397Questioning Paul
Liars Lie
…Contradicting God
10
Alla | To the Contrary
Discordant…
In the most favorable light, from the narrowest possible interpretation, what comes next, had it been set into a different context, and then properly explained, it might have been designed to encourage us to “shamar – observe” the Torah and then act on our own volition. Yahowah’s instructions and directions are vastly more valuable to us when we study His teaching and understand His guidance as opposed to robotically doing something.
This is one of the many things Orthodox Jews get wrong. They habitually impose restrictive behavior irrespective of God’s intent. In this regard, the symbolism of circumcision is even more important than the act – although both are essential to our ability to respond to and engage in the Covenant relationship with God.
That is not to say that we should disregard our Heavenly Father’s advice. If you want to be included in the Covenant, if you want to be adopted into His family, and if you want to be invited into heaven, if you are not currently circumcised and are a man, get circumcised. As we shall see, with Yahowah, male circumcision is a life and death decision, one in which He is unwilling to compromise. Therefore, my point is that we should seek to understand why this is so, and then embrace Yahowah’s instructions regarding life in the Covenant.
These things known, without the proper perspective, 398Paul’s statement is misleading, even counterproductive. His only redeeming content was to say that we should never be compelled, but should instead act on our own accord. However, that is not exactly what Paul was implying.
“To the contrary (alla – but by way of contrast and making a distinction), not even (oude – but not) Titus (Titos – a Latin name meaning nurse), [the one with (o syn) me (ego)] a Greek (Hellen) being (eimi – existing (present tense, active, participle)), was compelled (anagkazo – was forced or pressured, necessitated or obligated (aorist, passive, indicative indicating he was acted upon in the past)) to be circumcised (peritemno – to be cut off and completely separated; from peri, concerning the account of, near, and all around, and tomoteros, to cut something so as to create separation (aorist, passive, infinitive conveying that at that time he was influenced in this way by the verb which has properties of a noun)).” (Galatians 2:3) (The reason for bracketing the clause “the one with me” is that it is not found in Papyrus 46, the oldest witnesses of this statement.)
For those who may place greater confidence in the McReynolds English Interlinear associated with the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27thEdition, here is that rendering for your convenience and consideration. “But but not Titus the with me Greek being was compelled to be circumcised.” So much for the myth that the NA27 has been updated to reflect the oldest extant manuscripts. There is nothing older than P46 and they ignored it.
Regardless of one’s preference or interpretation, someone actually trying to share Yahowah’s message would have provided some context and an explanation as to why it would never have been appropriate to “force” anyone to do anything. God does not issue mandates and there are no obligations. We are all free to accept or reject the Covenant. The choice is ours, and it is offered under the 399auspices of freewill.
Titus, by being uncircumcised, may well have been a Pauline convert, but that was a ticket to nowhere. He had excluded himself from the Covenant and from Heaven. It mattered not that he was Greek, only that he remained without identifying himself with the sign of the Covenant.
So while there is nothing God asks which is obligatory, and no choice should ever be compelled, an explanation would have gone a long way toward helping people understand the symbolism involved in their decision regarding whether or not to be circumcised. It is after all life and death. And that is because while circumcision does not guarantee participation in the Covenant, or thus salvation, a man who dies uncircumcised has no chance of either. If Titus remained uncircumcised, his soul no longer exists or it is imprisoned in She’owl.
Few things are more obvious to the observant than Yahowah does not “anagkazo – compel.” He is first and foremost a proponent of freewill. The decision as to whether to circumcise our sons, or to become circumcised ourselves should our parents fail to prepare us for the Covenant in this way, is ours to make as parents and as individuals. Those who choose wisely position their children and themselves to enjoy the Covenant’s benefits. Those who do not are automatically and summarily excluded.
The Torah’s sign demonstrating a family’s acceptance of the conditions and benefits of the Covenant, and denoting their desire to be included in it, is circumcision. The symbolism is hard to miss, as this sign deals with the part of the male anatomy responsible for conceiving new human life.
By consistently filling in words which aren’t actually in the Greek text to improve readability, without designating them as being added by way of brackets or 400italics, translators have artificially elevated the status of this epistle, far beyond what the words deserve. But other than that, the KJV rendering is permissible: “But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:” LV: “But even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Gentilis / Gentile, was not compulsus / compelled to be circumcidi / circumcised,” Jerome, a Roman, couldn’t write “Greek,” even though the text required it. That’s funny in a way.
Arbitrarily putting words into Paul’s mouth has lost its charm. There is no basis for the NLT’s opening clause: “And they supported me and did not even demand that my companion Titus be circumcised, though he was a Gentile.” Do you suppose that the team of scholars and religious leaders who compiled this supposed “translation” really thought that “Hellen” meant “Gentile?”
The reason I suggested that this statement, at least without a proper explanation, was counterproductive is that it could be construed to suggest that Paul and others were in a position to annul one of Yahowah’s most essential instructions. Rabbis would claim this authority for themselves, but never regarding something as clear and compelling as circumcision.
Akiba in particular, playing off Yahowah’s penchant for volition, promoted the view that a majority vote by Rabbis could override the Torah on any subject that was of interest to men. This arrogant assertion eventually became the basis of Judaism, with rabbinical arguments in the Talmud superseding the Towrah. And in a roundabout way, it is also the basis of Roman Catholicism, whereby a Pope, elected by Cardinals, is seen as having the authority to establish new rules, even those which contradict God’s guidance. Therefore, this is one of many places where Sha’uwl’s lack of specificity has become problematic. And frankly, there is no way to see any of this as productive.
401But that’s not the only issue at play here. By transitioning from: “Later, through fourteen years, also, I went up to Yaruwshalaim along with Barnabas, having taken along also Titus. (2:1) I went up, but then downward from uncovering an unveiling revelation which lays bare, laying down to them the beneficial messenger which I preach among the races down from my own, uniquely and separately, but then to the opinions, presumptions, and suppositions, not somehow perhaps into foolishness and stupidity, without purpose or falsely, I might run or I ran,” (2:2) to “To the contrary, not even Titus, a Greek being, was compelled, forced or pressured, necessitated or obligated, to be circumcised,” (2:3) without any intervening explanation is a sure sign that: 1) The purpose of the Yaruwshalaim Summit was designed to deal with Paul’s contrarian position regarding circumcising Greeks. 2) That Paul wanted it to appear as if the disciples agreed with his position against circumcision even though this would place everyone in opposition to God. 3) That this decision not to encourage a man to be circumcised to participate in the Covenant was so fresh in everyone’s mind that no transition or introduction was required to remind the audience that the purpose for the meeting had been the disconnect between Paul’s message and God’s position relative to circumcision. And as such, for this reason and many more, it is apparent that Galatians was written immediately after the Yaruwshalaim Summit in 50 CE, which was before Sha’uwl’s first visit to Thessalonica, Corinth, or Rome – the other candidates for his initial epistle.
