1Questioning Paul

Towrahless

…Without Guidance

 

1

Anomos | Without an Inheritance

 

I was Torahless…

Our principal means to exonerate or excoriate the Sha’uwl who reinvented himself as Paul will continue by comparing his letters to God’s testimony. However, when the opportunity presents itself, we will pursue the Acts of the Apostles to ascertain whether this “Apostle’s” claims were credible.

Shim’own, meaning “He Listens,” but more commonly known as “Peter,” is going to be our star witness. He, with Luke serving as narrator, reveals that a wide-ranging dispute had arisen between Yahowsha’s disciples and Paul. Sha’uwl’s message was the antithesis of what Yahowsha’ had taught Shim’own, and as we have learned, it was also in irreconcilable conflict with Yahowah’s Word. Undaunted, the man who has come to be revered as “Saint Paul” continued to express his exclusive rights to preach his contrarian message to the world.

Let’s review Luke’s take on what had transpired before we consider the testimony Shim’own Kephas | “Peter” provided to deliberately undermine and discredit Sha’uwl’s premise…

“And some, having come down from Yahuwdah, were teaching the brethren that if you might not be circumcised as prescribed by Moseh, you are not able 2to be saved. (Acts 15:1)

So an openly heated and hotly disputed argument, which was substantial and pervasive, arose pertaining to the individual Paulos and to Barnabas.

Regarding them, they gave the order to stand up to Paulos and Barnabas, and some others among them, on behalf of the Apostles and elders in Yaruwshalaim with regard to this controversy and inquiry.” (Acts 15:2)

“Then having arrived in Yaruwshalaim, they were acknowledged and received by the Called Out, the Apostles, and elders. Then they reported as much as God did with them. (Acts 15:4)

But some important individuals steadfastly stood up, the ones who had now disassociated from the religious party of the Pharisees, who have come to trust and to rely upon, said that it is a necessary requirement, it is established, right and beneficial, to circumcise individuals, not only to provide instruction as a messenger, but also to observe the Towrah of Moseh. (Acts 15:5)

So then demonstrating leadership, the Apostles and the elders were attuned to this statement from the Word. (Acts 15:6)

But then with considerable and extensive debate happening, the Rock having stood up, said to and against them, ‘Men, brothers, you all have examined the evidence, thought about it, and have come to understand that from the beginning you all chose Yahowah for yourself on account of my spoken words, listening to and considering the word of the healing message and beneficial Messenger to the races and nations, and considered it to be trustworthy and reliable.’” (Acts 15:7)

The elders’ testimony on behalf of the Torah coupled 3with Shim’own’s claims regarding the veracity and breadth of his witness has completely pulverized Paulos’ position. But Shim’own was not finished pummeling God’s foe. He continued to say...

“And (kai) Yahowah (ΘΣ – a placeholder used in the Septuagint to convey ‘elohym, the Almighty, in addition to Yahowah’s name), the One (o) who knows hearts (kardiognostes – addressing the individual’s attitude and what they have incorporated into their lives [however, since this was a translation of the Hebrew ‘asher yada’ leb, the statement should have been translated: “who understands how to exercise good judgment and decide”]), provided testimony and spoke of (martyreo – witnessed on behalf of and vouched for) having given (didomi – having produced and granted, appointing, assigning, and bestowing) to them (autois) the Set-Apart (to agion – and purifying) Spirit (to ΠΝΑ – a placeholder used in the Septuagint to represent the ruwach – Spirit of Yahowah) just as (kathos – for the same reason and to the same degree) also (kai) to us (emin). (15:8)

And no one (kai outhen) can make a distinction (diakrinomai – can create a difference) between (metaxy) us (emon) and also likewise (te kai) them (auton), in that which is trustworthy and reliable (pistis), having cleansed (katharizo – having healed and purified) their (auton) hearts (kardias – addressing the individual, their desires and attitude [again, in Hebrew, the language Shim’own, Yahowsha’, and Yahowah spoke, the leb – heart was considered to be the seat of judgment and represented decisive thinking]).” (Acts 15:9)

This is a brilliant opening statement by Shim’own Kephas, whose name means: he listens to the Rock of Reconciliation. In direct opposition to Paul’s “but I say,” Yahowsha’s disciple affirmed that, with regard to making a thoughtful and reasoned decision about God, “Yahowah’s testimony” is all that matters.

4Then, the Rock further differentiated himself from Sha’uwl when he identified the source of his effectiveness: “the Set-Apart Spirit” – the same Spirit whom Yahowah had previously spoken about and had provided to His Covenant children. By contrast, however, in the previous chapter, we learned that Paul’s power came from a masculine spirit whom he later identified as “a messenger of Satan.”

This was also Yahowah’s position. While Yahowsha’ referred to Shim’own as a “kephas – stone” to be wielded in support of the truth, Yahowah would deploy a “choter – stem” in a similar fashion. Yahowah’s description of how He would enable this individual, such that he would become an effective witness, is presented in Yasha’yah / Isaiah 11, something we will consider momentarily.

In direct contrast to Sha’uwl / Question Him / Paul, Shim’own / He Listens / Peter said that “no one should make a distinction between us.” That was to say, when it comes to sharing and knowing the truth about Yahowah, the world should not be divided between Yahuwdym and Gowym, in the past, present, or future. All of Yahowah’s messengers are aided by the Set-Apart Spirit. She enables them to share God’s healing message in a manner which is consistent with the way it was presented in the Towrah and through the Prophets to all those whose minds are open, regardless of race, place, or time.

Seventeen years earlier, Yahowsha’s disciples had been the beneficiaries of the Towrah’s promises regarding Seven Shabats. As a result of Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children, they had all been similarly enriched, enlightened, and empowered. In so doing, our Heavenly Father’s Covenant family grew in numbers and capability.

And consistent with the Towrah’s Instructions, Gowym and Yahuwdym, men and women, young and old, 5rich and poor, free and slave were invited to participate. While there was still a distinction, in that Yisra’el would remain the Chosen People, individually the door which Passover had provided was open. But it had not changed. Regardless of ethnicity, gender, age, or economic status, the path to becomimg Yahowah’s children, however, remained the same, because there is and always has been one God, one Towrah, one Covenant, one way to God.

Accordingly, Shim’own asks Sha’uwl a rather poignant question, one which casts Paul in the role of Satan...

“Now (nyn), therefore (oun), why (ti) do you test and tempt (peirazo – do you (speaking to Sha’uwl and Barnabas) look for mistakes and try to exploit and trap) God (ΘN – a placeholder used by Yahowsha’s Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey ‘elohym, the Almighty), to place upon and impose (epitithemai – to lay on, subjecting, and inflicting) a yoke (zygos – a mechanism for controlling the movement of animals) upon the neck (epi ton trachelos) of the disciples (ton mathetes – followers who are committed to a relationship and who as students are instructed and tutored) which (on) neither (oute) our (emon) fathers (pateres) nor (oute) we (emeis) were given the authority (ischuo – were able to enforce, were competent to validate, and sufficiently empowered) to accept, support, or put up with (bastazo – to comprehend, take up, carry, or endure in our walk)?” (Acts 15:10)

While that is a translation of what Shim’own actually said, there is no dismissing the fact that peirazo is an unsavory term. It is used in reference to Satan “tempting” Yahowsha’ in the wilderness prior to the beginning of his witness in Mark 1:13. Matthew is also translated using the same word in relation to Satan, calling him the “tempter” in Matthew 4:3. Then peirazo was supplied by a scribe in Matthew 16:1, showing the Pharisees and Sadducees trying 6to “tempt” Yahowsha’, so as to manipulate Him.

Therefore, the Disciple Shim’own is implying that Sha’uwl was acting like Satan and his religious minions in his attempt to “test and tempt” God, “searching for ways to exploit” God. It was astute because Paul had made a religion out of misquoting God.

The issues at play were Torah observance, especially with regard to circumcision, and messaging, particularly in light of the audience. Therefore, since Yahowah’s instructions in this regard are clear and invariable, to claim otherwise and to expect God to acquiesce is to tempt fate. It is a losing hand, and Shim’own knows it.

Then Shim’own said that Sha’uwl was inappropriately trying to control Yahowsha’s disciples, imposing restrictions upon them which they could never support. He is in effect telling us that all of Sha’uwl’s claims regarding God changing His approach and then authorizing one man to proclaim those alterations were untrue. This is part and parcel of everything we have read thus far in Galatians.

The Disciples were specifically asked by Yahowsha’ to carry his message to the world. They would have to rescind God’s direction to accept Sha’uwl’s mandate. And they wisely were unwilling.

But beyond this, Shim’own was quick to point out that Yahowah did not give any of us the authority to change His testimony, and most especially the terms and conditions associated with His Covenant. So what Paul was preaching was something the disciples “could not and would not accept, support, or put up with.”

In future chapters we will analyze another of Yahowsha’s prophetic warnings regarding Sha’uwl, directed through Shim’own, which is also germane to the Rock’s most recent affirmation. As a preview of it now, seventeen years before Sha’uwl would attempt to do this 7very thing to Shim’own, Yahowsha’ warned his disciple...

“Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were younger, you were girding yourself, fastening the ties of your own garments, preparing yourself for work, and you were walking, traveling around, conducting your life wherever you were intending. But when you grow older, you will extend your hands and another will gird you, placing a yoke on you to control you (se zosei – will fasten a strap around your midst; from zugos – imposing a yoke of bondage to manipulate and control, used to depict the burden of troublesome religious laws and commands) and he will manipulate you, herding you to a place where you do not presently intend nor desire.’ (21:18)

And then he revealed the future by foretelling the kind of deadly plague he will attribute to Yahowah. And this having been shared, he said to him, ‘You should choose to follow me and my way, actively engaging as my disciple.’” (Yahowchanan / Yahowah is Merciful / John 21:18-19) With Yahowsha’s warning still ringing in his ears, Shim’own told Sha’uwl that he would not accept his yoke.

While there is no “test,” “yoke” or “trap,” nor a reference to “neck” or to the ability “to endure” a burden associated with the concluding statement of Moseh’s public pronouncement in Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 27:26, Christian apologists, in a wild and unsupported leap of faith, say that “Peter” was referencing this verse to suggest that a person is trapped by the Towrah unless they obey everything it says. But not only is that conclusion in irreconcilable conflict with Yahowah’s testimony on this subject, it is not even what the Towrah reveals.

