibility for the Jews, while he assumed authority over every other nation and race. Not so according to his Lord. And lastly, even if we discount the troublesome vocabulary, if Sha’uwl’s mission was to “bastazo – carry,” but not “bastazo – carry away,” Yahowah’s name to every race and place, then he failed miserably. Not one Christian in a million knows the proper pronunciation of God’s name.

But since Christians the world over know and proclaim the “Lord’s” name, Satan was obviously the spirit who chose Sha’uwl. Fixated as they both were on immorality and injury, on submission and death, on secrets and concealment, they were a match made in She’owl | Hell. After all, Sha’uwl’s testimony has been dishonest, 312making the Lord Ba’al’s seed the Son of Deception.

As an interesting study, consider how many false gods have been called “the Lord.” Ba’al, which means “lord,” was the dominant deity of the Canaanites, of the Phoenicians, of the Babylonians, and of the Assyrians. The Philistines worshiped the infamous Baalzebub. Remarkably, the center of Ba’al / Lord worship was in the town of “Ba’al Chermown – the Lord of Destruction.”

In that we first considered Galatians 1:17 several pages ago, let’s review it again in advance of presenting the Christian renditions. “I did not ascend, traveling into Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem toward the goal of being with or against the Apostles before me, but to the contrary, I went away, withdrawing to Arabia | the Darkness, and returned again to Damascus.” It would have been a different story, if only it were true.

These translations are passable (notwithstanding that there is no “J” in Hebrew, Greek, Latin or even in English prior to the 17^th century). KJV: “Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.” It reads similarly to the Latin Vulgate: “Neither did I go to Ierosolymam, to those who were apostolos before me. Instead, I went into Arabiam, and next I returned to Damascum.” The NLT published: “Nor did I go up to Jerusalem to consult with those who were apostles before I was. Instead, I went away into Arabia, and later I returned to the city of Damascus.”

You will notice, however, that all three texts made a reasonable attempt to transliterate the Hebrew names for Yaruwshalaim, ‘Arab, and Dameseq. So why were they all unwilling to transliterate Yahowsha’ accurately?

By way of background, Sha’uwl (meaning Question Him (and indistinguishable from She’owl, the place of questioning more commonly called Hell)) was born and 313initially educated in Tarsus, the capital of the Roman province of Cilicia. It is on the Mediterranean coast of what is southern Turkey today. It lies directly south of Galatia, the Roman province he was addressing with his first letter. At the time, it was home to the world’s preeminent university. Sha’uwl’s father was both Jewish, from the tribe of Benjamin, and a Roman citizen – things which will loom large as this story unfolds. His father may also have been a Pharisee, which would affirm why Sha’uwl remained a religious fundamentalist.

For a frame of reference, it is about a five-hundred-mile hike from Tarsus south-southeast to Damascus. Similarly, Mount Choreb (also known as Mount Sinai) in Arabia, is another 500 miles by foot, almost due south of Damascus (Choreb is directly east of Nuweiba on the west coast of the Gulf of Aqaba and is known as Jabal al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia). Jerusalem lies between the two, less than two hundred miles south-southwest of Damascus.

After lying, and telling us that he went to Arabia, but not even bothering to humor us with a word of what was spoken there, Sha’uwl revealed exactly how long he remained in the wilderness. And that is odd because other than incriminate him, the one detail he shared was otherwise irrelevant.

“Then later (epeita – thereafter in the sequence of events), after (meta – with) three (treis) years’ time (etos), I ascended up (anerchomai – I went up) to (eis) Yaruwshalaim (Hierosoluma – transliteration of the Hebrew name meaning Source of Guidance Regarding Reconciliation) to visit and get acquainted with (historeo – went to inquire about and investigate, hoping to gain knowledge by becoming familiar with) Kephas | Rock of Reconciliation (Kephas – transliteration of the Hebrew word keph – hollow of a rock (Strong’s H3710); from kaphah – to pacify or subdue, kephah – branch, kephel – doubling dealing, kaphan – to be twisted and bent, kaphaph 314– to bow down, and/or kaphar – to reconcile, a reference to Shim’own, who became Petros (a transliteration of the Greek word for stone), and is known today as Peter) and remained (kai meno – stayed and persevered, endured and abided, continuing to persist) against (pros – to, at, among, or with) him (autos) fifteen (dekapente) days (hemera).” (Galatians 1:18)

While it may be relevant, Papyrus 46 uses meno for “stayed” in the final clause, while later scribes wrote epimeno, a related word which is much more emphatic with regard to Sha’uwl remaining in close proximity to Shim’own. However, since the Nestle-Aland was compiled from the most popular texts, not the oldest manuscripts, their McReynolds Interlinear was oblivious to the alteration. “Then after years three I went up into Jerusalem to visit with Cephas and I stayed on toward him days fifteen.”