Further, as we will learn, Titus was actually encouraged to become circumcised at this meeting. Therefore, Paul’s testimony regarding his recent past is once again suspect – or, at the very least, intentionally misleading. And that means that he has violated the hayah clause of Yahowah’s prophetic test a second time. He has 402failed to accurately report what has already happened.
Third, as we shall soon discover, Yahowah’s position on circumcision is clearly stated, as is Sha’uwl’s opposition to it. Their views are the antithesis of one another. So if what I’m claiming is true, and it is, this begs the question: how then can an informed, rational person believe that Paul was authorized to speak for God under these circumstances? To think that Yahowah changed His position on an issue, in which He has always been unequivocal, is to believe that God is capricious and unreliable. And if that is the case, we cannot trust anything He says, nor anyone who claims to speak for Him. Therefore, there is no possible way for Paul to be credible in this conflict.
Speaking of credibility, what follows should give us pause. Regardless of whether you or I concur with God’s position on the sign of His Covenant, the only way to justify the reference to Titus’ lack of circumcision set awkwardly between Galatians 2:2 and 2:4 is to realize that, while this letter may have been addressed to the Galatians, it was not about them. Sha’uwl went to Yaruwshalaim to undermine the competition: Yahowsha’s disciples. This letter was designed to discredit them so that Paulos could rise unchallenged.
Grammatically, the following clause is not the start of a new sentence. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with Titus being a Greek or being uncircumcised (or so it would appear). And the problem with it, apart from the fact that the required transition is nonexistent, is that there is no reason to criticize someone or demean anyone without demonstrating that what they have said or have done was inconsistent with Yahowah’s instructions. Paul did not. And it will not be the last time. And worse, it is Paul who should actually be exposed and condemned for advocating the contrarian position.
403With all of this in mind, Paul’s subsequent statement transitions from being inappropriate to being devastating when seen flowing out of his opening salvo against the Torah. If you recall, Paulos claimed that “the old system which had been in place” was “disadvantageous, harmful, wicked, and worthless.” And since the sign of that system was circumcision, it is hard to miss the association between this statement and Paul’s underlying contention that the Torah enslaves. So without further introduction, here is Galatians 2:4:
“...but (de – moreover then) on account of (dia – through, by, or because of) the (tous) fake brothers (pseudadelphos – impersonators who falsified their kinship, relationship, and affinity) brought in surreptitiously under false pretenses (pareisaktos – joining secretly, smuggled in), who (hostis – literally: whoever and whatever) sneaked into the group (pareiserchomai – crept in by stealth, slipping in) to secretly spy upon (kataskopeo – to closely investigate, evaluate, and consider but more typically: to lie in wait, to spy out, and to clandestinely plot against) the freedom and liberation (ten eleutheria – the liberty and release from conscience, from binding morality, from slavery and bondage, the emancipation from all constraints) that (en – which) we (emon) possess (echo – hold on to and experience) in (en – with or among) 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) Iesou (ΙΗΥ – Divine Placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Iesou which became “Jesus” in the 17th century after the invention of the letter “J”) in order that (hina) us (emas) they will actually make subservient (katadouloo – they will control for their own ends, making slaves and bringing into bondage (future tense, active voice, indicative mood)),...” (Galatians 2:4)
404Before we analyze this statement, let’s reconstitute our bearings by reviewing it in context: “Later, through fourteen years, also, I went up to Yaruwshalaim along with Barnabas, having taken along also Titus. (2:1) I went up, but then downward from uncovering an unveiling revelation which lays bare, laying down to them the beneficial messenger which I preach among the races down from my own, uniquely and separately, but then to the opinions, presumptions, and suppositions, not somehow perhaps into foolishness and stupidity, without purpose or falsely, I might run or I ran (2:2) – to the contrary, not even Titus, a Greek being, was compelled, forced or obligated to be circumcised – (2:3) but then on account of the impersonators who faked their relationship brought in surreptitiously under false pretenses, who sneaked into the group to secretly spy upon and clandestinely plot against the freedom from conscience and liberation from the constraints of morality that we possess in Christo Iesou in order that us they will actually make subservient, controlling for their own ends,...” (2:4)
Therefore, we know that, as a result of Paul’s “separate and distinct” “message or messenger,” it “became apparent” that he “had to go up to Yaruwshalaim” to confront the “presumptions, suppositions, and opinions” of others that he “might be running foolishly and in vain.” We know that “not obligating” “Greeks” to be “circumcised” was the overriding issue, a topic so vital to Paul’s credibility and mission, he felt compelled to deliberately demean the character and motives of the participants. Paul claimed that either Yahowsha’s Disciples, or those they had invited into the Covenant, or both, were “impersonators who faked their relationship.” He claimed that the beneficiaries of Pesach, Matsah, Bikuwrym, and Shabuw’ah in Yaruwshalaim had “secretly snuck into” this meeting “under false pretenses” “to spy upon and plot against” the “liberation from conscience and constraints” 405Paul and his followers claimed to “possess.” And worse, the intent of the clandestine interference of the interlopers was “to make [Paul and associates] subservient, controlling them for their own means.”
You would expect such divisive delirium from Machiavelli, perhaps Goebbels, or from a conniving and immoral politician, but it is crude, even rude, when written about those who personally knew Yahowsha’ by someone claiming to speak for Christo Iesou – Paul’s caricature. But at the very least, the lines of the debate have been drawn and we are all compelled to take sides.
If we are to believe Sha’uwl’s words, they suggest that someone who claimed to be born anew into our Heavenly Father’s Covenant family, in the city of reconciliation where the Miqra’ey were fulfilled, under the disciples’ guidance, were fakers, spies, and enslavers who wanted to deprive Paul and his companions of freewill, making these idiots subservient to them. I am not buying it, not for a minute.
Since the Covenant is Yahowah’s means to liberate His children from oppression, Paul’s claim upends reality and suspends credulity. All it means is that Sha’uwl | Paul was paranoid and delusional. And that is particularly bad when it is coupled with his bouts of narcissism and occasional schizophrenia, even his propensity to be a psychopath when challenged.
While no person, spirit, government, or religious institution has the power or authority to revoke our liberties as part of Yahowah’s Covenant family, in the culture of that day, at the time the letter to the Galatians was written, there were only two human agencies which sought temporal submission, and which had the power to enslave individuals during their mortal existence: the Jewish Sanhedrin and the Roman government. But representatives of either institution would have had no interest in such a 406meeting. And should they have sought such entertainment; they would have taunted the others with their status and not acted as spies.
But why even speak of “surreptitiousness, false pretenses, slipping in, and secrecy” in relationship to the “ekklesia – called out” Yahowsha’ and His disciples, especially Shim’own Kephas, had guided? These would have been the same individuals who had been empowered and enriched by the Set-Apart Spirit during the Miqra’ of Shabuw’ah (discussed in Acts 2).