After saying that a person will invoke harm upon themselves if they make religious idols or images that are detestable to Yahowah, if they dishonor their (Heavenly) Father or (Spiritual) Mother, if they confiscate their 8neighbor’s land, if they mislead a blind person, if they deprive an orphan of justice, if they have sexual relations with a parent, animal, sibling, in-law, if they secretly strike down a fellow countryman, or if they take a bribe which damns an innocent soul, we read:

“Relationally, he invokes harm upon himself who (‘arar ‘asher) does not take a stand (quwm – is not established and affirmed, raising up) with regard to (‘eth – in association with) the words (dabarym – the statements and message of) of this (ha ze’th), the Towrah’s guidance (ha towrah – the Towrah’s teaching, direction, and instruction), for the purpose of (la – and to approach by) engaging in and acting upon them (‘asah ‘eth – endeavoring to exert considerable effort to gain and profit from them). And the entire family (wa kol ha ‘am) said (‘amar), ‘Surely this is truthful and reliable (‘aman – this is acceptable and true).’” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 27:26)

As with most things Christians claim on behalf of their religion, the inverse of their argument is true. We are being asked to take a stand regarding the words which comprise the Towrah’s guidance, thereby acting upon God’s instructions.

When it comes to analyzing the words, themselves, there is an enormous difference between Paul’s letters and any testimony found elsewhere. Paul’s epistles were originally written in Greek to those who were fluent in Greek. Therefore, Paul, himself, selected each of the Greek words we are reading. However, the conversations which took place in Yaruwshalaim, Yahuwdah | Jerusalem, Judah were all spoken in Hebrew, making the Greek text a translation, typically by a scribe, and often hundreds of years later. This is important because it means that, in his next statement, Shim’own would have used “chen – mercy” not “charis – grace.” Luke, who at the time was traveling with Paul, may have provided the errant 9rendering, but it could also have been changed much later by a Roman Catholic scribe in the late 4^th century. While there is an extant pre-Constantine manuscript of Acts, this next statement was omitted.

Here we find Shim’own | Peter, after telling Sha’uwl | Paul to go to She’owl | Hell with his arrogant and condescending attitude and with his grossly inappropriate turf war which sought to anoint him lord of the world and purveyor of the word, saying that he was going to stick with Yahowsha’. Therefore, Paul’s contrarian message which conflicted with everything Yahowsha’ said and did regarding salvation was a nonstarter. Therefore, transitioning away from Sha’uwl and back to reality...

“To the contrary (alla – instead, certainly and emphatically), through (dia – by and on account of) the mercy (charis – was errantly selected by a scribe to convey chen, the Hebrew word for undeserved kindness and unmerited favor) of Yahowah (tou ΚΥ – a placeholder used by Yahowsha’s Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey either ‘edon, the Upright One, or Yahowah’s name), in Yahowsha’ (ΙΥ – a placeholder used by Yahowsha’s Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey Yahowsha’, meaning Yahowah Frees and Saves), we presently trust and actively rely (pistos – we express actual conviction and confidence so as to genuinely depend (present active indicative)) to be saved (sozo – to be healed and delivered) according to (kata – in accord with) this manner, this means, and this way (on tropos – direction and fashion by which something is accomplished), the same as them (kai ekeinos – and also those, a conjunction and pronoun referencing a similarity with people who were relatively distant in time and thus referring to the way of the forefathers in the previous sentence).” (Acts 15:11)

Shim’own is saying what I’ve been saying, and he’s saying it because it is what Yahowah said: God is the source of mercy. He always has been and always will be. 10Yahowsha’ is simply part of Yahowah’s delivery mechanism. When it comes to our salvation, one serves the other by fulfilling God’s promises.

The mercy Abraham, Yitschaq, and Ya’aqob enjoyed, and the way they availed themselves of it, was the same as that experienced by Shim’own, Yahowchanan, and their fellow Disciple Ya’aqob. There is only one God, one Torah, one Covenant, one Way. Shim’own had chosen appropriately in every case, consistently siding with God. Sha’uwl, well not so much. His mission was to change everything, including God.

Forgetting Paul’s affinity for the Charis | Graces for a moment, “believing in ‘Jesus Christ’” has never saved anyone. Salvation has nothing to do with our “faith.” It is by responding to Yahowah that we are adopted into His family. Satan did not believe because he knew Yahowsha’ personally, and he knows Yahowah. He understands the merits of the Miqra’ey too, but it has not done him any good. Salvation is a byproduct of the Covenant Sha’uwl | Paul has sought to replace. It is obtained by accepting the Beryth | Covenant’s conditions and by replying to the Miqra’ey | Invitations.

This explains why the disciples and the entire Called-Out Assembly in Yaruwshalaim responded so coldly and were unreceptive to Sha’uwl. Sigao, meaning “to hiss while holding one’s breath,” suggests that they were trying to disassociate themselves from Paul’s message. And the more Paul tried to impress them, the less they were impressed.

“So then (de) the entire (pas to – everyone associated with the) large assembly (plethos – multitude and great crowd) was actually hissing while keeping their perceptions to themselves (sigao – they were holding their breath, keeping relatively closed-mouthed, actively concealing their reactions; from sige – to utter a hushed 11hiss), as (kai) they were listening to (akouo – all the while they were using their sense of hearing to actively and actually consider (imperfect active indicative)) Barnaba (Barnaba – a transliteration of bar naby; meaning in Aramaic, the son of a prophet, transliterated Barnabas) and (kai) Paulou (Paulou – of Latin origin meaning Lowly and Little, transliterated Paul) telling (exegeomai – revealing, explaining, and describing) the quantity and extent (hosos) they performed (poieomai – they did, created, caused, constructed, worked, fashioned, made, and brought about) of (o – the definite article in the nominative case indicating to become) Godly (ΘΣ) signs (semeion – miracles) and (kai) wonders (teras – portentous events or extraordinary omens) in and among (en) the (tois) races and nations (ethnos – the ethnicities) through (dia) them (auton).” (Acts 15:12)

God is not a showoff. He seldom performs miracles. It is not His style. He prefers words. He wants us to think our way to Him. His testimony is more than sufficient to accomplish this result.

Therefore, if Barnaba and Paulou wanted to impress this assembly, they would have done so by citing the Towrah, equating its message to their own, while affirming Yahowah’s Covenant, His Invitations, and His mercy. But no, with Paul (we have to be careful lumping Barnabas in with him because immediately after this meeting he would soon reject Paul), it is all about him, his “magnificent” message and performances. So as a result, the Assembly hissed at the self-proclaimed assassin and libertine.

We must always be highly suspect regarding anyone, when they claim to have produced “signs and wonders.” Rather than serve as proof of God’s influence, they are unwittingly incriminating themselves.

In the section of Matthew beyond the Instruction on the Mount which is reliable is the Olivet Discourse. 12Yahowsha’s speech was also pilfered from the Hebrew language account recorded by the disciple Lowy | Levi. As a result, in Matthew 24:4-5 and then in 23-24, seventeen years in advance of the day they would benefit from this advice, Yahowsha’ warned his disciples to be especially wary of anyone who would make the claims Paul has now professed. In the midst of his Olivet Discourse, we find:

“And Yahowsha’ (ΙΣ), having responded judgmentally (apokrinomai – having answered using discernment to separate fact from fiction; a compound of apo – from, and krino – separation, thereby being discriminating), said to (eupen – spoke to) them (autos – speaking of His Disciples), ‘It’s important that you are observant and that you pay attention, presently being aware and perceptive (blepete – choose to look closely and watch out, consider carefully and be discerning, think so that you understand (present active imperative)), lest (ue) someone (tis) will try to cause you to wander away from the truth (planeon umas – he will intentionally deceive and will probably try to delude you, attempting to lead you astray (aorist active subjunctive)). (24:4)

For (gar – because) many (polys) will come (erchomai) in (en – [from Papyrus 70]) my (mou) name (onoma – reputation), saying (lego – claiming), ‘I (ego) represent (eimi – am, exist for, and belong to) the (o) Ma’aseyah (ΧΣ – a placeholder used to represent whichever title Yahowsha’ intended to convey in Hebrew meaning Work of Yah). And so (kai) many (polys) they will mislead (planaomai – they deceive and delude, causing to go astray).” (Matthew 24:5)

“Then (tote) if (ean) someone (tis) might say (eipon – may speak) to you (umeis), ‘Behold (idou – indeed, suddenly now, look, and pay special attention, emphasizing that), here in this place (hode), the Ma’aseyah (o ΧΣ – a placeholder used to represent whichever title Yahowsha’ intended to convey in Hebrew),’ or (e), ‘In this case, over 13there (hode).’ You should do not think that this is trustworthy or reliable (me pisteuo). (24:23)

Because (gar) those pretending to be useful implements (pseudochrestui – a compound of pseudo – fraudulent and chrestui – prepared and useful servants) and (kai) prophets (pseudoprophetai – those errantly claiming to speak for the gods) will arise and take a stand (egeiromai – arousing and stirring the comatose), and (kai) they will give (didomi – they will claim the authority to provide, offer or bestow) many great (megas – significant and surprising, important and astonishing) signs (semeion) and (kai) wonders (teras – miraculous and portentous events) in order to (hoste – therefore as a result to) deceive and mislead (planao – to in a particular moment in time attempt to delude, wandering away from the truth so lead astray (aorist active)), if possible (ei dynatos – if able), even (kai) those who choose to be called out (tous eklektos – those who choose to be called out based upon the word, those who select and are selected because of the word, from ek, out of, and legos, the Word).’” (Matthew 24:24)

In a private meeting in which only his disciples were present, and thus speaking to Shim’own, Yahowchanan, and Ya’aqob, Yahowsha’ “told them to pay attention, to be especially discerning and judgmental, being observant and careful, lest someone will cause you to wander away from the truth, deceiving and deluding you.” Since this warning was stated specifically to the disciples, and since only one person committed this offense, the only person Yahowsha’ could have been warning his disciples about was Sha’uwl | Paul, and for this very occasion. And if not Paul, who? If not then, when? There are no other viable options.

I realize that Christian apologists will say that this warning was meant for others – including for us today. And by way of extrapolation, that might ordinarily be possible, except for the fact that the initial and concluding pronouns 14and translated tenses attest otherwise. “Blepete – it’s important that you are observant” was presented in the present tense, and thus was not addressing encounters nearly two thousand years later.