It is instructive to know that Moseh was on Mount Choreb | Sinai for 40 days, during which time he received the Towrah – a three-hundred-page book with prophecies so astounding and insights so profound, the resulting document left no doubt that it was inspired by God. And yet if we are to believe Paul’s story here in Galatians, as opposed to his story in Acts, Sha’uwl was in Arabia three years. And this pathetic letter is the product of all that time. Rather than being equipped to share Yahowah’s Towrah – Teaching as Moseh had been, and explain how Yahowsha’ had honored one of its most essential promises by fulfilling the initial Miqra’, we get an angry and egotistical diatribe that serves to negate everything God has said and done.

The interesting nuance in this passage is one we considered earlier. Sha’uwl may have been more comfortable communicating in Hebrew than he was in Greek. Recognizing that “Petros,” meaning “rock or stone” in Greek, was not Shim’own’s actual name, but instead his nickname, Sha’uwl was at liberty to transliterate it into 315Greek – which he did, retaining the Hebrew pronunciation and meaning. The official language of Tarsus would have been Latin. Aramaic would also have been spoken as a result of the Babylonian, Assyrian, and Persian influence in the region. And Hebrew would have been the lingua franca of rabbinical school.

Therefore, we should be mindful of the fact that if a statement is being made by God, or if two Yisra’elites are in the midst of a discussion, then the Greek text represents a translation of what was conveyed in Hebrew. The reference to the Disciple Shim’own as “Kephas” keeps us mindful of this distinction, which is true for the entirety of the eyewitness and historical accounts.

If this is the nickname Yahowsha’ offered Shim’own during his alleged revelation regarding Yahowsha’s identity, it could have either been in recognition that the fulfillment of the Miqra’ would bring “kaphar – reconciliation.” Or it could have been a slight, “kaphah – pacifying” Shim’own for now knowing that he would be subject to Sha’uwl’s “kephel – double-dealing,” his words “kaphan – twisted and bent” to serve Paul and his Lord. This may be the reason that Yahowsha’ reprimanded “Kephas” at the time, telling Satan to back away.

But now that we know that Shim’own’s nickname was based upon a Hebrew word, there is no justification for translating his new name to petras and then transliterating it as “Peter.” And this also means, there is no “Saint Peter” associated with Yahowsha’ or disciple by the name “Peter.”

It is a distinction, however, which was lost on Francis Bacon and his associates. But other than changing the name of the place and person, the rest of the KJV is reasonably accurate with regard to this otherwise insignificant verse. “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.” LV: “And then, after 316three years, I went to Ierosolymam to see Petrum; and I stayed with him for fifteen days.” NLT: “Then three years later I went to Jerusalem to get to know Peter, and I stayed with him for fifteen days.”

Speaking of names, the next passage destroys one of the foundational claims of Catholicism, in addition to devastating the foundation of Protestantism.

“But (de) other (heteros – different) of the Apostles (ton apostolos – of those who were prepared messengers and were sent out), I did not see (ou eidon – I did not pay attention to, concern myself with, or understand) except (ei me – if not) Ya’aqob | Jacob (Iakobos – a transliteration of the Hebrew Ya’aqob who became Yisra’el but then changed to “James” to appease the British king), the (tov) brother (adelphos – male sibling) of the Lord (tou ΚΥ – a placeholder used to convey kurios, giving the Greek word for lord and master a Divine sheen).” (Galatians 1:19)

In the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear, these same words were either translated or misrepresented to say: “Other but of the delegates not I saw except [not applicable] Jacob the brother of the Master.”

While it is impossible to know for certain if Paul actually wrote “Kuriou – Lord,” only to see his nomenclature replaced by a scribe who sought consistency and uniformity with the Septuagint and subsequent accounts of Yahowsha’s life, or whether Paul used the placeholders, knowing that if he didn’t, his letters would differ from the Septuagint and from the disciples, this leaves us in a bit of a quandary. Should these passages be translated as Paul likely intended, or as the placeholders might portend – at least as used in the Septuagint?