Yahowah’s plan of salvation is not a secret. We should not be concerned that someone hears the Word of God because we should want everyone to hear it, even if they reject it and us. The liberation we experience in our relationship with Yahowah should be so joyously expressed, that it becomes contagious.
This diatribe sounds a bit like Paulos was part of a secret society such as Mithraism, the Babylonian religion which became the dominant mystery religion practiced in the Roman Empire in the 1st through 4th centuries. It is as if he was concerned that those mysteries, the seven grades of initiation, the clandestine symbols, the secret handshake, and insider slogans known only to the initiated, were somehow on the verge of being compromised by a spy.
The reason Mithraism was cited as an example is because as a religious Roman citizen, it is quite possible that Sha’uwl was an initiate, especially since the religion he conceived and Constantine embraced have so much in common. Mithras was the Savior god, not unlike Paul’s depiction of his Christo. He was born of a rock, something embraced by Roman Catholicism through their misguided association with “Saint Peter,” the “Rock.” Mithras loved to ride and then slaughter sacred bulls, symbolic of the son of the sun god usurping the old god’s authority, thereby demonstrating his superiority. And in Christianity, we find 407vestiges of sun worship woven into the fabric of the faith and see the son’s religion being presented as superior to that of the father’s outdated modes. Having done away with the old god, and thus that god’s old testament, the son of the sun could reign supreme, again in keeping with Paul’s letters.
Mithras was emblazoned with scorpions and serpents, which is incriminating because the thorn Paul referenced controlling him was likened to a scorpion stinger by Yahowsha’, and the serpent is Satan, through whom Paul admitted being possessed. Rather than observing Yahowah’s seven feasts, all of which Paul negated, Mithras ate supper with Sol (the Sun), who is shown bowing to him. He is always depicted with a halo or sunburst above his head, as is the Christian Jesus. Mithras is commonly shown with two torchbearers, Cautes and Cautopates, assisting him, creating a Roman trinity. Their lanterns and staffs are held in opposite directions, representing sunrise and sunset, life and death, salvation and condemnation. The image is evocative of Calvary’s crosses, with the larger set between the others. Especially interesting considering Paul’s inverted and twisted testimony, depictions of Mithras are most always double-faced.
This Roman god with a Babylonian pedigree is presented amidst flashing rays of light, even lightning bolts, just as Paul claimed to have seen him on the road to Damascus. He is depicted with the moon’s blessing and approval after having defeated the sun god, Sol. Mithras then ascends through the seven heavens, something Paul claimed to have done as well.
The caduceus, the symbol of Mercury, the “messenger of god,” is universally associated with Mithras throughout these myths, which is telling because Paul’s principal claim was to have been God’s exclusive messenger to the world. Mithras is typically shown carrying keys, not unlike the Roman Catholic Church. He has a scepter in his hand, 408denoting his authority. He either holds a globe in his hand, or has one at his feet, conveying the notion that the world was his, again just as was the case with Sha’uwl. These globes are even festooned with crosses – another Pauline fixation with a pagan past.
Especially telling, considering Paul’s fixation on the death and bloodletting of his savior, in Mithraism souls are immersed and saved in their graves by the blood of their god so as to be bodily resurrected in harmony with Mercury’s message – most of which undergirds Paul’s testimony. Especially intriguing, Mithras always wore a conical Phrygian cap, which denoted freedom from the law in the pursuit of liberty – which is hauntingly familiar to those aware of Paul’s penchant to preach freedom from the Towrah. Also interesting, the Roman Savior who defeated the old god was costumed in Anatolian robes, the official dress of the land of Paul’s birth. He is even shown as a fountain, baptizing his initiates.
The birthday of Mithras was December 25th, which was celebrated as the Festival of “Natalis Invicti – the Birth of the Unconquerable.” That means that he was conceived, and thus resurrected each year on Easter Sunday – nine months earlier. To be saved by him, the initiate simply swore an oath of devotion making salvation faith-based. The rituals included recitals of a catechism, where believers in the mythical god were asked to provide the prescribed answers to rehearsed questions to receive the gift of salvation. The highest-ranking clerics were called “Pater – Father,” carried a shepherd’s staff, and wore elaborate robes emblazoned with sunbursts, a Phrygian cap covered in thunderbolts, and a ruby ring – most of which survive today in Roman Catholicism. Their hierarchy of participation and status are all echoed in Paul’s writings as well as in Paul’s legacy: the Roman Catholic Church. Believers were united and universal, which is what “catholic” means. They identified themselves through their 409special handshake – something Paul also introduced. Women were excluded, just as they were from Paul’s personal life. Only men could participate and become clerics – also in keeping with Paul’s theology. So all of this provides us with something to think about.
Beyond the covert religious nature of mythology, and the fact that it plays no part of our relationship with Yahowah, we must also deal with the rather peculiar sequencing of statements and events. Paul has connected mutually exclusive concepts and inconsistent conclusions. On one hand, he has implied that he assumed the disciples were somewhat supportive of his message, and that no one suggested that a Greek be circumcised, strongly inferring that everyone agreed with his position. But now, in the next breath, we discover that Paul is facing such severe opposition that he is compelled to exclude his adversaries and demean his foes. It is a sure sign that he could not effectively refute their message.
And we cannot blame these incompatible associations on scribal error. Papyrus 46 dates to within thirty-five to seventy-five years of the time Sha’uwl connected these conflicting statements. Further, there is no discrepancy between the Nestle-Aland and the oldest surviving manuscript. Further, we cannot even blame these conflicting notions on the difficulty of translating words from one language into another. In this case the words are perfectly clear. There is no dispute regarding their meanings – only the justification for them.
Then there is the absurd transition from not compelling circumcision to surreptitious spies’ intent on making Sha’uwl subservient to them. On the surface, it is insane. It does little more than provide a window into this man’s soul and affirm that Paul was insecure and malevolent. Demonstrating the resulting paranoia, he saw everyone as a potential adversary. And so he would abandon all moral constraints to undermine those he sought 410to rise above.
The best that can be said of Paul is that what he wrote was nonsense. Yahowah’s willingness to free us from human oppression is not a secret and it cannot be invalidated by anyone – it’s the foundational message of the Torah, the Covenant, the Exodus, the Invitations, and even the Ten Statements – all of which embody an everlasting promise of liberation.
Also at issue is the fact that the men who attended this meeting were identified in the book of Acts. They were neither Romans nor members of the Sanhedrin. Some had been, but were no longer, Pharisees. They were all elders in the Yaruwshalaim Called-Out Assembly, which means that they were not “false brothers.” They did not sneak into the meeting; they were invited. And they were active participants, not secret observers.
Unless something changes, we are on the cusp of having to acknowledge the unavoidable. The evidence is all too quickly becoming undeniable. It is obvious that God did not inspire these words. They are Paul’s. And they are wrong on all accounts.