Further, “planeon – he will intend for you to wander away from the truth” was scribed in the aorist which, while in the subjunctive mood, reveals that the attempt to “deceive and delude” would be intentional. But it would be them, specifically, which is why “umas – you” was deployed. Also, “tis – someone” is singular and masculine as is planeon, the deceiver. Therefore, Yahowsha’ could not have been talking of anyone past the lifetimes of the disciples or about more than one individual at the beginning and conclusion of the prophecy. If not Paul, it was a false prophecy.

Yahowsha’s concern was that his disciples would be lured away from the truth, which means that they knew what was right – something which could not be said about Christians today who still do not recognize that Paul was wrong. It also means that the individual making the claim to have seen him, of which there was only one, would not only be deceived, he would be very persuasive in misleading even the most aware – which once again points specifically and uniquely to Paul.

Further indicting Paul, Yahowsha’ is recorded saying that this individual will have claimed to have seen and then represent himself, claims which when combined pertain exclusively to Paul, and undeniably so when restricted to the experience of these disciples. And it is then based upon this lone individual’s deceptiveness that many others will follow in his footsteps, misleading countless more.

The title Yahowsha’ conveyed on this occasion is unknown to us, hidden by translation and placeholder. He may have said Ma’aseyah | Useful Implement or Mashyach | Anointed Messiah. But I think it would have been more 15appropriate, and interesting, for him to have said Christo, mocking the title which Paul actually deployed in his letters and speeches.

In this regard, pseudochrestui is potentially revealing because the spelling appears to be based upon “chrestus – useful implement” rather than “christos – drugged.” Therefore, it may have been Yahowsha’s warning his disciples to be suspect of someone feigning precisely what Paul was claiming.

So I say again, if not Paul, then who? There are two independent records of one man doing all of these things in the presence of the disciples, making these false claims, leading them away from the truth, and prevailing by hijacking the Called-Out Assembly and taking it to the dark side using guile and deception. The warning was as detailed and specific as were the violations. With this lone individual fulfilling every aspect of this prophecy about a single individual during their lifetimes, Yahowsha’ was a prophet, and if not Paul, then Yahowsha’ was a liar. So why with the answer so readily discernible is most everyone in denial?

This prediction comprises the opening statement of the Olivet Discourse, Yahowsha’s most comprehensive prophetic revelation. Everything else Yahowsha’ said has or is coming true before our eyes. So what are the odds that his preamble was erroneous or superfluous?

Sadly, there is considerable evidence to suggest that Paul’s deliberate attempt to mislead prevailed. While the disciples never accepted him and were opposed to his claims, they were not nearly aggressive enough. And as a result, Paul’s faith has deceived and misled billions. Yahowsha’ was right. And it is from this perspective that readers should be mindful that my unrelenting criticism of this man is actually less than appropriate in the sense that he deserves far worse.

16Paul was unique, especially when we consider the depth of his deception and the breadth of his carnage. The billions of Christians his letters have led away from Yahowah, His Beryth, Miqra’ey, and Towrah, who have been beguiled into placing their faith in his Gospel of Grace, are “many” by any standard. In fact, it would be hard to identify another individual who has misled more people than Paul. It is why I refer to him as the most infamous and influential man who ever lived.

Second unto Paul would be “Muhammad,” who has also misled billions. But Allah’s Messenger only claimed to be the Messiah as he approached Yathrib. This brief and failed interlude came immediately following the Satanic Verses when his tattered reputation needed a boost. Moreover, Muhammad never spoke in Yahowsha’s name because he did not know it. The Qur’an calls Yahowsha’ “Issa,” which is an Arabic transliteration of “Esau.” Further, Muhammad never claimed to represent the Messiah, but instead Allah. So, he would be disqualified from this prophecy. Not to mention the fact that he lived five centuries after the lifetimes of Yahowsha’s disciples.

Before we move on, let’s pause a moment and contemplate a most startling fact. Paul has repeatedly claimed to have seen “Christo” and speak for Yahowsha’, and yet in all of his sermons and letters, he only quotes Yahowsha’ once! The lone citation is found in 1^st Corinthians 11:24-26, and even it is wrong. Yahowsha’s “body being broken” was in conjunction with him serving as the Passover Lamb as his blood “was shed for many for the forgiveness of sin.” So how is it that a man who never once quotes Yahowsha’ accurately can actually be his spokesman?

In this light, it is also instructive to compare the inclusion of “new” before “covenant” in the spurious account in Matthew 26:28. The imposter, pretending to be a disciple named “Matthew,” altered what he had 17plagiarized from Mark 14:24 around 90 CE. Recognizing that 90% of Mark’s passages were incorporated into “Matthew,” the alteration, especially as an addition, reveals that the imposter was influenced by Paul. It is also telling that even in Luke’s hearsay gospel, all pre-Constantine manuscripts omit the second half of Luke 22:19 and all of 22:20, where the same errant addition of “new” before covenant now stands. This demonstrates that the “Gospel of Luke” was harmonized in the 4^th century by the Roman Catholic Church to be in sync with Paul’s position. The more we compare, the more we learn, the less credible the Christian edifice becomes.

Moreover, when we compare Galatians to Yahowchanan, where Yahowsha’s words and deeds dominate the text, or to Zakaryah or Yasha’yah, where Yahowah’s words reign supreme, the juxtaposition serves to awaken us to the reality that, unlike the others, Paul was speaking for himself. Simply stated: Paul wrote as if his words were God’s, and yet they never were.

Unfortunately, Yahowsha’s concluding statement is not extant in any pre-Constantine manuscript. And since we know that the Disciple Levi | Lowy originally scribed his eyewitness account in his native Hebrew, only to have it incorporated into a Greek text around 90 CE by an imposter, we have no way to validate the citation or translation. Known to scholars, but not laity, is that “Matthew” is an experiment in plagiarism. The imposter incorporated 90% of Mark and more than 50% of Luke, along with what survived from Levi into his “Gospel.” Further, it was embellished and augmented in the 4^th century by Eusebius, Constantine’s publicist and Christianity’s propagandist.

Against this backdrop, the Ebionites, who formed a Called-Out Assembly in Yaruwshalaim under Ya’aqob in the 1^st century, are attested to having read Levi’s account in Hebrew. And while there were a score of credible 18witnesses to this fact, the oldest Hebrew manuscript in our possession dates to the Middle Ages.

However, since we are considering this dire prediction in light of Paul’s fulfillment of it, it is instructive to know that the Ebionites, who were 1^st century followers of The Way, specifically excluded Paul’s letters from their canon, as they considered him to be a false prophet. It was not until Marcion, in the early 2^nd century, that Paul was canonized.

Therefore, recognizing that this eyewitness account of Yahowsha’s testimony on the Mount of Olives was spoken in Hebrew and then initially recorded in Hebrew, for the Greek text to read “will give (didomi) many great signs and wonders” instead of “will perform (poieomai) signs and wonders,” the underlying Hebrew word spoken on this occasion had to be “nathan – to give.” This suggests that the alleged “signs and wonders” weren’t actually performed but were instead “offered” as justification for believing Paul. They were all part of his smokescreen.

When Paul got up before the Yaruwshalaim Ekklesia and tried to impress them, offering “semeion kai teras – signs and wonders” as proof of his power, using the same phrase Yahowsha’ had used to warn his disciples, they should have remembered his prediction and immediately called Paul a “false prophet” who was attempting to “planao – lead them astray, actively trying to deceive and delude them.” They should have done more than “hiss” to have responded appropriately. Paul had failed another prophetic test, this one right before their eyes.

Paul even associates “signs and wonders” with Satan and Torah-lessness in 2 Thessalonians 2:7-10, a conversation which we will review shortly. As a result, even Paul-fixated Christians ought to have been alarmed.

And while they would not have considered the Towrah, Yahowah associated “signs and wonders” with false prophets and interpreters of revelations, especially 19with the likes of Sha’uwl who would eliminate the Torah and replace it with a “New Testament.” Remember:

“With regard to (‘eth) every (kol) word (dabar) which beneficially and to show the way (‘asher) I am (‘any) instructing (tsawah) you (‘eth ‘atah), observe it, closely examining and carefully considering it (shamar) for the purpose of (la) engaging in and acting upon it (‘asah), not adding to it (lo’ yasaph ‘al) and not subtracting from it (wa lo’ gara’ min). (Dabarym / Deuteronomy 12:32)

Indeed, if (ky) a prophet, a person who claims to proclaim the message of a deity (naby’) stands up trying to establish himself, exalting himself (quwm), in your midst (ba qereb) or an interpreter of revelations (chalowm chalam), and provides (wa nathan) a sign (‘owth) or (‘o) miracle, something which appears marvelous or wonderful (mowpheth) to you (‘el), (Dabarym / Deuteronomy 13:1) and the omen or miracle worker (ha ‘owth ‘o ha mowpheth) appears before you (wa bow’) who has spoken thusly (‘asher dabar) to you (‘el) to say (la ‘amar), ‘Let us go after (halak ‘achar) different (‘acher) gods (‘elohym) which (‘asher) you have not known (lo’ yada’) and let us serve and worship them (wa ‘abad), (Dabarym / Deuteronomy 13:2) do not listen to (lo’ shama’ ‘el) the words (dabar) of that prophet (ha huw’ naby’) or (‘o) interpreter of revelations (ha huw’ chalowm chalam).

Indeed, this is because (ky) the test to learn if something is true (nasah) of Yahowah (), your God (‘elohym), accordingly (‘eth) is for you to know, understand, appreciate, and acknowledge (la yada’) whether this affirms your (ha yesh) love (‘ahab) for Yahowah (), your God (‘elohym ‘atah), with all (ba kol) your heart, thinking and judgment (leb) and with all (wa ba kol) your soul (nepesh). (Dabarym / Deuteronomy 13:3)

20After (‘achar) Yahowah (), your God (‘elohym), you should walk (halak). And with Him (wa ‘eth huw’), you should be genuinely respectful (yare’).

And (wa) in concert with (‘eth) His terms and conditions (mitswah), you should continually be observant (shamar). Concerning His voice (wa ba qowl huw’), you should literally listen (shama’) so that (wa), with Him (‘eth), you can consistently engage and serve (‘abad). And (wa) to Him (ba huw’), you should choose to cling, remaining close (dabaq). (Dabarym / Deuteronomy 13:4)

So therefore (wa), a prophet (ha huw’ naby’) or (‘o) interpreter of revelations (ha huw’ chalowm chalam) is deadly (muwth) if by contrast (ky), he has spoken (dabar) rebellious renunciations (sarah) against (‘al) Yahowah (), your God (‘elohym), the One who led you out (ha yatsa’ ‘eth) from (min) the realm (‘erets) of the Crucibles of Oppression in Egypt (mitsraym) and the One who redeemed you (wa ha padah) from the house (min beyth) of bondage and slavery (‘ebed).