The reason this verse should be troubling to Protestants is that it undermines the credibility of the King James Bible, and indeed the credibility of every English translation since that time. While Sha’uwl correctly 317transliterated the name of Yahowsha’s brother, Ya’aqob, Francis Bacon changed his name to match that of his king’s. The King James Version therefore reads: “But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.”

The political mindset required to justify altering the name of Yahowsha’s brother, Ya’aqob, so that he would forever be known by the name of the reigning English monarch, is the same twisted mentality required to justify copyediting God and His messengers whenever it suits a religious purpose. Such men cannot be trusted – nor can their institutions or translations.

But what does this say about the attitude of those in the ministry today who know that this was done and yet have done nothing to correct the record – preferring instead to perpetrate the myth? Even to this day, in Christian bibles, King James’ name sits atop the letter written by Ya’aqob.

This literary fraud exposes the lack of moral character present among Christian leaders who continue to accept the wholesale infusion of Babylonian religious rites and symbols into Christendom. While it is one man’s name, it is indicative of how the Towrah was replaced by “Gratia / Grace” in “Christianity,” of how Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children became “Easter,” how the Shabat celebration with Yahowah became “Sunday worship of the Lord.” It is how Yahowah became “the Lord,” and how Yahowsha’, the Passover Lamb, became “Jesus Christ” to Christians.

This statement, however, contains an even bigger problem for Catholicism – a religion fabricated on the Babylonian presentation of the Madonna and Child, upon the Mother of God and the Queen of Heaven. Catholicism requires that Mary remain a virgin, and that she never age nor die. But this statement from Paul’s pen clearly states that Ya’aqob was Yahowsha’s brother, as do many other 318passages. So Jerome was in a pickle.

Therefore, after writing: “But I saw none of the other apostolorum, except Iacobum, the brother of the Domini,” Jerome was forced to add the following to the Latin Vulgate: “This Iacobum is Iacobum the Less, who stayed in Ierosolymam, while the other apostolorum went out to preach the evangelium to the world. He functioned as the spiritual leader of the city where Christi preached and died; he was the Bishop of Ierosolymam. He was called the brother of the Domini because he was a cousin of Iesu, and also because he was similar in appearances to Iesu.” It was all untrue, every word of it, and Jerome knew it. But religious leaders will say and do anything to perpetuate the myths which empower and enrich them.

And yet now, with the benefit of over one hundred manuscripts dating to within three centuries of the actual witnesses, all of which affirm that Yahowsha’s brother was Ya’aqob, today’s esteemed religious scholars and theologians are still unwilling to convey the truth. Those associated with the New Living Translation failed to correct the political malfeasance in the King James. “The only other apostle I met at that time was James, the Lord’s brother.” So much for religious integrity and biblical inerrancy. Because familiarity sells, had they not included a book named after the English King, too few Christians would have purchased their bibles for them to have profited from the endeavor.

Galatians 1:19 was otherwise inconsequential, and yet it laid two religions bare. The moral of the story is: you cannot trust men guided by religion or politics.

Seen as a collective whole, Sha’uwl’s fifth paragraph reads: “I did not ascend, traveling into Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem toward the goal of being with or against the Apostles before me, but to the contrary, I went away, withdrawing to Arabia | the Darkness, and returned 319again to Damascus. (1:17)

Then later in the sequence of events, after three years’ time, I ascended to Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem to visit, investigate, and inquire about Kephas | Rock of Reconciliation and remained against him fifteen days. (1:18)

But other of the Apostles, I did not see or concern myself with except Ya’aqob | Jacob, the (tov) brother of the Kurios | Lord.” (Galatians 1:19)

My initial inclination in composing this review was to pass over these positioning statements and move directly into the substance of the arguments Christians raise from Paul’s writings to dismiss the Torah. And yet by studying them, we have come to know that Paul cannot be trusted. It was worth the effort.