Those who would excuse Galatians 2:4 forfeit the high ground of reason. And yet, theologians are driven to protect the man responsible for inspiring their faith, their prestige, and their incomes. They do so to keep from ostracizing themselves from their fellow Christians – those who believe that the so-called “Christian New Testament” is not only “Scripture,” but also inerrant. And yet such an assumption is a religious myth akin to the Greek Charities and the Roman Graces.
The Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear of Galatians 2:4 reads: “through but the brought in secretly false brothers who came in along to look carefully the freedom of us that we have in Christ Jesus that us they will enslave thoroughly,...”
411While the KJV’s publication of “Christ Jesus” is not appropriate, their translation is otherwise accurate. In this case, the problem is with Paul’s Greek, not Bacon’s English or Jerome’s Latin: “And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:”
The Vulgate acknowledges that this verse is in fact a continuation of the previous sentence: “...but only because of false brothers, who were brought in subintroductos / unknowingly. They entered subintroierunt / secretly to spy on our liberty, which we have in Christo Iesu, so that they might reduce us to servitude.” Jerome’s rendering also associates the reason for not compelling circumcision with the arrival of the false brothers. So other than the transliteration of an errant name and title, the Latin translation was quite literal.
Being literal, however, simply illuminates the senselessness of Sha’uwl’s words. Therefore, Jerome explained: “ ~ The sub prefix of both ‘subintroductos’ and ‘subintroierunt’ indicate secrecy or a lack of knowledge about the action of the verb. In other words, the true brothers did not realize at first that these others who were brought into the Faith were false brothers. They entered while their intentions and falseness were unknown.” But this does not help. No man has the power or authority to alter what Yahowah has said and what Yahowsha’ has done.
When reading a novel, I prefer style over substance. But the Christian New Testament is not marketed by Bible publishers as a work of fiction. And yet, based upon the liberties they have taken, the NLT is fictional. “Even that question came up only because of some so-called Christians there—false ones, really—who were secretly brought in. They sneaked in to spy on us and take away the freedom we have in Christ Jesus. They wanted to enslave 412us and force us to follow their Jewish regulations.” In that Yahowah told us that: “being presumptuous, overstepping one’s bounds, and taking liberties” serves as proof that someone is a false prophet, it seems Tyndale Publishing House, Inc. just revealed their true identity.
Nothing in the statement Sha’uwl wrote said anything about being “forced to follow their Jewish regulations.” There was no subject or race mentioned. And while the NLT was wrong, it was not without cause. Based upon what we learn in the Acts 15 accounting of this meeting, a disagreement arose over whether God’s children should follow God’s example, and thus observe the Towrah. This known, however, there is no correlation between the Towrah and “Jewish regulations.” They are all derived from Rabbinic Traditions and the Oral Law – especially the Talmud. And yet this is a common Christian misconception, bred out of ignorance, disdain for the Towrah, affinity for Paul, religious rivalry, and anti-Semitism.
As you contemplate Sha’uwl’s response to the alleged “false brothers,” recognize that “submission,” from hypotage, is not found in Papyrus 46, the late 1st century witness of this letter, even though it is included in more recently compiled texts (following eiko, meaning “yield”). Additionally, euangelion, rendered “Gospel” in most English translations, but more accurately translated “healing message and beneficial messenger,” is not extant in the earliest manuscripts either. Further, in P46, we find a placeholder for Yahowah’s title between “e aletheias – the truth” and “diameno – may continue to be associated” in the oldest Greek text, but not in the Textus Receptus, the Novum Testamentum Graece, nor the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, even though the first claimed to be the “text received directly from God,” and the other two have claimed to have corrected every error of the former by referencing older manuscripts.
413So, the two things we know for sure are: we are not the first to be troubled by what Paulos said, and others have already tried to fix these problems. Therefore, at the very least, this response is the product of considerable meddling and copyediting – some of which may have been required just to make what follows appear lucid.
“...to whom (ois) neither (oude – not even and but no) to (pros – against, among, with regard to, or advantageously) a moment (hora – an occasion in time or an hour) we yielded (eiko – we surrendered, gave in, or submitted) [to the submission (te hypotage – to the obedience and subjection)] in order that (hina– as a result) the truth (e aletheia – that which is an eternal reality and in complete accord with history and the evidence) of the Theos | God (tou ΘΥ – Divine Placeholder for Theos | God) [beneficial message and healing messenger (euangelion)] may continue to be associated (diameno – might remain and continue) among (pros – to against, or advantageously with regard to) you (umas).” (Galatians 2:5)
With regard to this statement, the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear, in direct denial of their claim to have corrected their text to reflect the oldest extant manuscripts, published: “...to whom but not to hour we yielded in the subjection that the truth of the good message might stay through to you.”
The earliest witness of this statement reads: “to whom neither to a moment or hour we submitted in order that the truth of the Theos | God might continue to be associated among you.” (2:5)
Excuse me while I vent for a moment, but this is pathetic. If the imposters had to be sneaky just to get into the room, and if their mission was simply to spy on Sha’uwl, why is not surrendering to them being presented as a heroic and selfless stand which was required to bring 414us the truth? Couldn’t we just read the Torah for ourselves? Couldn’t we just ignore them – especially since nothing they said, if anything, is known? Why is everything being presented as if it is not only Paul against the world, but that without Paul’s brave stand against the influence of God, we would all die? And how is it that we are to believe that Paul is the arbitrator of “the truth of the God” when he began this letter telling us that His “old system was immoral and corrupt?”
The issue here is that, since circumcision is a condition to participate in the Covenant, the inference is that you must submit to and obey the Torah to benefit from the old system. But you should know that there is no Hebrew word for “obey.” When it is found in English “translations” it is because they have misrepresented the meaning of the Hebrew verb, shama’, which means “to listen.” Likewise, there is no Hebrew word for “submit.” The few times it is found in English bibles either “kachash – to deceive,” “raphas – to stamp down,” or “‘anah – to respond” were twisted to provide this errant connotation. And as a condition, we are free to accept it or reject it. The choice is ours.
Towrah is comprised of “teaching” that we should “listen and respond to,” rather than a set of “laws” to which we must “submit and obey.” It is comprised of God’s guidance, not His orders.
No one can diminish Yahowah’s gift, so I am at a loss to see how Sha’uwl’s failure to yield to these men would have had any material effect on anyone. But I do see an ego of gargantuan proportions masking a debilitating bout with insecurity.
Considering the audience, Paul is claiming that he is preventing the application of the same instructions our Heavenly Father provided to the Children of Yisra’el in His Towrah. By taking this stand, Sha’uwl is freeing believers 415from listening to God.
While it is irrelevant in this context, should you be curious, the only people with the authority to enslave Paulos, and thus silence him, would have been representatives of the Roman government. Not even the Sanhedrin could have done so because Paulos was a Roman citizen. Moreover, as a rabbinical student in Yaruwshalaim, Sha’uwl would have known the latter personally. And as we will discover, Rome, having allegedly imprisoning Paulos, did not silence him. And if the Romans had incarcerated him to moot his message, and if he was actually speaking for God, Yahowah would have found another witness. So, Sha’uwl’s response was as flawed as was his proposition.