His desire is to seduce and scatter you (la nadach) from (min) the way (ha derek) which beneficially leads to the relationship (‘asher), Yahowah (), your God (‘elohym), described, providing you with a complete set of directions (tsawah) for you to walk in (la halak ba).

And so (wa) you can choose to remove (ba’ar) that which is disagreeable, displeasing, and incorrect (ha ra’) from your midst (min qereb).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 13:5)

This is as clear as words allow. If an individual wants to demonstrate that he or she is speaking for God, then that person should share Yahowah’s testimony. They should neither annul any aspect of it nor augment God’s Word with their own ideas. And please, neither personal revelations nor signs and wonders are credible. We should 21seek to impress people with what we know about Yahowah, because it is all impressive, but not try to show off. Paul had this all wrong.

Yahowsha’ would be even more specific regarding Paul, tailoring the prophetic prediction to reflect the wannabe Apostle’s boast that he met with him in Arabia, the ultimate “wilderness of the word.”

Before we consider what Yahowsha’ may have said, let’s remain cognizant of the fact that the imposter known as “Matthew” composed his gospel by replicating Mark and Luke sometime around 90 CE. The evidence becomes undeniable when we turn a keen eye to the ancient manuscripts. It is reinforced by the fact that there was no disciple named “Matthew.” And of Mark’s 11,025 words, 97% were duplicated in Matthew. Of the material exclusive to Matthew, most all of it can be shown to have been copied from a Hebrew text written by the disciple Lowy | Levi – the tax collector – in the immediate aftermath of Yahowsha’s fulfillment of Passover. Those sections, which notably include the Instruction on the Mount and Olivet Discourse, are the most credible. They are decidedly un-Christian and anti-Paul.

The following is from the Olivet Discourse…

“Pay close attention (idou – indeed look, being especially observant, encouraging the listener to focus upon this subject), I’ve told you this beforehand, forewarning you (proeipon umin – I have spoken to you about this previously, predicting in advance that it will actively and actually occur in your future (perfect active indicative)). (24:25)

Then when, therefore (ean oun – indeed when the condition is met and surely), someone says to you (eiposin umin), ‘Look, suddenly (idou – calling everyone’s attention to emphasize a narrative), in a remote location (en te eremo – in the wilderness, a deserted, sparsely 22populated, or uninhabited place in the desert) it is currently present (estin – it is presently, actively, and actually (present tense, active voice, indicative mood in the third person, singular and thus “it exists,” and not “I exist”)),’ you should not leave (me exerchomai – you ought not go forth). Indeed, you (idou – emphasizing this to you) in the (en tois) inner room (tameion – the reserved and secure chamber of a household and storehouse where [the Spirit] will be distributed) should not consider this to be truthful (me pisteuo – you should not think that this is reliable).” (Matthew 24:25-26)

Making matters even worse for the self-proclaimed Apostle, in the next verse, “Matthew” has Yahowsha’ saying that, when he is next seen on earth, he will be seen by everyone. While this statement was not true, its inclusion into the text would serve as yet another nail in Sha’uwl’s now crumbling coffin.

The reference to “you in the inner room,” provides another perspective into Yahowsha’s style. The disciples met with him after the fulfillment of Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym in a “tameion – inner room.” It is where they received the Set-Apart Spirit. Yahowsha’ had miraculously walked through the wall of the room to appear before them. And while he looked so different than he had previously in his transitional state between energy and matter that they did not initially recognize him, he did not appear to them as flashing rays of light, but instead became corporeal.

Juxtapose this with Paul’s claim to have encountered Iesou Christo on the road to Damascus, and then to meeting in Arabia, and once again, Paul is not only a perfect fit for this warning, he is the only candidate who made these claims within the lifetimes of Yahowsha’s audience. Therefore, the only informed and rational conclusion is that Yahowsha’ specifically warned his disciples about Sha’uwl’s deceptive claims – and us through them – telling us not to believe him. Are you listening?

23While we are on the topic of Paul hanging himself with his own words, I would like you to consider his “conversion experience” alongside Yahowsha’s statement regarding Satan. Describing Satan’s fall from heaven, and our dominion over him, Luke, in 10:18, translates Yahowsha’ saying:

“But then (de) he said (eipon) to them (autois – addressing the seventy witnesses he had sent out), I saw (theoreo – I was watching) the Adversary, Satan (ton Satanan – the Devil who opposes; a transliteration of the Hebrew satan – adversary and antagonist who slanders and accuses in opposition), as (hos – like and similar to, approximating) lightning, a bright beam or ray of flashing light (astraphe – a ray of light in the form of a natural, weather-based phenomenon like lightning; from astrapto – a shining and dazzling object) from (ek – out of) the heavens (tou ouranos – the sky and the spiritual abode of God), having fallen (pipto – descending to a lower realm, now prostrate, bowed, failed, and inadequate).

Behold (idou – now pay attention, indeed), I have given you (didomi umin – I have offered and provided to you all) the authority, ability, and the opportunity (ten exousia – the legal jurisdiction and authorization, the control, power, choice, and right) to trample him (tou pateo – to step and tread underfoot, to crush, subdue, subjugate, and devastate), with you being superior to (epano – being above and having authority over), serpents (ophis – snakes which serve as a metaphor for Satan and his fellow demons) and scorpions (kai skorpios – poisonous insects which sting and supernatural demonic powers, from skopos, skeptics who conceal).

So upon (kai epi) the entirety of (pas – all of) the Adversary’s (tou echthros – the hated and odious hostile enemy’s) power (dynamis – ability and rule, capability and strength, especially the performance of miracles), therefore (kai), you (umas) should never be harmed by 24his fraudulent deceit (ouden ou me adikeo – will not be injured by his wrongdoing and injustice or his violation of the standard).” (Luke 10:18-19)

Now for Paul’s depiction of what he experienced…

“But (de) to me (moi) it happened (ginomai – it came to be), traveling (poreuomai – going to) and (kai) approaching (engizo – nearing) Damascus (te Damasko – a transliteration of Damaskos, the capital of Syria; from the Hebrew Dameseq, a compound of dam and tsedeq: justice torn asunder leaves the righteous weeping) around noon (peri mesembrian – near midday), suddenly and unexpectedly (exaiphnes – unforeseen and immediately) from (ek – out of) the sky (tou ouranou – the atmosphere (singular masculine)), a nearby lightning strike (periastraphai – lightning glittering roundabout, shining brightly all around, flashing nearby; a compound of peri – about, near, and concerning, and astrape – lightning, a beam or flashing ray of bright light which dazzles (aorist as a moment in time unrelated to any plan, active and thus doing the flashing or striking, and infinitive, turning glittering into a verbal noun)), sufficient and adequate (hikanos – enough) light (phos) about (peri – around and concerning) me (eme).” (Acts 22:6)

Paul’s depiction of the lightning strike, other than to add “peri – about or near” to “astraphai – lightning,” was exactly as Yahowsha’ had described the fall of Satan. Although Sha’uwl did say that the lightning bolt was both “unexpected” and “adequate,” whatever that might be worth.

It may also be worth noting that Paul’s explanation of this lightning strike differs in Acts 9:3, 22:6, and 26:13. In Acts 9, Paul’s alleged traveling companions did not see anything but heard a voice. In Acts 26, they were enveloped in the light, but do not recall hearing anything.

“In the middle of the day (mesos hemera), along the 25road (kata ten odon), King (basileus), I saw (eidon – I perceived) from the sky (ouranothen), on behalf of or beyond (hyper – to a greater degree than) the sun’s (tou helios) brightness (lamprotes – radiance and brilliance), shining around (perilampo) me (me) light (phos), and (kai) the ones (tous) traveling (poreuomai) together with (oun) me (emoi).” (Acts 26:13)

Beyond the addition of undisclosed “witnesses,” in this iteration, Paul’s story was embellished. “Hikanos – sufficient and adequate” light was now “hyper tou helios lamprotes – beyond and/or on behalf of the sun’s brightness.” Also, the alleged miracle was no longer a periastraphai – nearby lightning strike,” but instead, the light “perilampo – shown around” him. If this conflicting testimony were offered in a court of law, the witness would be dismissed and disregarded.

Beside the fact that all three of Paul’s “conversion” accounts are materially different, there is another issue. The primary meaning of hyper is not “beyond or to a greater degree,” but instead, “for the sake of and on behalf of.” In actuality, Paul was saying that he “saw from the sky for the sake of and on behalf of the sun’s brilliance, brightness shining around me.” This is akin to General Constantine allegedly seeing a cross in the sky superimposed upon his god, which was the “Unconquerable Sun,” and then hearing a voice, perhaps the same one Paul said he heard, saying: “In this sign, conquer.”

But even when we turn to the secondary meaning of hyper, with the “shining around” being “beyond” the sun’s brightness, we find Paul saying something that would not only have permanently blinded everyone but would have been such a unique event, in the human experience, it would have been duly noted and recorded in Damascus. And speaking of Damascus, why would Yahowsha’ reveal himself there, and not in Yaruwshalaim, and as lightning 26rather than as a man?

Paul is lying. It is blatantly obvious.

Sha’uwl said things in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable that he never should have thought, much less conveyed. Along those lines, Paul’s depiction of his encounter with his god as lightning, as a flash of light from the sky, or as something brighter than the sun, was inconsistent with the way Yahowsha’ appeared to the women at the tomb, to his Disciples in the upper room, to the men on the road to Emmaus, and to some five hundred other witnesses over the course of forty days, in which He always appeared as a regular, nondescript man.

It was also different from the way Yahowah appeared to Adam, Abraham, Ya’aqob, and Moseh. Yahowah is actually humble:

“Who has come to establish, verify, and prove, reliably trusting the point of Our message from far away? And to whom has the Leading Ram, Protective Shepherd, and Sacrificial Lamb of Yahowah been revealed and made known? (Yasha’yah / Isaiah 53:1)

For he grew up like any other infant before His presence, even similar to the roots under the desolate ground, so that no aspect of his appearance, nor anything dignified denoting status, would be seen in him, nothing whatsoever in his appearance that we would desire him. (Yasha’yah / Isaiah 53:2)

He was despised and viewed with contempt and therefore rejected by mankind. As a man who suffered physical pain, he was familiar with affliction.