Sha’uwl’s next statement is troubling on three separate fronts. He wrote: “But now (de – because then) what (o – this means that which) I write (grapho – using a pen to form letters on papyrus I communicate in writing) to you (umin), you must pay especially close attention to (idou – you are ordered to intently look at, focus upon, behold, carefully consider, and remember this command (in the imperative mood this is a command)) in the presence (enopion – before and in front of) of Theos | God (tou ΘΥ – Divine Placeholder for Theos | God), because (oti) I cannot lie (ou pseudomai – mislead or deceive, speak falsely or communicate that which is not true).” (Galatians 1:20)

This message is wholly dissimilar to that of Yahowah’s prophets and Yahowsha’s disciples. They wrote “Thus says Yahowah…,” or “Yahowsha’ said…,” 320but Sha’uwl proclaims “But now what I write to you, you have to pay especially close attention to.” Those who speak for God, speak God’s words, because they know that their choice of words pales in comparison to His. Even Yahowsha’ quoted the word of God: “For He (Yahowsha’) whom God has sent, speaks the words of God.” (Yahowchanan / Yah is Merciful / John 3:34)

Even when we incorporate “in the presence of Theos,” this gets worse. Paul would have the faithful believe that they must read his words in God’s presence. Why? Does he want us to torture Him?

We read Yahowah’s words to enter Yahowah’s presence. There would be no point of reading what God told us in front of the One who shared these things. He already knows what He said.

The only rational conclusion which can be drawn from the statement, “I cannot lie,” is that the one who made it is a liar. No man has or ever will tell the truth all of the time. As such, this statement alone rendered this epistle worthless. And in reality, based upon what we have read thus far, Paul has made many more invalid statements than accurate ones. But on the bright side, this means that Paul was telling the truth when he said that he was vicious and perverted, not to mention possessed by one of Satan’s demons.

Liars lie, that is what liars do.

Further exposing Sha’uwl, the Greek word for “writing a letter” is epistello, from which we get the English word “epistle.” But it was not used, even though it would have been the perfect verb to state: “I’m writing a letter to you.” And while grapho simply means “writing,” the term was often deployed by Yahowsha’, albeit through translation, to say, “It is written (grapho) in the Torah and Prophets.” But what is particularly telling here is that Sha’uwl has set his “grapho – writing” in the context of 321something which “must be evaluated in the presence of God because I cannot lie.” And in that context, Paul is expressing that he wanted his letters to be seen as “Scripture,” equivalent to the Word of God in Christian parlance. And nothing could be further from the truth.

As we consider Christian bible publications, the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27^th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear provides a somewhat unbiased approach: “What but I write to you look before the God [not applicable] not I lie.” Turning to the King James Version, it is apparent that Christians desire the rationally impossible, for Paul to “truthfully contradict” God. And that is why the King James Bible says: “Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.” And it is once again obvious that the King James was a revision of the Latin Vulgate, which reads: “Now what I am writing to you: behold, before God, I am not lying.”

As we consider the NLT, this statement, when converted to follow English grammar rules, begins with “o – what, not “ego – I.” Further, there are many Greek words which can be translated “declare” (endeixis – to prove by declaring, apaggello – to communicate a message, gnorizo – to make known, diegeomai – to describe by way of narration, ekdiegeomai – to relate, kataggello – to announce, and euaggelizo – to bring a beneficial message), but none of these appear in Sha’uwl’s epistle. So why then did the New Living Translation publish: “I declare before God that what I am writing to you is not a lie.” Desperate is as desperate does, I suppose.

Returning to Sha’uwl’s flight of fancy, we find:

“Thereafter (epeita – later then), I came (erchomai – I moved toward and happened upon) to (eis) the regions (ta klima) of Syria (tes Suria – a transliteration of the Hebrew sowr, meaning scorched rocks) and also of Cilicia (kai tes Kilikia – the Roman province in today’s southern 322Turkey were Sha’uwl was born). (1:21)

But (de) I was (eimi) not known or understood (agnoeo – not ignorant, neither recognized or disregarded) personally (to prosopon – by appearance as an individual) by the (tais) Called Out (ekklesia) of Yahuwdah | Beloved of Yah | Judah (tes Ioudaia – transliteration of the Hebrew name, meaning Related to Yah, errantly transliterated Judea) in (eis) Christo (ΧΡΩ – Divine Placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement to usurp the Septuagint’s credibility and infer Divinity).” (Galatians 1:22)

As we know, Sha’uwl was born and raised in Cilicia (Acts 22:3). He was the son of a prominent Roman citizen. If he was known anywhere, it would have been there. But should he have been telling the truth, he also would have been known to the Called Out Yahuwdym in Yahuwdah because he just said that he had met with Shim’own Kephas | Peter and Ya’aqob | “James” – the leaders of that Assembly. And while I suppose that it was possible, albeit unlikely, that Sha’uwl was unknown in these communities, moments ago he claimed that his reputation preceded him. These assessments cannot all be true.