Christian theologians, knowing what the founder of their religion will say next, would have us believe that the purpose of this troubling exchange was to free believers from the Torah. And that is because they, like Paul, despise God’s Teaching. They neither understand it nor respect it.
Christian clerics also insist that the “false brothers” who were advocating on behalf of the Torah were “Judaizers.” But this is ridiculous. Judaism is predicated upon Rabbinic Law, upon the Talmud, as opposed to Yahowah’s Torah. And Jews do not evangelize. The notion of a “Judaizer” is yet another of Paul’s anti-Semitic myths.
That means Christian theologians would be wrong on every account. It saddens me to say that it is obvious: Sha’uwl despised the Torah as much as they do. As a rabbinical student, he hated every word of it, just as do the rabbis of this day, arguing against it in their Talmud.
Yahowah’s position, since it still matters, is the antithesis of Paul’s, Christianity’s, and Judaism’s. The fulcrum upon which the Torah pivots is the Exodus: the story of Yahowah freeing His people from religious and political oppression in Egypt as a result of His Covenant.
416This is why the First Statement Yahowah etched on the First of Two Tablets begins: “I am Yahowah, your God, who delivered you from the crucible of Egypt, out of the house of bondage and slavery.” The Exodus serves as a historical portrait of Yahowah’s plan of liberation, one which is prophetically portrayed in the seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God.
The Miqra’ey, the first of which were explained during the Exodus and then fulfilled in year 4000 Yah, free us from being subject to mankind’s political and religious schemes, from mortality, corruption, and separation. Therefore, it is blasphemous for Sha’uwl to suggest that he considered the Torah to be a source of bondage, or for Christians to promote such an idea, especially since the path to freedom delineated, commemorated, predicted, explained, and fulfilled in Yahowah’s seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with Him gave birth to the Called-Out Assembly Sha’uwl was addressing.
Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis chronicles Abraham’s journey away from the religious climate of Babylon and into a liberating personal relationship with God. For only the second time in human history, the Creator and His creation walked side by side as friends. This relationship developed into the Family-Oriented Covenant which served as the backbone of the Torah and as the expedient of the Exodus. The first four Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God were fulfilled to deliver its promises on Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children, giving birth to the empowering and enriching aspects of Seven Shabats. In this way, Yahowah has freed us from death and from sin, from all forms of human oppression. And with the relationship reconciled, we are adopted into Yahowah’s family. It is one cohesive story from beginning to end. There are no turns in this path, no dead ends. There are no changes or modifications along the way.
417In this light, and as I have shared, the definition of the Hebrew title Towrah is not “Law,” but is instead “Teaching and Guidance.” The Towrah is our “Owner’s Manual” written by life’s Architect. It is the soil from which the Tree of Life grows. Its fruit is a loving relationship leading to salvation, to knowing God and to living forever with Him. Every word of the Towrah exists to highlight this path.
As discussed briefly a moment ago, while infinitely essential, circumcision alone does not save anyone. It is what it represents that matters. So long as we understand and accept that circumcision is symbolic of being separated and set apart from man’s desires and from oppressive religious schemes so that we can enter into the “beryth – Familial Covenant Relationship” with God, we are spiritually circumcised. That said, physical circumcision remains a condition of the Covenant, so every man who wants to participate in it is encouraged to tangibly demonstrate his commitment to the relationship in this manner.
We observe the Towrah by closely examining and carefully considering Yahowah’s teaching and guidance. We benefit from the Towrah when we respond to what we have come to learn and understand. Slavishly devoting oneself to a rigorous regime of doing everything the Torah says, however, at exactly the right time and in precisely the right way, and never doing anything contrary to its instructions, has never saved anyone. But coming to understand the towrah, and then capitalizing upon the means to reconciliation articulated therein, has ransomed and redeemed every child of the Covenant.
Returning to the passage, here is what the King James Version says relative to Galatians 2:5, not that I understand it: “To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.” If it is possible to make Paul sound worse than he already does, credit the English for revealing it.
418Since the Latin Vulgate reads: “We did not yield to them in subjection, even for an hour, in order that the truth of the evangelii would remain with you,” we know why “subjection” and “gospel” were included in more recently compiled Greek texts, and in every subsequent translation. And yet, no one was trying to hold anyone in “subjection,” and Yahowah doesn’t have a “gospel.”
But you wouldn’t know it by reading the New Living Translation. In another break from their “Essentially Literal and Dynamic Equivalent” philosophy, one which has consistently rendered euangelion as “Good News,” this time they wrote “Gospel” (even though euangelion wasn’t actually written in the Greek text). “But we refused to give in to them for a single moment. We wanted to preserve the truth of the gospel message for you.” It is too bad the Tyndale brain trust was not as committed to “preserving the truth.” (Not that it is found in Paul’s epistles.)
Moving on to the next plank in the Ark of the Deception, we find our handrail in this disorienting realm of Pauline verbosity with the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear suggesting that the troubadour of faith provided the following rebuttal to his critics: “From but the ones thinking to be somewhat kind then they were nothing to me it differs face the God of man not receives to me for the ones thinking nothing conferred.”
More literally and completely rendered from the words Sha’uwl actually selected, his retort was materially more demeaning and considerably less convincing:
“But (de – and then now) from (apo) those (ton – the ones) currently reputed and supposed (dokei – presently presumed based upon opinions and appearances) to be (eimi) someone important (tis – something) based upon some sort of (hopoios – some kind of) unspecified past (pote – both former or present time), they were actually (eimi – they were in the past and continue to genuinely exist 419as (imperfect active indicative)) nothing (oudeis – of no account and completely meaningless and worthless) to me (moi).
It carries through (diaphero – it currently actively and actually (present active indicative) spreads, really performs drifting different ways, it presently bears in alternate directions; from dia – through and diaphero – to carry a burden) the face (prosopon – head, person, individual, and appearance) of the God (o ΘΣ – Divine Placeholder for Theos | God) of man (anthropou – of a human) not (ou) take hold of (lambano – presently obtain, actually acquire, or actively receive (present active indicative)).
Because (gar – making a connection) to me (emoi), the ones (oi) currently presuming and supposing (oi dokei – presently dispensing opinions based upon reputed appearances), of no account (oudeis – nothing and nobody, meaningless and worthless) was their advice and counsel (prosanatithemai – was their one-time cause, additional comments, and limited contribution (in the aorist indicative this was a merely a moment in time having occurred in the past)).” (Galatians 2:6)
So much of this is awkward and disjointed. And the combination of the odd selection of verbs, the missing prepositions, the inappropriate grammatical forms, and the overall lack of sufficient information, renders the result an enigma. But in the context of a meeting with the Called Out in Yaruwshalaim, besides Yahowsha’s disciples, and specifically Shim’own, Yahowchanan, and Ya’aqob, who else could have been in attendance who might have been “reputed and supposed to be someone important based upon something that occurred in the past?” No one else could have been held to be especially important. But then to say that these men “were actually worthless” to Paul is gut-wrenching. And since the disciples are the only potential candidates for Paul’s demeaning dismissal, why 420didn’t this weasel have the courage to name them here while he is rebuking them? Fact is, he will name them three sentences hence, but only because he claims that Shim’own, Yahowchanan, and Ya’aqob granted him the right place of honor and authority.