And accordingly, they turned their faces away from him, concealing their presence and identity, because we despised him and we did not rationally consider his actual merit as a result of inaccurately determining his purpose.

27This was the result of our collective failure to think about him in a detailed or logical manner, or in conjunction with this recording of his mission. (Yasha’yah / Isaiah 53:3)

Yahowah sent the Passover Lamb, not an object of veneration or worship. The transition from God’s intent to the religious interpretation, including the deification of the sacrifice, was of Paul’s doing.

Beyond these comparisons, you may have noticed that Yahowsha’ gave his witnesses the express “authority to trample upon serpents and scorpions” in the context of confronting Satan’s power. We know that the Towrah’s metaphor for Satan was established as a “serpent” in the Towrah’s presentation of the fall of man in the Garden of Eden. This symbolism was then reinforced four thousand years later by Yahowsha’ when he is recorded saying that religious clerics were serpents, the offspring of vipers, destined for the damnation of hell in Matthew 23. But even with “pateo – to step and tread underfoot,” we find another correlation to the Towrah, because there we were told that Satan would bruise man’s heel. (Bare’syth / Genesis 3:14-15)

While that explains the association between Satan and these “serpents,” should you wonder why Yahowsha’ added “scorpions” in the context of his prophetic portrayal of Sha’uwl’s spiritual encounter, the answer is found in the details. Those who were paying close attention know that Sha’uwl claimed that his enormous ego was held in check because: “Therefore, it should be self-evident, in order that I did not become overly proud, exalting myself beyond what would be justified, there was given to me a sharp goad and troubling scorpion’s stinger (skolops) in the body, a messenger of Satan, in order to restrain me, controlling me, so that as a result at the present time there is the possibility that I might not be conceited, currently exalting myself beyond what would 28be justified.” (2 Corinthians 12:6-7) In addition to being a “sharp-pointed prod or thorn,” skolops serves as the root of “scorpion.” It is another incriminating detail.

So could it be? Is it possible that Yahowsha’ was right about Paul? Was his bout with the lightning bolt actually an encounter with Satan? It is interesting to acknowledge, after all, that Paul seemed to concur. And to prove this, we are going to take a stroll through Sha’uwl’s second letter to the Greeks living next to the isthmus of Corinth. Turns out, the more Sha’uwl reveals about himself and about Satan, including that he has become insane and possessed, the better we are getting to know him.

After shaking down his followers for money, saying in 2 Corinthians 9:7 that “God loves a cheerful giver,” thereby encouraging them to dig deep if they wanted to be rewarded by his god, Paul tried to undermine Yahowah’s most treasured possession, His Covenant. Saying that he was engaged in a war against the flesh – which is a reference to circumcision, the sign of the Covenant (in 2 Corinthians 10:3-4), he went on to say in 10:5 that “we are destroying speculations” and “taking every thought captive.” He was in essence removing evidence and reason from the equation so that faith in his message might prevail over knowing God. Paul wanted belief to trump understanding.

Then, contradicting his own overt animosity toward legalism, the founder of the Christian religion hypocritically wrote: “And we are ready to punish all disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete.” (2 Corinthians 10:6) Not only is “obedience” something Yahowah opposes, but justice is His not ours.

29Paul told his followers in 2 Corinthians 10:7 “not to look outwardly” so as to avoid observing the Towrah, I suppose, but instead “to consider what is within,” all in support of a faith nurtured by feelings and beliefs rather than conviction derived from observation and contemplation.

In his role promoting such rubbish, the always arrogant self-promoter, wrote: “Even if I should boast somewhat further about our authority...I will not be put to shame.” (2 Corinthians 10:8) I imagine Satan thinking the same thing.

This is followed by another odd and indicting comment: “For I do not wish to seem as if I would terrify you by my letters.” (2 Corinthians 10:9) Sure, the tone is condescending and the prose bizarre, but unless written by a despot with a large and ruthless army, or a legion of demons at his beck and call, why would a letter “terrify” anyone?

An even more peculiar reference is conveyed by: “For they say, ‘His letters are weighty and strong, but his personal presence is unimpressive, and his speech is contemptible.’” (2 Corinthians 10:10) While we ought not care what Paul looked like, and we would have to be delusional to view his rhetoric as weighty, he would be correct in admitting: his speech was contemptible. But alas, this devolves into an incomprehensible clash of egos in 2 Corinthians 10:11 through 18, with Sha’uwl positioning himself as the only one whose boasts are justified.

Paul digresses further in the opening of the 11^th chapter of his second letter to the Corinthians, writing: “I wish that you would bear with me in a little foolishness; but indeed you are bearing with me.” (2 Corinthians 11:1) Unless I’m reading this wrong, to put up with Paul is to be foolish. But seriously, why would anyone want to suffer such foolishness if he or she could instead observe God’s 30brilliance by reading the Towrah?

And even though Sha’uwl errantly wrote that “love is not jealous” in his first letter to those living in Corinth, now he admits his hypocrisy to the same audience: “For I am jealous for you.” (2 Corinthians 11:2)

Ever the chameleon and schemer, the man who loved boys and lorded over women presents those who have been beguiled by his letters as “pure virgins,” which is to say untouched by the Torah and its God. (This is the conclusion of 2 Corinthians 11:2 as presented from the New American Standard Bible.)

Paul’s next statement is among his most beguiling, because it is predicated upon being a virgin to the Towrah by the simplicity of Christo. Also rendered from the NASB, it reads: “But I am afraid, lest as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds should be led astray from the simplicity and purity of Christ.” (2 Corinthians 11:3) This is to suggest that if a person ignores everything, and simply believes, that they are pure, and thus free from Satanic deception. And yet Yahowah says just the opposite, that the only way to prevent being beguiled is to observe His Teaching.

If Paul was such a stellar rabbinic scholar, how is it that he does not know that the Serpent deceived Chawah, not “Eve?” Also, not only was Satan more presumptuous than crafty, his ploy was the same as Sha’uwl’s. He took what Yahowah said out of context and misquoted God to mislead.

At issue here is that faith is simple because it is not based upon anything. It requires no knowledge or understanding. But without evidence and reason, Yahowah and Yahowsha’ are unknowable and even the brightest minds can be led astray. So while Yahowah’s desire to build a growing family through His Covenant is a relatively simple concept, the means He deployed to facilitate it, so 31that He could include us within it, is anything but simplistic.

There is a reason that Yahowah’s teaching in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms includes over one thousand pages of precise instructions. If He intended His guidance to be read by simpletons, He would have drawn a couple of pictures and not wasted our time. But that would not have achieved His goal. God wants to spend eternity with those who are eager to learn, with those who enjoy the adventures of discovery. Therefore, the directions which systematically reveal who God is and what He is offering, while explaining how we can most beneficially respond to Him, are too essential to our relationship to shortchange.

Yahowsha’ consistently answered every question, including explaining who he was and what he was doing, by directing his audiences’ attention to the Towrah and Prophets. There was no shortcut to understanding then and still isn’t now.

Until a person appreciates the connection between Yahowsha’ and Yahowah, and between Yahowsha’ and Yahowah’s Towrah, there is no way to properly respond to and thus benefit from Pesach, Matsah, Bikuwrym, and Shabuw’ah, and thus no way to be saved. As the Passover Lamb, Yahowsha’s words and deeds are profoundly revealing, tangibly demonstrating the extraordinary depth and complexity of the only God who is neither shallow nor simple.

Afraid that his simplistic and erroneous caricature of Yahowsha’ would be exposed and criticized by those who knew better, Sha’uwl wrote: “For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear beautifully.” (2 Corinthians 11:4 from the NASB)

32The actual Yahowsha’ bears no resemblance to the Christian Jesus, a character who has far more in common with Dionysus and Mithras than Yahowah or His Towrah. The Pauline Christian construct no longer represents the Word of God, but is instead a parody contrived to annul it. The truth would forever differ from what Paul wrote and said.

As for another spirit, Yahowah has but one Spirit that we can receive, the Set-Apart Spirit, and She exists to help us understand and then share Yahowah’s Towrah. That means Paul’s “different spirit” represents the Adversary.

Turning to an “alternative gospel,” Yahowah only has one healing message and it is found in His Towrah. And it is in wholesale conflict with Paul’s preaching. As for “bear beautifully,” I’ll let you grapple with that one because following “bear foolishly,” it does not make much sense to me. Even if it were projected to mean “remain tactful, cordial, and polite,” Paul would be wrong because Yahowah wants us to confront and condemn religious schemes and schemers. He does.

This leads to another arrogant and indeed errant announcement: “For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.” (2 Corinthians 11:5) Paul’s pride became blinding. Perhaps that was the light that dazzled him en route to Damascus. He was the star of his own show.

Incapable of being rational, he considered himself brilliant: “But even if I am unskilled in speech, yet I am not so in knowledge; in fact, in every way we have made evident to you in all things.” (2 Corinthians 11:6)

Fact is, Paul has not said or written anything which would advance our understanding of man or God. And by comparison to Yahowah, he is dumb as a stone.

While it is true that by contrast to Moseh or Dowd, I 33am but a flickering candle and they are galactic, but at least I know that the only source of knowledge worth considering as it pertains to God is Yahowah’s testimony. If Paul was a fraction as smart as he claimed to be, he would have educated his audience by drawing their attention to the terms and conditions of the Covenant. He would have explained how the Covenant’s benefits were advanced by Yahowsha’s work during the Miqra’ of Pesach. But instead, he condemned the Covenant, created a new one, and denounced the Invitations to Meet with God because they got in the way of his faith.

If it was not so sad, the notion that Paul questioned whether “I committed a sin in humbling myself,” “because I preached the gospel of God to you without charge?” (2 Corinthians 11:7) would be funny. Can you imagine being so full of yourself that you would think self-aggrandizement was a sign of humility? Or worse, write that you might be committing a sin because you did not seek to sell your verbal diarrhea.

But alas, Bible publishers, churches, and preachers have made up for Paul’s momentary blush with philanthropy. They would not only rob the unsuspecting of their souls but have them pay for the service. And what is especially disconcerting about all of this is that by comparison to Paul’s rubbish, Yahowah’s words are sublime. He not only provides them freely, but they also pay dividends.

If you think that I am being too hard on this arrogant, errant, and delusional wannabe apostle, since he has suggested that he shortchanged himself for not bilking the Corinthians for this beguiling message, you might want to consider: “I robbed other churches, taking wages to serve you.” (2 Corinthians 11:8)

It is interesting that Sha’uwl tells us that “for when the brethren came from Macedonia, they supplied my 34need.” (11:9) The Torahless one known as the “Antichrist” to Christians will also come from Macedonia.