Also troubling, in Acts 9, Paul tells us that he went to Caesarea, which is on the Judean coast, before traveling to Tarsus, Cilicia, and thus bypassing Syria. While it is just a detail, the inconsistency is troubling juxtaposed against “I cannot lie.”

Turning first to the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear, we find: “Then I went into the regions of the Syria and the Cilicia. I was but being unknown in the face to the assemblies of the Judea the in Christ.” The King James manages to properly transliterate Syria and Cilicia, but can’t seem to do the same for ekklesia, Yahuwdah, or Ma’aseyah. KJV reads: “Afterwards I came into the 323regions of Syria and Cilicia; And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:” Jerome did a reasonable job transliterating ekklesia and Yahuwdah but must have thought that Yahowsha’ was a Greek bearing gifts. His Latin Vulgate says: “Next, I went into the regions of Syriæ and Ciliciæ. But I was unknown by face to the ecclesiis Iudææ, which were in Christo.”

Sha’uwl has made a habit of including the definite article before every title, from “the God” to “the Lord.” And in this sentence, even the title “ekklesia” was scribed “tais ekklesia – the Called Out.” So it is telling that he has not yet included the definite article before the title of the individual he claims to be representing. And yet since “Christo” isn’t a name, what options are available to us other than to conclude that Sha’uwl wanted readers to consider it as such?

Philip Comfort, the overall coordinator of the “New Testament” passages which comprise the New Living Translation, emphatically reveals on pages 224 and 225 of his Encountering the Manuscripts that he is aware that the initial Followers of the Way were called “Chrestucians,” not “Christians.” And he knows that in all three references to these individuals in the Greek texts – Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28, and 1 Peter 4:16 – that the oldest, most reliable manuscripts, including the vaunted Codexes Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, read “Chrestucians” not “Christians.” Furthermore, Philip Comfort is keenly aware that neither “Chrestucians” nor “Christians” appear in any other passage. So why do we find “Christians” in Galatians 1:21-22? “After that visit I went north into the provinces of Syria and Cilicia. And still the Christians in the churches in Judea didn’t know me personally.” Christian publishers must believe that their religious readers do not care that the “evidence” they are presenting is invalid.

While there is no textual basis for the NLT’s use of “that visit,” “north,” “still,” “me,” or “personally,” Mr. 324Comfort’s most egregious crime was changing “ekklesia – called-out assembly” to “church,” and then associating this “church” with the nonexistent “Christians.” It is as if he felt that he was at liberty to assist Paul in the creation of a new religion.

If you follow the link on the NLT’s homepage to “Philosophy & Methodology,” you will find that they don’t acknowledge the methods they have deployed in creating their “translation.” They simply list a pair of “philosophies” and a “method.” And both philosophies are opposed to the liberal transformations we have witnessed in most every NLT passage. They say:

Essentially Literal (free only where absolutely necessary): This philosophy is reluctant to “clarify” the meaning of the text, though it is open to doing so when absolutely necessary for understanding. It holds English style at a higher value than the more literal approach and often adjusts syntax to help it read better, even if this makes it less literal.

Dynamic Equivalent (free where helpful to clarify meaning): This philosophy is open to “clarify” the meaning of the text whenever a literal rendering of the text might be confusing to the normal, uninitiated reader. This does not mean it deviates from the text; on the contrary, it does whatever is helpful to ensure that the text’s meaning comes through in English. In general, such translations try to balance the concerns of both functional equivalence and literal approaches.

Based upon what we have experienced thus far, nothing the NLT has published has been “essentially literal.” They have shown no “reluctance to ‘clarify’ the meaning of the text.” So we must assume that either they don’t abide by this philosophy (and that it was stated as a diversion), or they believe that it was “absolutely necessary” to revise, ignore, change, or extrapolate most 325everything Sha’uwl wrote.

I recognize that this is standard operating procedure in politics, where even though the public has access to their constitution, their elected officials reinvent its meaning on a daily basis. But Paul’s epistles are positioned as the inerrant word of God, making this practice an outright fraud.