But I must ask: why does Sha’uwl’s opinion matter? Why attend a meeting if the counsel of others is considered meaningless? Why did Paul respond by undermining the credibility of those who challenged him rather than by debating them? Typically, those who counter challenges in this manner do so because they realize that they cannot prevail on the merits of their argument. And why demean the very same people whose endorsement you claim. It is like saying, “They were all complete idiots, and they accepted me as one of them.”
And it is what’s not said at the beginning that renders the result somewhere between senseless and slanderous. It is that, as he progresses, we must question whether Paul was even lucid. Diaphero speaks of “carrying different things, typically a burden, in various ways.” So how does one apply this activity to “the face of the God” or to the context of the discussion? Why wasn’t a preposition added before “the face” and why was “anthropou – man” scribed in the genitive, making it “of man?” Furthermore, how does any of this relate to “lambano – taking, obtaining, acquiring, or receiving?” It is as if Greek was a foreign language and truth was an elusive concept.
If Paul was intending to say that “there are no distinctions in the presence of God which a man can receive,” then that is what he should have written. But he did not, and I suspect that is because he, himself, claimed to be different and distinct, to hold a status no one else had ever acquired – the lone chosen apostle to the Gentiles (and thus 99.98% of the world). Therefore, if the words are accurately translated, the statement is senseless. But if we try to make sense of them through copious copyediting, 421Paul’s entire mantra is contradicted.
As a result, all we know for sure is that Paul writes poorly and thinks irrationally. He held Yahowsha’s disciples in low esteem. He felt that it was easier to demean them than it would have been to debate them.
Overall, this is an interesting comment for Sha’uwl to make considering his penchant for offering unsubstantiated opinions as if they were snowflakes in the Arctic. To him it is as if the three years the disciples spent listening to and observing Yahowsha’ didn’t mean squat. Sha’uwl, after all, had been to rabbi school, and they were manual laborers. I suppose that this is not unlike the disdain clerics have for laity today.
This is the second time over the course of five statements that we have confronted “dokei – were of the opinion.” And in this context, it is dokei’s subjective side which unequivocally prevails. According to Paul, these men “purported” to be important, and they “considered” themselves authorities. They were wannabes in Paul’s opinion. And yet, they were irrefutably called by God, publicly appointed Disciples by God, and led and instructed by God over the course of time, all within the purview of history. But compare that to Sha’uwl who cannot name a single witness to corroborate his momentary misadventure on the road out of town.
Besides the obvious, this passage should have been a warning to the Roman Catholic Church. Their patron saint has just said that his god, which is the Christian god, does not recognize human hierarchies. Those who claim rank in relationship to the Pauline god, such as popes, not only have no such authority, they are operating in direct opposition to the founder of their faith.
In actuality, however, it is possible to have an elevated and special standing with God. It is the purpose and result of the Covenant. His children are His heirs, inheriting 422everything He has to offer, from eternal life to perfection, from adoption to empowerment.
While it is akin to putting a pig in a pretty pink dress, I suppose it might have been good had Sha’uwl affirmed that religious and political hierarchies have no standing with God. Had these men not been Yahowsha’s handpicked disciples, it would have been appropriate to identify the nature of the organization to which other men may have once belonged, and also to have listed the invalid positions others may have articulated.
Three sentences from now the self-aggrandizing one will reveal the names of those he is impugning. We will compare his protestation to Luke’s testimony in Acts, which claims that beyond the disciples, themselves, the only others who were outspoken were formerly associated with the Pharisees – but so was Paul. And even then, we are left wondering what issues they may have raised other than supporting the Towrah.
Based upon what follows in this letter, from Paul’s perspective the worthless wannabes were disciples, specifically Shim’own, Yahowchanan, and Ya’aqob. And their testimony was discounted because they encouraged everyone to observe the same Towrah Yahowsha’ had observed, taught, and fulfilled. And that revelation is devastating to Paul’s credibility, because speaking of those who had promoted Yahowah’s Torah, he just said that they “added nothing to the conversation.” With Paul, it continues to be one step sideways and all others backward.
Since this allegation was utterly devastating to King James’ claim to having divine authority to rule, which was the entire purpose behind the publication of the King James Bible, the passage was edited to say that “God accepteth no man’s person.” I kid you not. KJV: “But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they 423who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:” Last time I checked, the purpose of salvation was so that God could “accept man’s person.”
Jerome had the same problem with his pope, so he authored: “and away from those who were pretending to be something. (Whatever they might have been once, it means nothing to me. God does not accept the reputation of a man.) And those who were claiming to be something had nothing to offer me.” Sha’uwl’s convoluted refutation of divine sanction was something they were unwilling to convey. So they copyedited the letter to suit their leader’s agenda. But to his credit, Jerome accurately captured Paul’s attitude and ego, if not also his underlying insecurity.
The NLT must have considered the words: “but then (de) from (apo) those (ton)” unimportant, so they omitted them from their rendering. And they evidently wanted Paul to be seen referencing “the leaders of the church,” so they arbitrarily added this clause. Likewise, the NLT “translators” must have thought it would have been nice for Paul to have written “to what I was preaching,” so they included this thought into the text of the epistle as well. And “by the way” must have seemed like the way Paul would have conveyed his thought had he been as articulate as the Tyndale team. Similarly, the NLT’s inclusion of “great leaders” and “favorites” was without textual support. So much for being Essentially Literal: “And the leaders of the church had nothing to add to what I was preaching. (By the way, their reputation as great leaders made no difference to me, for God has no favorites.)” To the contrary, God has favorites. Adam, Chawah, Enoch, Noach and his family, Abraham, Sarah, Yitschaq, Ya’aqob, Moseh (through whom the Torah was revealed), Dowd, Shamuw’el, and Yahowsha’ immediately come to mind. And, of course, Paul has gone out of his way to tell us that he was preferred over all others.
424The transition from the derogatory, “but now from the ones currently reputed, presumed, and supposed to be someone important based upon some sort of unspecified past, they were actually and continue to be nothing, completely meaningless and totally worthless, to me,” to “Petros” in this next sentence is concerning. Since Shim’own had been a disciple, and was now the most respected member of Yaruwshalaim’s Called-Out Assembly, it infers that Paul thought that Peter’s “opinions added nothing to the conversation.”