Recognizing that Paul never quoted Yahowah or Yahowsha’, at least not accurately, he lied when he wrote: “As the truth of Christ is in me,” but not when he concluded: “this boasting of mine will not be stopped in the regions of Achaia.” (2 Corinthians 11:10) Followed by: “Why? Because I do not love you? God knows.” (11:11)

Sha’uwl not only knew, but acknowledged, that he was competing with others whose claims were more credible (the prophets and disciples), and that his message was considerably different than theirs... “But what I am doing, I will continue to do, that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting.” (2 Corinthians 11:12) While Yahowsha’s disciples did not boast, an insecure individual like Paul views any confident individual as an affront to his credibility.

A systematic review of the literature emanating out of the mid-to-late 1^st century reveals that the only prophets and apostles which Paul could have viewed as being in competition with him, and whose message was opposed to his, were Yahowah’s prophets and Yahowsha’s disciples – and thus those filled and equipped by the Spirit on Shabuw’ah.

That makes this next statement especially toxic. “For such are false prophets, treacherous and deceitful (dolios – tricky and clever) workmen (ergates – perpetrators) masquerading as (metaschematizo – converted and transformed so as to appear, disguised and pretending to be) [the] Christou (ΧΡΥ – Divine Placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement to usurp the 35Septuagint’s credibility and infer Divinity) Apostles (apostolos – a prepared messenger who is sent out).” (2 Corinthians 11:13)

At the time Paul wrote this letter to the Corinth Assembly, he alone was a “false prophet, treacherous and deceitful, masquerading as an Apostle.” And history tells us that no one outside of Paul and his followers feigned Apostleship to the Corinthians. Moreover, since there is no evidence that Paul ever issued an accurate prophecy, there is no reason to view this as a prediction of future events either. (Paul’s lists of human attributes in Romans and elsewhere were already common to his day, especially in Rome. And since it has not yet occurred, Paul’s prediction that the “rapture” would take place during his lifetime was untrue.)

Almost every English translation ignores the inclusion of “autos – himself” in this next statement, because of what it implies. And of course, they aren’t keen on providing a complete translation of thauma, because this sounds like a confession. Literally, in the order Paul wrote the words, the next sentence reads: “And (kai) no (ou) wonder, himself a great object of worship (thauma autos – himself a wonderful, marvelous and miraculous vision and individual to be admired).” (2 Corinthians 11:14) But before we conclude that Satan was being called “great,” and a “wonderful object of worship,” a word of caution is in order. There is no direct Greek equivalent to the English word “do” with regard to “do not,” so it could be, and probably should be, supplied. This reshapes the text to read: “And do not marvel (thauma – be amazed or wonder)…”

Also, while autos, translated “himself,” follows the noun “thauma – wonder” in the Greek text, and proceeds the conjunction “gar – for,” which begins the next thought or sentence, depending upon the punctuation, it is common for conjunctions to follow pronouns if the thoughts are 36being combined, as opposed to being isolated in separate sentences. But adding to the potential confusion, Paul routinely omits pronouns in his letters, so the specific inclusion of autos, after thauma, would normally convey “himself a marvel.” Moreover, there is no denying that Paul was taken in by Satan’s “glorious manifestation and radiant brilliance” in 2 Thessalonians, a passage we will review in a moment.

Yet since there is a way to avoid the problem of praising Satan here in 2 Corinthians, by adding “do” in front of “not,” and then repositioning the pronoun, I’m compelled to join the first and second halves of the 14^th verse into a single sentence. Combined, they would then read: “And (kai) [do] not (ou) wonder (thauma – marvel at this miraculous vision, nor be amazed in admiration) [at this], for indeed (gar), he (autos), the Adversary Satan (Satanas), changes his appearance (metaschematizo – masquerades, disguising himself, transforming his image) into (eis) a spiritual, heavenly messenger (angelos – divine representative) [of] light (photos).” (2 Corinthians 11:14)

While that solves one problem, it creates another. This is exactly like Paul experienced him. And as always, Paul’s inadequate writing style remains especially prone to misinterpretation, leaving us wondering what he actually meant to say. Further, Satan’s name, “Halal ben Shachar,” tells us that he “radiates light as if from the rising sun,” so this is hardly news. All Yahowah’s mal’ak | spiritual messengers are comprised of light.

Paul’s next line is as clear as it is telling. It is designed to deflect attention away from him being judged a false prophet. So Paul says that, rather than evaluate him objectively based upon his words, comparing them to God’s, he wants to be evaluated subjectively based upon his “motivation.”

37“[It is] not (ou) surprising (megas – great) therefore (oun) when (ei – if) also (kai) his (autou) servants (diakonos – ministers who execute his commands) masquerade (metaschematizo – pretend to be) as (hos) ministers (diakonos – servants) of righteousness (dikaiosyne – whose doctrine is acceptable to and approved by God), of which (o on) the end result and motivation (telos – their ultimate purpose and intent) will be (estai) according to (kata) their works (ergon – deeds).” (2 Corinthians 11:15) But yet judging someone’s motivation, their intent, is pure speculation. Paul would have us move from facts and reason to opinions. That does not sound Godly to me.

Illuminating this problem, telos, rendered “end result and motivation,” is based upon tello, and that’s telling because it describes someone who “sets out to achieve a particular goal.” It infers that the ultimate evaluation of these people should be focused on their “motivations,” as opposed to the content of their messages, and it should take place at the end of time, as opposed to when the message is being delivered.

Further, Paul’s evaluation is also predicated upon a person’s “deeds” rather than what they have to say. As such, Paul’s means to determine whether a person is a false prophet bears no resemblance whatsoever to Yahowah’s tests. Of this, we should not be surprised.

But this is Paul’s message, Paul’s test, and Paul’s defense on behalf of his spirit. It also reflects Paul’s less than divine grammatical style. “Furthermore (palin – also and again) I say (lego), not (oe) someone (tis) I (me) presume (dokei – be of the opinion) I am (einai) ignorant and irrational (aphron – foolish, stupid, senseless, and devoid of reason). But (de) if (ei) not (me) really (ge – even) and (kai) as (os – like) foolishness (aphron – ignorance and senselessness), I (me) you will receive (dechomai – believe and welcome) in order that (ina) and 38I (kago) little (micron – small) someone who (ti) I boast (kauchaomai – brag and glory in).” (2 Corinthians 11:16)

Or if I may be so bold to reorder the words a bit and interpret them in accord with what Paul was thinking, I suspect he meant to say: “Furthermore (palin – also and again) I say (lego), let no one (me) presume of me (oe tis me dokei – someone should not be of the opinion) that I am (einai) ignorant and irrational (aphron – foolish, stupid, senseless, and devoid of reason). But (de) even if I am actually like this and, therefore, foolish (ei me ge kai os aphron – if perhaps ignorant and really senselessness), you will receive (dechomai – believe and welcome) me (me) in order that (ina) I (kago) as someone little (to micron – small) may boast about myself (kauchaomai – might brag and glory in me).” (2 Corinthians 11:16)

Let’s consider what the scholastic sources reveal. The Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear conveys: “Again I say not some me might think unthinking to be if but not indeed if also as unthinking welcome me that also I little some might brag.” That was not an improvement.

Moving on to the English Standard Version Interlinear, we find that it departs significantly from the text, ignoring and adding many words: “I repeat, let no one think me [being (omitted)] foolish. But even if [you do (added)], [not also (omitted)] accept me as [a (added)] fool, so [that (added)] I [too may (added)] boast a little.”

The New International Version Interlinear suggests: “Again I say not anyone me think foolish to be [if (omitted)] otherwise [not really (omitted)] even if as foolish receive you me, [in (added)] order [that (added)] I also [a (added)] little [bit (added)] [someone (omitted)] may boast.”

Moving from the most scholarly interlinears to the supposedly literal New American Standard Bible, we find: “Again I say, let no one think me foolish, but if you do, 39receive me even as foolish, that I also may boast a little.”

No matter the interpretation of his word salad (defined as: “unintelligible and disorganized speech or writing which is a symptom of a mental disorder such as schizophrenia”), this statement is worse in content and style than anything we have encountered in Galatians. And once again, we cannot blame this hubris on scribal error. The words are the same in Papyrus 46 (from the 2^nd century) as they are in the Nestle-Aland. The incomprehensible and conceited nature of the text is Paul’s fault. (Of course, if you are a Christian and believe that this is the inspired word of God, then your god is a nincompoop, which is probably worse.)

“What (o) I say (lalo) [is] not (ou) according to (kata) [the] Kurion | Lord’s (ΚΝ) way of speaking (laleo – sayings), but to the contrary (alla) as (os) in (en) foolishness (aphrosyne – recklessness and thoughtlessness, senselessness and folly) in (en) this (houtos) substance and nature (hypostasis – essence or objective aspect and underlying reality behind everything; a compound of hupo, under, and histemi, standing upright) of (tes) boasting (kauchesis – pride and glorifying oneself).” (2 Corinthians 11:17)

If this is correct, Paul is admitting the obvious. He was not speaking for Yahowah or Yahowsha’ but was instead foolishly bragging on his own behalf – or worse.

Not to belabor the point, but the Nestle-Aland Interlinear isn’t any clearer: “What I say not by Master, I say but as in thoughtlessness in this the substance of the brag.”

The NASB supports my conclusion: “That which I am speaking, I am not speaking as the Lord would, but in foolishness, in this confidence of boasting.” Try as they would to shade the meanings to protect Paul’s credibility, this remains incriminating.

40And Paul was not finished exposing himself. “Because (epei – since) many (polloi) may boast (kauchaomai – brag and glorify themselves) according to (kata) [the] flesh (sarx – their physical prowess), I also (kago) glorify myself and brag (kauchaomai – boast).” (2 Corinthians 11:18) His personality and Satan’s are beginning to morph, becoming indistinguishable. But even if you are not yet comfortable with this assessment, surely you recognize that the man who wrote these words was not inspired by God.

Paul’s testimony has become so self-centered and braggadocious, so irrelevant and incomprehensible, so unlike Yahowah and His prophets, let’s continue to seek verification of these words from other translations: In that regard, the NASB wrote: “Since many boast according to the flesh, I will boast also.”