As for their pervasive use of what they call “dynamic equivalence,” we must conclude that they believe everything Sha’uwl had to say would have been “confusing to the normal, uninitiated reader.” And that means that if Galatians is to be considered “Scripture” (in the Christian sense of being inspired by God), then the folks working for the New Living Translation believe that God is a very poor communicator. And I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that the concept of being “initiated” in a religion, especially its mysteries, dates back to the Babylonians. And yet it is something Paul has continued to promote.

While it is egotistical in the extreme, not to mention ignorant, irrational, and foolish, to place one’s writing style and ability above the Creator of the universe (or even above someone claiming to speak for him), the NLT’s claim that they do not use dynamic equivalence to “deviate from the text” is laughably inaccurate.

But none of that really matters. This pedantic posturing was designed to take your attention away from the method they deployed.

Paraphrase (free for clarity and to catch attention): This method is normally used by an individual translator, while the other methods usually employ committees of scholars. Creativity and style are extremely important here; the translator sometimes tries to catch the attention of readers in a fresh way, seeking to jolt and surprise them into understanding.

326The New Living Translation is so “fresh,” so “jolting and surprising,” it is as if Philip Comfort and Company (a.k.a., Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.) felt as if God, Himself, needed them to write another bible.

Leaving one fictional realm, and returning to another, we find the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear suggesting that Paul concluded his opening statement by writing: “Alone but hearing they were that the one pursuing us then now he tells good message the trust which then he was ravaging (1:23) and they were giving splendor in me the God.” (1:24)

Grammatically, this next statement is odd in that Sha’uwl | Paul is writing in the second, third, and finally first person. Also strange, the verbs were scribed in the present tense, suggesting that the attacks were continuing.

“But then (de) only (monon – alone) they were constantly (eimi) hearing (akouo) that the one (oti o) presently pursuing and persecuting (dioko – systematically, hastily, and intensely approaching, running and following after, oppressing and harassing (scribed in the present tense)) us (emas) at various times (pote – at any undisclosed period) now (nyn – at the present time) he presently proclaims a healing message (euangelizo – he currently announces a beneficial messenger (scribed in the present tense and middle voice, thereby influencing himself)) of faith (ten pistis – of belief) which (os) once or now (pote – at some unspecified period) he was attacking and continues to annihilate (portheo – he was consistently ravaging and destroying, he is devastating and overthrowing, he was sacking and is continually wasting and killing (the imperfect tense addresses an action which is in-process, something which began in the past but is still ongoing with no anticipation of its conclusion, the active voice says that Paulos was personally engaged in this savage behavior, while the indicative mood reveals that this depiction actually occurred)). (1:23)

327And (kai – so) they were praising and glorifying me, attributing an exceptionally high value and status to me (doxazo emoi – they were considering me illustrious and magnificent, holding the opinion of an especially high rank for me, thereby supposing to honor me, extol and celebrate me, dignify and magnify me) in relation to (en – with regard to) the (ton) Theos | God (ΘΝ – Divine Placeholder for Theos | God).” (Galatians 1:24)

By writing in the third, second, and first person, Sha’uwl | Paul was out of touch with reality and himself. It is like a schizophrenic man saying, “we were crazy but he and you are better now.”

The presentation of “portheo – attack and annihilate” is identical to what we have seen before. By deliberately writing it in the imperfect tense, this grotesque behavior is ongoing. Paulos continues to ravage and destroy. That is the legacy of his letters. They remain as destructive and deadly as the day they were written.

While it is not currently apparent, we have been given another clue into the nature of what would become known as Pauline Doctrine. This time it comes through the forced inclusion of pistis, which I have translated “faith.” Etymologically, the word originally conveyed the exemplary concepts of “trust and reliance.” But that was before Paul made pistis so central to his religion that faith became synonymous with Christianity. Therefore, by alleging that his admirers equated his “euangelizo – beneficial message” to “pistis – faith,” Paul was setting the table for his treatise. Pistis was awkwardly tossed into the mouths of others because Paul’s entire edifice will be based upon faith. It will become his alternative to the Towrah.