In support of this unflattering conclusion, Galatians 2:7 begins with a somewhat contrarian position. The Greek actually reads:
“Contrariwise (tounantion – on the contrary), nevertheless (alla – however notwithstanding the objection, exception, or restriction), having seen and perceived (horao – having looked at, having been aware of, and having looked at) that because (oti – namely for the reason) I have been believed (pisteuo – I have been convinced to faithfully give credence to, thereby I have been entrusted (in the perfect tense this occurred in the past producing the state which exists in the present, in the passive voice, Sha’uwl had this done to him, and in the indicative mood, it actually occurred)) with the (to) healing message and beneficial messenger (euangelion) of the uncircumcised (tes akrobystia) inasmuch as (kathos – to the degree that and just as) Petros (Petros – rock or stone; typically transliterated “Peter;” the Greek equivalent of the Aramaic kephas) of the circumcised (tes peritome).” (Galatians 2:7)
As has been the case previously, we cannot blame the scribes for the apparent deficiencies. The Greek text reads exactly this way in every ancient manuscript, including Papyrus 46 – which dates to as early as 85 CE.
The Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition 425with McReynolds English Interlinear, the most acclaimed scholarly representation of the text, presents these same words as follows: “But on the contrary having seen that I have been trusted the good message of the uncircumcision just as Peter of the circumcision.”
Therefore, should we believe Sha’uwl, Shim’own Kephas and Paulos were assigned the same mission, but to different people. But if this were the case, why was Paul so condemning of the disciple’s message? And why did Paul tell us previously that he was his god’s agent to kings, nations, and Yisra’el. Had he forgotten what his Lord allegedly told him, or did he feel at liberty to change his god’s ordination because he knew it was not true anyway.
While this statement is less grammatically deficient than the preceding six, it is barely literate, and its message is contrarian and convoluted. For example, tounantion literally means “opposite or contrariwise,” although it can be rendered “rather” or “to the contrary.” And that begs the question, how and why was Paul’s message so contrary to the presumed leaders of the Yaruwshalaim ekklesia?
Likewise, alla also conveys “to the contrary,” in addition to “nevertheless and notwithstanding,” indicating that there is a “significant contrast, objection, exception, distinction, or exemption” being made. But the problem with both of these terms, and most especially the use of tounantion in conjunction with alla, is that this clause isn’t related to God’s disdain for hierarchies, or to self-promoting types not adding anything to this conversation. So as back to back comparative terms denoting a very significant contrast, they were deployed to demonstrate that Paul sharply disagreed with what was being said at the meeting.
This in turn indicates that Galatians 2:7 is not only about divvying up the world, with Paul taking a 99.98% share for himself, his use of tounantion alla screams that 426neither his power grab nor his disdain for the Torah were well-received. So he was telling Yahowsha’s Disciples to capitulate – to accept his terms and their fate or else.
Exceedingly relevant, Paul divided the world between the circumcised and the uncircumcised. So since male circumcision is an absolute requirement to participate in the Covenant, all of Paul’s followers would remain estranged from God. And since God only saves His Covenant children, they would all die. He was as Yahowah foretold: the Plague of Death.
He has staked out his turf. Unfortunately, by doing so he has announced his animosity toward everything God holds dear – including truth, people, and their lives.
From henceforth, Sha’uwl | Paul would be Yahowah’s, Yahuwdym’s, the Towrah’s, and the Beryth’s most annoying antagonist. In pursuit of his new religion, he would do everything in his sphere of influence to keep those who disagreed with him from convincing his target audience – the world apart from Jews – that he was wrong. His tactics would include the delirium of replacement theology, vicious character assassination, and rampant anti-Semitism.
Paranoid and delusional, Sha’uwl would position Jews as competitors and opponents – his rivals and thus enemies. So while Yahowah’s Chosen People had faced the wrath of the Egyptians, the Philistines, the Hittites, Moabites, Amalekites, the Babylonians, Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans, Paul’s religion would be their most formidable foe. The pathogen he conceived with this letter and those which would follow, unleashed a two-thousand-year curse. And in that regard, had it been a prediction rather than a threat, it would have been the lone prophecy he got right.
Prior to this parting of the ways, the overwhelming preponderance of the followers of The Way had been Ebionites who were Torah-observant Yahuwdym. They 427had invited and welcomed Gowym into the Covenant family with open arms – and under the same terms. However, now, as a result of Sha’uwl’s lust for power and this meeting, Paul’s new covenant would be contrarian, upending an auspicious beginning.
A wedge was being driven between Jews and Gentiles creating a distinction that had not existed previously. Paul’s “church” would henceforth view Yahowah’s Chosen People as a conniving and ruthless enemy, as Christians would come to discount their God, His Land, Word, and people.
Even the Shim’own bar Kochba revolt against Rome (climaxing in the Yowbel Year of 133 CE) which led to the Diaspora was rooted in Sha’uwl’s animosity for his own people. The false messiah’s sponsor, Rabbi Akiba, was able to wage his revolt by completing the job Sha’uwl had begun, isolating and marginalizing the Yisra’elite members of The Way, the Ebionites, so that they had no safe harbor. Hated by everyone, they were decimated before Akiba’s loyalists were routed by Rome, severing the connection between Yahuwdym and the Land as well as The Way.
Rather than Yahowah’s Spirit inspiring and guiding him, Sha’uwl’s ego blinded him. His anti-Torah message would be in direct opposition to Yahowah’s instructions. The constraints he put on Shim’own Kephas’ mission were now in direct opposition to Yahowsha’s instructions.
So now that we know that Sha’uwl was opposed to Yahowah and Yahowsha’, who do you suppose he aligned with and promoted? Who inspired him?
Especially proud of it, Sha’uwl | Paul answered this question: Satan. But even if he had not felt the urge to brag, it is already obvious to the Towrah-observant. So what does that say about Christians?
Since we do not have much to work with when trying 428to translate Galatians 2:7, before I share my thoughts on why these deficiencies exist, let’s consider how Bacon and Jerome dealt with Paul’s concluding statement. KJV: “But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;” As we shall see, the King James Version is setting the stage for Paul’s “Two Covenant Theory.”
The KJV added “when they” without textual support. They errantly replaced euangelion with “Gospel.” The King James also added the clause “was committed to me” without justification in the Greek text. They repeated “gospel” a second time, even though there was no basis for doing so. Then they added, again without support in the Greek, “was and unto” before Petros. In other words, there is almost no correlation between the Greek manuscripts and the English found in the King James. To believe that Paul’s original letter was the inspired word of God is akin to claiming that the King James Version was authorized by God.
As a result of all of their contributions to Paul’s epistle, it was now: “the gospel of the uncircumcision” which “was committed unto [Paul].” So while this wasn’t an accurate translation, as an occultist, Sir Francis Bacon had no difficulty conveying the intended message. By discouraging circumcision, most of the world’s population was automatically and irrevocably excluded from the Covenant and thus could not be saved. If you were opposed to God, it was a brilliant move.