Funny thing, I do not recall Abraham, Yitschaq, or Ya’aqob saying such a thing – nor Moseh, Shamuw’el, or Dowd, not even Yasha’yah, Yirma’yah, or Zakaryah. And yet if there were bragging rights, theirs would exceed Paul’s by an infinite degree.

“For indeed (gar – because), gladly (hedeos – with delight and enjoyment) you accept (anechomai – bear, endure, and put up with) the senseless and foolish (aphron – ignorant and irrational) being (ontes) wise (phronimos – shrewd and intelligent).” (2 Corinthians 11:19)

Why was Paul demeaning his audience? At this point it is becoming difficult to deny that he is either psychotic or delusional, and thus has lost touch with reality. It is either that or he has so little respect for “Christians” he cannot help but taunt them, pulling back the veil hiding his hideous nature in the process. It is as if Paul’s arrogant sense of superiority has led him to believe his audience was so stupid they’d never figure him out, much less hold him accountable.

41However, that is not how things materialized. Based upon what Sha’uwl wrote to Timothy in his final letter, most everyone abandoned him. “You know this, that all of those in Asia have turned away from me.” (2 Timothy 1:15) But alas, with Marcion as his future publicist and promoter, those who did not know him nearly as well would become fooled – billions of them. They are known as “Christians” today.

According to the NASB, Paul wrote: “For you, being so wise, bear with the foolish gladly.” While this is no better, to achieve this translation, they had to upend Paul’s arrangement of words.

This onslaught of “foolishness” begs the question: are we witnessing psychosis in Paul (from the Greek psyche – mind and soul which is osis – deranged, denoting a pathological state of neurosis)? Almost every aspect of his behavior, his attitude, and his testimony fit the textbook definition of psychotic. His letters increasingly suggest that he has lost contact with reality. He has suffered hallucinations that he calls revelations, and his claims are delusional. He has been violent and his judgment is seriously impaired. In the immediate aftermath of his interlude with Satan on the way to Damascus, he was nearly catatonic.

If I may be redundant, we are in the throes of a “word salad.” Merriam-Webster defines what we are witnessing in Paul’s rhetoric as: “unintelligible, extremely disorganized speech or writing manifested as a symptom of a mental disorder such as schizophrenia. It results in the loss of semantic associations whereby trying to speak results in garbled, nonsensical juxtapositions which neuroscientists call a ‘word salad.’ It is a string of empty, incoherent, unintelligible, or nonsensical words or comments…in a one-sided debate.”

It is obvious, so we might as well admit it. Paul is 42displaying signs of the psychosis of schizophrenia. There has been a complete breakdown of rational thought process in his writings. His arguments, even the best of them, are borderline insane. His emotional outbursts are atypical and inappropriate. His speech and thinking are disorganized. His antagonism toward Yahowsha’s disciples screams paranoia – a most telling symptom.

Paul is even projecting bipolar tendencies, a mood disorder characterized by manic or prolonged periods of irritability. This manic expression of bipolar psychosis is evidenced by his extravagant claims, by his egotistical self-esteem, and by what is known as the “pressure of speech.” Here, the psychosis is present in his frenzied style, an approach that is cluttered and often unintelligible, tangential and unrelenting, all motivated by an urgency which is not apparent to the audience.

Therefore, when we compare what we are reading in Paul’s letters to the most common and telling symptoms of psychoses, we discover a near-perfect match. It has become evident that the founder of the Christian religion was mentally ill.

And if not psychotic, then surely nauseating. This is making my stomach turn...

“Because (gar) you put up with (anechomai – you accept as valid or true and forebear) someone who and something which (ei tis – whosoever and whatever (singular masculine)) makes you subservient, completely enslaving you (katadouloo umas – imposes their unrelenting authority over you), someone who and something which (ei tis – anyone and whatever) is exploitive (katesoiei – devouring and destructive, taking complete advantage by being divisive), someone who and something which (ei tis – anyone and whosoever) is controlling (lambano – grasps hold of and acquires, possesses and takes advantage of), someone who and 43something which (ei tis – anyone and whatever) is exalted (epairomai – is highly regarded), even someone who or something which (ei tis) flays the skin (dero) of your (umas) person (prosopon – being and head, frontal proximity, appearance, and presence).” (2 Corinthians 11:20)

Before I share why I’m especially troubled by this, let’s first consider the rendering proposed by the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear: “Endure for if some you enslaves thoroughly, if some eats up, if some receives, if some lifts up on, if some into face you beats.” The reason for the wide variation is that ei, as a standalone concept, conveys “if,” but when used in conjunction with an indefinite pronoun, ei tis becomes “whoever, whatever, anyone who, or whosoever.” Also, while the verbs “katadouloo – make subservient,” “katesoiei – is exploitive and destructive,” and “dero – flays the skin” are decidedly detrimental, “anechomai – put up with,” “lambano – grasp hold of and control,” and “epairomai – is exalted” can be good or bad depending upon the subject and context. Also, while prosopon means “face” in Greek, it also conveys “person, frontal appearance, outward presence, and a particular place in front of an individual demonstrative of a relationship.” It is a compound of “pros – before and with regard to” and opt, a “visage or feature which allows one to be seen in a particular way.”

Moving from grammar and etymology to content, Paul’s statement is very troubling for multiple reasons. It starts off suggesting that the Corinthians willingly accepted someone who and something which enslaved them, making them subservient. To this ill-treatment the Corinthians allegedly endured, Paul added exploitation and control mechanisms. What is bothersome about this is when we return to Galatians, we will discover that Paul contends that Yahowah and His Torah are responsible for this abusive influence. He refers to them as “paidagogos – a pedagogue 44who instructs in a particularly pedantic and dogmatic manner using strict, old-fashioned methods, with an overbearing demeanor as if a slave-trainer.” A paidagogos is a harsh, arcane, and enslaving, taskmaster,” in Galatians 3:4. Furthermore, in the context of history and Paul’s letters, apart from Yahowah and His Torah, there are no other candidates. None.

At this time the Greeks living in Corinth weren’t being enslaved, they weren’t being exploited or controlled, much less flayed, by anyone. They had become esteemed and often emulated members of Roman society. But if you think that there was a political, religious, economic, or military presence in Corinth between 50 to 55 CE that was actually enslaving Greeks, forcing them to be subservient, that was exploiting and controlling them while savaging their bodies, then please share this history with me.

Recognizing how horrendous this statement and the one which follows becomes when we realize that Paul is calling Yahowah and His Torah enslaving, exploitive, destructive, controlling, and mutilating, I investigated to see if something else may have been afoot in Corinth at this time. But there was no Roman Legion garrisoned there. In fact, Corinth enjoyed a return to prominence during the 1^st century CE. Paying homage to Poseidon, the Isthmian Games were recommenced and became nearly as popular as the Olympics. Paul even alluded to them in 1 Corinthians 9:24-26, speaking of everyone running a race but only one receiving the prize. Further, the isthmus put Corinth in control of two major harbors, both of which were booming, as well as in command of the most popular trade route between Asia and Rome.

While much of Corinth had been torched by Rome in 146 BCE for being a member of the Achaean League, the Romans left the old marketplace and Apollo’s Temple intact. And then showing that bygones could be bygones, between 46 and 44 BCE, Julius Caesar used Roman capital 45to rebuild Corinth, naming the shining new metropolis “Corinth – the praise of Julius.” All the old temples were restored, even enlarged, while new shops and public buildings were constructed. The Romans rewarded this thriving metropolis with a grand 14,000-seat amphitheater and a combined agora forum edifice that was larger and more beautiful than any in Rome. Even new waterways were built to quench the growing city’s thirst. The population, which was almost entirely Greek, with a smattering of retired Romans, Phoenicians, and Phrygians, lived in what historians consider then to be the most beautiful, modern, and industrious community in the whole of Greece.

Further, if nefarious Christians are looking for the mythical “Judaizers,” there was only a small Jewish presence in Corinth. They had no political power or religious authority in this overtly pagan place. Roman law made it illegal for them to proselytize. There is no rational way to bring rabbis or their oral law into this equation. They were doing their best to blend in and be inconspicuous. Fact is, Jews idolized Greeks, adopting as many Greek ideas as did the Romans.

Therefore, recognizing that the Pauline adversary could be none other than Yahowah and His Torah, the final atrocity becomes circumcision – which Paul sees as a cruel and counterproductive mutilation of the flesh. The symbol of the Covenant would become his primary foe. Therefore, set in the midst of his insane Corinthian lecture, and aware of what Paul has written in Galatians, the most rational interpretation of this irrational train of thought is that Satan is suggesting through Paul that Yahowah is uncontrollably abusive. It is as if we were watching a scene from The Devil’s Advocate, as Al Pacino lectures Keanu Reeves.

The NASB published: “For you bear with anyone if he enslaves you, if he devours you, if he takes advantage of you, if he exalts himself, if he hits you in the face.” 46Considering that Paul will soon say that his enemies are “Hebrews, Yisra’elites, and descendants of Abraham” who ran afoul of him by promoting the merits of the Torah, this is clearly an attack on Yahowah and His prophets.

In his next statement, Sha’uwl is inferring that Yahowah and His Towrah are an “atimia – disgrace.” He wants us to see the Word of God as “disparaging and dishonorable.” Rather than prescriptions for living, according to the pretend apostle, God’s guidance “astheneo – weakens” mankind, “incapacitating” people, while causing humanity to be “powerless.”

According to Sha’uwl, the solution to this tragedy is “tolmao – to dare to become extremely” “aphrosyne – stupid, irrational and ignorant, wholly thoughtless.” If that is not psychotic and delusional, then Merriam-Webster needs to redefine its terms.

“Relative to (kata) this disgrace and shame (atimia – this dishonorable approach, this vile ignominy and disparaging way), I say (lego), in this manner (os) that (oti) we (emeis) have been weakened and have become powerless (astheneo – we have become incapacitated and diseased, infirmed and feeble, through corruption and perversion).

But (de) in (en) this (o), whomsoever (an tis) might dare be so extreme (tolmao – may be so bold and fearless, defiantly go so far regardless of the opposition (present active subjunctive)) in (en) foolishness (aphrosyne – thoughtless ignorance, foolish folly without reflection or consideration, reckless stupidity, and rash senselessness and irrationality), I say (lego), I also (kayo) am extremely daring and bold in opposition (tolmao kago – have the courage to actually and actively defy (present active indicative)).” (2 Corinthians 11:21)

Well, finally we agree on something. It is extremely foolish and exceptionally daring to be in opposition to God.