No matter how we render “en emoi ton – in me for the” God, or “with regard to” God, there is no way to incorporate “doxazo – praising and glorifying” without gagging on the result. Paul has either imagined groupies 328who are now worshiping him, or the Called Out from Syria to Cilicia were collectively suffering from the Stockholm syndrome. Either way, Sha’uwl | Paul was now a legend in his own mind, with the Jews who he was persecuting now praising and glorifying him, considering him illustrious and magnificent. Pardon me while I gag.

Keeping in mind that the scenario Sha’uwl has laid out, whereby the religion of Judaism, in concert with the instructions of its chief priests, recruited and then ordered Sha’uwl to bludgeon Torah-observant Jews, is a charade, at least, based upon what Sha’uwl has said about himself. It is entirely possible, however, perhaps probable, that the founder of the Christian faith was ruthless, a condescending bully and brute. But should this be the case, it means that we are dealing with a delusional schizophrenic and amoral psychopath.

Nonetheless, to the extent that Sha’uwl told the truth, and that he was exceptionally and uniquely vicious, in concert with his repetitive claims, then the victims of his wonton savagery may have misconstrued this temporary remission in his brutality as being praiseworthy. In such cases, victims often bond with their abuser. They see the merciless as merciful. It is called the “Stockholm syndrome.” Therefore, in this concluding sentence, we are witnessing a psychological phenomenon that profoundly alters an individual’s ability to exercise good judgment regarding those who are abusing them, nineteen centuries before it was codified and explained.

This was not the first time, nor would it be the last, that this strategy would be deployed for nefarious means. Islam, for example, would not exist without it. Muhammad expressly authorized Muslim men to berate, imprison, and beat their wives so long as they occasionally relented and showed some mercy, which was usually in the form of having their way with their bodies. And if that was not sufficient to exercise complete dominion over women, then 329they could murder them.

Doxazo, which is being directed at Paul, was translated: “they were praising and glorifying, attributing an exceptionally high value and status.” It also conveys: “they were considered illustrious and magnificent, holding the opinion of an especially high rank, supposing to honor, extol, celebrate, and dignify” Paul.

Doxazo is from the base of doxa, which is “to form a favorable opinion,” and thus “to hold someone in high esteem by taking into account their behavior and reputation.” And since Paul’s reputation, at least according to Paul, has been that of a libertine and terrorist, both of which in the sight of God’s people would be considered reprehensible, should this declaration have occurred, the Stockholm syndrome provides the lone rational reason to deploy “doxazo – glorified in the opinion of the beholder” in association with Paul.

And since the praiseworthy connotations associated with doxazo are directed “in me for God,” Sha’uwl’s statement can be read that people “thought highly of God in me,” which is extraordinarily arrogant, placing Paul in the company of the Caesars, Emperors, and Pharaohs who claimed to be god – or, at the very least, to represent Him before men. This serves to establish Paul as co-savior and co-author, his personal contribution toward completing God’s work.

This is yet another way in which Paul sounds like Muhammad in the Qur’an. This sentence pushes the envelope, elevating Paul’s opinion of himself well beyond anything which is appropriate.

But the other options may be even worse, especially if we read this as saying, “for God in me,” making Paul and his god one and the same. And if God is brought into the equation, and is seen as part of this arrogant evaluation, then Paul rises above his god in status.

330Each of these themes will play out again in Islam, where Allah and Muhammad speak with the same voice because Allah is Muhammad’s alter ego – having demonically possessed him as he had Paul. And this similarity is germane to our evaluation of Paul, because in Islam, Allah is indistinguishable from Satan. They have the same personality, ambitions, attitude, and methods. In Islam, which means “submission,” Allah replaces Yahowah as God. In Christianity, the Lord replaces Yahowah as God. The result is the same.

The King James Version crafted a bizarre ending that serves to exacerbate the problem: “But they had heard only, that he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed. And they glorified God in me.” The Latin Vulgate, from which the inappropriate ending materialized, reads similarly: “For they had only heard that: ‘He, who formerly persecuted us, now evangelizat/evangelizes the fidem/faith which he once fought. And they glorified God in me.’”

While typically I am critical of these translations when they diverge from the original text, both conclusions are reasonable adaptations of Paul’s poorly worded statement. It is easy to construe this as if Paul was suggesting that he and his god were equally praiseworthy. And keep in mind, the path to this place was paved with the pronouncement that Paul cannot lie.

In the context of religious deceptions, it’s also important to recognize that the King James rendition of the beginning of this statement was errant because the Greek word for “preach” is kerysso, not euangelizo which means “to convey a healing messenger or beneficial message.” And since faith is the result of not knowing, how and why would it be “preached?”