Jerome’s take on the verse was astute. While he had to add the words “it was,” “since,” “they,” “me,” and “to,” at least his definition of pisteuo as “was entrusted to” was reasonable. However, by doing so, he undermined his translation of pisteuo as “faith” elsewhere. Jerome also had to significantly alter the word order. Yet, these things aside, considering what he was working with, it was a respectable 429effort. At least he did not create a “new gospel for the uncircumcised.” “But it was to the contrary, since they had seen that the evangelium to the uncircumcised was entrusted to me, just as the circumcised to Petro.”
However, from: “contrariwise, notwithstanding the objection or restriction, having perceived that because namely I have been believed entrusted with the healing message of the uncircumcised inasmuch as Petros of the circumcised,” the NLT produced: “Instead, they saw that God had given me the responsibility of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as he had given Peter the responsibility of preaching to the Jews.” And yet there is no indication, apart from Sha’uwl’s power grab, that this was true. In fact, to the contrary, Yahowsha’ called Petros “the rock upon which I will build My called-out assembly.” So either Yahowsha’ was lying or Paul was.
The reality that we must confront here, at least to be honest with ourselves, is that this sentence does not even approximate Godly perfection. In fact, even if it had been appropriately worded, it was not true. According to Acts 15, neither Shim’own nor Ya’aqob supported Sha’uwl’s position. And since we are compelled to think, I want to deal openly and thoughtfully with what Sha’uwl has written. After all, we are encouraged to test messages, searching to know if they are from God, man, or the Adversary.
The first step with regard to these deficiencies is to admit the obvious: the writing quality is poor. It is most certainly beneath God’s talent to have inspired this. And while we cannot blame Paul for “Gospel,” we cannot excuse his replacement of Yahowah’s fortuitous gift with the Greek goddesses, “Charis,” or their Roman counterparts, the “Gratia.” Further, there is too much ambiguity in this letter for it to be considered Divine.
Without exception, the basis of Sha’uwl’s | Paul’s 430arguments and feuds were inadequately developed or deliberately hidden. Although there is no mistaking which set of instructions Paul was assailing. He despised Yahowah’s Towrah and had no issue with the Talmud (the Jerusalem Talmud existed at this time, but not the Babylonian extension).
So, for what it is worth, and that may be nothing, here is the most favorable spin we can put on these words, a perspective that is unsupported by what we are reading. A possible justification for the defects in wording may have been because Sha’uwl was dictating this as a letter to a community of people he distrusted in response to an attack on his qualifications and on his message. The penman may have been one of Paul’s associates as opposed to a professional scribe. But the bigger issue was that Paul was angry, hurt, and overly emotional, and he let his ego get in the way.
But to infer, especially without any textual support, that Sha’uwl’s letters were inspired, word for word as the Set-Apart Spirit moved his lips, is to demean Yahowah’s ability to communicate. And if that were the case, it would be Yahowah who was schizophrenic, not Paul.
Further incriminating the Devil’s Advocate, unlike what we find in the Torah, there is no instruction to write Yahowah’s words down, to pass God’s personal, first-person testimony on to future generations. There is no admonition to leave God’s witness exactly as it was delivered, without any additions or subtractions. There is no comparison between the profound, mind-expanding, and soul-stirring presentation we consistently experience in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms and what we are reading here. Moreover, much of Sha’uwl’s message has been untrue – and all of it has been unsupported.
One of my favorite litmus tests, at least apart from Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 13 and 18, for 431determining that which is from man and that which was created by God, is the comparison between the pin and the lily. Both serve a purpose, but one is beautiful, no matter how closely we look. Examine a pin under a microscope, as we are doing here with Paul’s letters, and the flaws become pervasive. Not so with the lily, where like the Towrah, the more it is magnified, the more obvious it becomes that it was conceived by a superior being.
Therefore, it is obvious that Paul’s letters are from Sha’uwl of Tarsus, not God. And Paulos had his issues, being both insane and demon-possessed. These problems rise to the surface in Galatians, a letter which chronicles one of the darkest episodes in this controversial man’s life. As such, this epistle remains his most haunting legacy. And that is the most positive and conciliatory explanation of the evidence at our disposal – at least at this point in our investigation. We still have a great deal to learn.
But even if you do not agree with this assessment, it would be preposterous to conclude that the manuscript copies of this letter, both ancient and modern, replete as they all are with numerous grammatical deficiencies and inaccurate statements, represent the word of the God being demeaned by them. The God I have come to know through the Towrah does not make mistakes; He is literate and consistent.
Moreover, even with the change of his name from Sha’uwl to Paul, the Devil’s Advocate will never escape the dark shadow of death Yahowah cast upon him in Habakkuk.
What matters is that Yahowah has demonstrated that His Torah, Prophets, and Psalms are perfect, complete, trustworthy, and reliable – easy to understand and totally sufficient regarding the restoration and renewal of our souls. Our relationship with God is predicated exclusively upon Yahowah, His credibility and His Word.
432Before we move on, let’s summarize where we have just been. Paul’s relentless onslaught has taken a negative turn, replete with many accusations which are conflicting and errant:
“Later, through fourteen years, also, I went up to Yaruwshalaim along with Barnabas, having taken along also Titus. (Galatians 2:1)
I went up, but then downward from uncovering an unveiling revelation which lays bare, laying down to them the beneficial messenger which I preach among the races down from my own, uniquely and separately, but then to the opinions, presumptions, and suppositions, not somehow perhaps into foolishness and stupidity, without purpose or falsely, I might run or I ran, (2:2) to the contrary, not even Titus, a Greek being, was compelled and forced to be circumcised, (2:3) but then on account of the impersonators who faked their relationship brought in surreptitiously under false pretenses, who sneaked into the group to secretly spy upon and clandestinely plot against the freedom from conscience and liberation from the constraints of morality that we possess in Christo Iesou in order that us they will actually make subservient, controlling for their own ends, (2:4) to whom neither for a moment we yielded or surrendered, in order that the truth of the God may continue to be associated among you. (Galatians 2:5)
But now from the ones currently reputed, presumed, and supposed to be someone important based upon some sort of unspecified past, they were actually and continue to be nothing, completely meaningless and totally worthless to me. It carries through and bears differently the face of the God of man not take hold of because to me, the ones currently presuming and supposing, presently dispensing opinions based upon reputed appearances, of no 433account, utterly meaningless and useless, was their advice and counsel, their cause and contribution in the past. (Galatians 2:6)
Contrariwise, notwithstanding the objection or restriction, having perceived that because namely I have been believed entrusted with the healing message and beneficial messenger of the uncircumcised inasmuch as Petros / Rock of the circumcised.” (Galatians 2:7)
It is hard to fathom this as the product of a sane or rational mind. It is rambling and psychotic, delusional and paranoid. It serves to prove that Yahowah was right when He warned us about this horrible individual.