Faith is required when there is insufficient information to know and thus understand. That is why it is part and 331parcel to Pauline Doctrine. Paul never presents sufficient information to grow beyond “faith.” This realization drives to the heart of the Great Galatians Debate.

It is only out of a sense of duty, that of pulling weeds from the swamp that has become Christendom, that I continue to share the methodology of the New Living Translation: “All they knew was that people were saying, ‘The one who used to persecute us is now preaching the very faith he tried to destroy!’ And they praised God because of me.”

While this is not what Paul wrote, if this is what he was intending to say, if this is what he believed, then we should pity him. Neither Noah nor Abraham made such a claim. We do not find these words on the lips of Moseh (Moses) nor Dowd (David). Not even Yahowsha’ (“Jesus”) said this.

Recapping the sixth Pauline stanza serves as a real eye opener and head turner…

“But now what I write as if it were ‘Scripture’ to you, you must pay especially close attention to in the presence of Theos | God, because I cannot lie, nor deceive, conveying that which is untrue. (1:20)

Thereafter, I came to the regions of Syria and also of Cilicia. (1:21)

But I was not known or understood personally by the Called Out of Yahuwdah | Beloved of Yah | Judah in Christo. (1:22)

But then only they were constantly hearing that the one presently pursuing and persecuting, systematically oppressing and harassing us at various times now he presently proclaims a healing message of faith which once he was attacking and continues to annihilate, ravaging. (1:23)

And they were praising and glorifying me, 332attributing an exceptionally high value and status to me, considering me illustrious and magnificent, honorable and dignified in relation to the Theos | God.” (Galatians 1:24)

I do not think so. And if true, why did Sha’uwl call them “morons?”



The most appropriate way to conclude Paulos’ introduction of himself, his pronouncement of his calling, his disdain for the people he labeled apostates and traitors, and his zeal to be disjoined from the old system which he deemed pornographic and debilitating, would be to review what Paulos has written thus far. It has been a nauseating ride to a place most would not have dared imagine...

“Paulos, an apostle, not from men, not even by the means of man, but to the contrary, on behalf of Iesou Christou and God, Father of the one having roused and awakened him out of a corpse, (1:1) and all the brothers with me to the called out of the Galatias, (1:2) Charis | Grace to you and peace from Theos | God, Pater | Father of us and Lord Iesou Christou, (1:3) the one having given himself on account of the sins and errors of us, so that somehow, through indefinite means, he might gouge and tear out, plucking and uprooting us from the past inflexible and unrelenting circumstances and old system which had been in place which is like pornography, disadvantageous and harmful, corrupting and debilitating, maliciously malignant in opposition to the desire and will of Theos | God and Paters | Father of us, (1:4) to whom the assessment of the brilliant splendor, the opinion regarding the glorious radiance and appearance of the shining light, 333by means of the old and the new systems, Amen, let it be so. (1:5)

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

Yet nevertheless, if men, I was obliging and accommodating, exciting them emotionally, a slave of 334Christou, certainly not was me. (1:10)

So therefore, I profess 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)

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. (1:16)

I did not ascend, traveling into Yaruwshalaim | 335Jerusalem toward the goal of being with or against the Apostles before me, but to the contrary, I went away, withdrawing to Arabia | the Darkness, and returned again to Damascus. (1:17)

Then later in the sequence of events, after three years’ time, I ascended to Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem to investigate and inquire about Kephas | Reconciling Rock and remained against him fifteen days. (1:18)

But other of the Apostles, I did not see or concern myself with except Ya’aqob | Jacob, the (tov) brother of the Kurios | Lord. (1:19)

But now what I write as if it were ‘Scripture’ to you, you must pay especially close attention to in the presence of Theos | God, because I cannot lie, nor deceive, conveying that which is untrue. (1:20)

Thereafter, I came to the regions of Syria and also of Cilicia. (1:21) But I was not known or understood personally by the Called Out of Yahuwdah | Beloved of Yah | Judah in Christo. (1:22)

And they were praising and glorifying me, attributing an exceptionally high value and status to me, considering me illustrious and magnificent, honorable and dignified in relation to the Theos | God.” (Galatians 1:24)

It is spellbinding, albeit in the most nightmarish way.