47However, if you think that the Creator of the universe, the Architect of life, the Author of the Towrah, the Father of the Covenant, and the one committed to making us immortal and perfect, to adopting us, enriching, empowering, and enlightening us, is a “disgrace” seeking to “weaken” us instead, and believe that “the way” He provided for us to “approach” Him is “dishonorable and ignominious, disparaging” us, in addition to being “enslaving, exploitive, and controlling,” then you may be aphrosyne. But better that than tolmao – or, if you prefer English, psychotic and delusional.

Ladies and gentlemen, we now have Paul’s answer to God: ignore Him. Disregard His Towrah. Do not think. Ignorance is bliss. Faith indeed.

You can almost hear him saying, “Sure, my opposition to God is senseless, and you would have to be an idiot to believe that I’m speaking for God when I am constantly contradicting and demeaning Him, but if you don’t think about any of this, none of it will bother you.”

To be “bold and senseless,” at the same time, is to be blindly patriotic, to be resolutely religious, or to be a political zealot. This mantra reflects Machiavelli’s approach to power, where the end justifies the means, where truth is irrelevant, and where daring in the extreme becomes the ultimate weapon.

The Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear renders Paul’s words in this fashion: “By dishonor I say as that we have weakened. In what but some might dare in thoughtlessness I say dare also I.” Also dealing with 2 Corinthians 11:21, the New American Standard Bible ignored “lego – I say” toward the beginning of this rather ignorant and irrational statement, and added “my,” “must,” “by comparison,” and “else,” as well as the parenthetical, without textual support. “To my shame I must say that we have been weak by comparison. But in whatever respect 48anyone else is bold (I speak in foolishness), I am just as bold myself.”

Noticing the parenthetical, I am compelled to tell you that the NASB added “(I speak as if insane)” in the midst of Paul’s comments in the 23^rd verse of 2^nd Corinthians 11. And should you wonder, it is in the 22^nd and 24^th verses that Paul lists his adversaries who, as I have mentioned, are not-so-coincidently Satan’s foes: “Hebrews, Yisra’elites, the descendants of Abraham, and Yahuwdym (Jews).” Not only have Yahowah’s Chosen People been ensconced as Paul’s enemies, but there is also something very troubling about Paul’s continued focus on himself, his delusions and paranoia, rather than even feigning respect for Yahowsha’.

Before we move on, note that “astheneo – we have become incapacitated and diseased, infirmed and feeble, weakened and powerless through corruption and perversion” is the verbal form of astheneia – something Paul will revel in and boast about. Here he is attributing the incapacitation borne of corruption to God and His Torah. But soon he will ascribe this condition to himself, to Satan, and to the Graces. It is one of the most astonishing and awkward juxtapositions ever recorded.

So now that Sha’uwl has openly acknowledged that he is more daring in his pursuit of stupidity than anyone, and that he is in bold opposition to evidence and reason, let’s examine his list of those whom we must assume are his foes, and thus irrational representatives of the truth...

“Are they (eisin – presently and actually existing as) Hebrews (Hebraios – a transliteration of the Hebrew ‘Ibry – a Realm Set Apart and a Place Beyond Passover), as am I (kayo – and likewise me)? Are they (eisin – presently and actually existing as) Israelites (Israelites – an adaptation and transliteration of the Hebrew Yisra’el – Individuals who Engage and Endure with God), as am I (kayo – and likewise me)? Are they (eisin – presently and actually 49existing as) the seed (sperma – the descendants and offspring) of Abraam (Abraam – a transliteration of ‘Abram – Uplifting Father (from ‘ab – father and ruwm – to uplift)), as am I (kayo – and likewise me)?” (2 Corinthians 11:22)

As is the case with most duplicitous individuals, Sha’uwl wants to claim every scrap of legitimacy for himself, even when trying to undermine the very same sources with which he is claiming affiliation. It is as if he wants the reader to believe that since he is a Hebrew Yisra’elite, it is somehow appropriate for him to discredit them. I suppose it is like some African Americans believing that it is excusable for them to refer to their race using the “N” word, while it would be considered hateful for someone outside their community to say it.

In this light, it is telling that Sha’uwl not only changed his Hebrew name to Paulos, which is of Latin (and thus Roman) origin, but also has chosen to disregard the name Yahowah gave to Abram after he responded to the terms of the Covenant: Abraham – Merciful and Enriching Father. It speaks volumes about Sha’uwl’s disrespect for all things Yahowah and His Covenant.

There is another aspect of this statement which is troubling to those who are informed and rational. In Galatians, Paul’s first letter, he intensifies his assault against the Torah by stating in 3:16 that the “seed” of Abraham was singular, and that it thereby referred exclusively to “Christos,” thereby excluding all other descendants of Abraham, and thus the Hebrews and Yisra’elites – and by implication, the Torah. But now, he has expressly stated that he, himself, is the “seed of Abraam.” This either means that Paul is presenting himself as the “Christos,” and thus as the Christian Messiah, or that he is an irrational hypocrite because by doing this he just undermined his premise for discarding the Torah.

50The next “are they” should have been cataloged with the previous three. It is designed to undermine Hebrews, Yisra’elites, and the offspring of Abraham, disassociating them from Yahowsha’, so that their testimony can be disregarded. After all, according to Paul, unlike him, they are not attending to Christou. And no wonder, because there is no Christou in the Towrah.

“Are they (eisin – presently and actually existing as) servants running errands (diakonos – helpers, attendants, and ministers) for Christou (ΧΡΥ – Divine Placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement to usurp the Septuagint’s credibility and infer Divinity)?” (2 Corinthians 11:23)

And here is the payoff line, proving that our diagnosis of Paul is valid. This man who was obviously psychotic and delusional wrote:

“Having become insane (paraphroneo – having become deranged, completely irrational, and out of my mind, being senseless and devoid of understanding, manic and mad; from para – of, with, and from, and phroneo – to hold a high opinion of oneself regarding the inability to be perceptive and rational (scribed in the present tense, this is his current status, in the active voice he is doing this to himself, in participle form he is defining himself as deranged using a verbal adjective, in the singular masculine this pertains to Paul alone, and in the nominative the verb should be written to be irrational or having become insane)), I speak (lalo – I currently, actively, and actually say (present active indicative)) for the sake of and about (hyper – for and of) Myself (ego – I, me and my) with (en – in) exceedingly great works and labors beyond compare (kopos perissoteros – extraordinary burdens in abundance and superiority, but also beatings and bothersome difficulties beyond what others could bear) through (en – with) overwhelming imprisonment by an abundance of guards (phylake perissoteros – an 51exceedingly great number of prisons, jails, and posted guards, all beyond compare) with (en – in) extremely severe beatings and blows (plege hyperballontos – floggings and punishments beyond measure, a greater degree of wounds and sufferings than endured by anyone else, exceedingly severe plagues and diseases), in (en – with) dying (thanatos – death) many times (pollakis – often, again and again).” (2 Corinthians 11:23)

The man, who will admit to being demon-possessed during this same delusional hallucination, has now acknowledged being insane – to being completely out of his mind. Paul has lost all touch with reality. He has become the very definition of psychotic.

He is so unhinged, after admitting that he is insane, he proves it. But before revealing the imaginary battles being waged in his mind, Paul acknowledges what we have concluded based upon what he has written – this has always been about Paul, not God.

Fantasizing about himself, Sha’uwl claims to have endured more than his alleged god. With all evidence to the contrary, he lies and says that he was imprisoned by an abundance of guards in a great many jails and of being flogged and beaten beyond what a mere mortal could endure. Now a god in his own tortured mind, he presents himself dying for his cause over and over again – necessitating many resurrections. According to Paul, he has done more for the cause than even his coconspirator and collaborator, the Lord Iesou Christo.

Satan would soon restrain the Devil’s Advocate, as Sha’uwl will admit, because he had overstepped his bounds. His assignment had been to convince Greeks and Romans to worship Satan as if he were God, and to repudiate Yahowah, His Towrah and People in the process. But now Paul was claiming that role for himself.

So how is it that the ravings of this madman have 52become the basis of the world’s most popular religion? How is it that billions believe him, even when he rants about himself while contradicting and demeaning God? Why would anyone in their right mind consider this rubbish to be “Scripture?”

Evidently, psychosis is contagious. And when it affects a lot of people, they call it religion.

While Paulos will soon blame Satan for all of his foibles, including being beaten and guarded, at this point in his narrative, he would like us to believe that it was all the fault of those dastardly Jews. Satan’s enemy had become Paul’s foe. They had made him crazy and then they had excessively burdened him, constantly imprisoning him, savagely beating him, only to kill him multiple times – well, that is if you’re prone to believe Paul.

However, if you prefer sanity, Yahuwdym (Jews) did not have the authority or the inclination to do any of these things in Corinth, Thessalonica, Galatia, Rome, Damascus, Tarsus, or any of the other places Paulos traveled, proving once again that the founder of the Christian religion was delusional. And if you would prefer simple logic over history, anyone who claims to have been killed often, as in many times, might not be entirely sane.

While I have had more than my share of near-death experiences, having nearly lost my life a number of times, boasting about them would never occur to me. More to the point, I did not die on any of these occasions, much less during many of them.

And while I have taken more than my fair share of lumps for opposing Muhammad and Paul, as well as Rabbis, the abuse I have endured pales in comparison to the satisfaction associated with sharing Yah’s Word. I have never once been anxious, not even during the many thousands of radio interviews. I have never wanted for anything that God did not provide. I have never felt alone. 53I have always recognized that I have gained vastly more than I have given. I am protected and loved, uplifted and enriched, enlightened and liberated while conveying Yahowah’s message. Therefore, it is obvious that there was something dreadfully wrong with Paul’s approach.

Continuing to hallucinate, the delirious and deranged false prophet wrote...

“By Yahuwdym | Jews (Ioudaios – a rather pathetic attempt to transliterate Yahuwdym – Beloved of Yah; further corrupted to Jews) five times, forty besides one, I received. (2C11:24) Three times I was beaten with sticks, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked. A night and a day (nychthemeron – for 24-hours), I was caused to drown in the depths (bythos – plunge to the bottom, sinking into the deep or abyss; from bythizo – sinking, plunging, and drowning as cause and consequence and bathos – deep and depth). (2C11:25)

Many times in perilous journeys, in dangerous rivers, in threats from bandits, from perilous kin, from hazardous races, in a threatening city, in perilous solitude, in a dangerous body of water, by pseudo brothers, (2C11:26) in bothersome and difficult work and in toilsome hardship, in constant sleeplessness, in prolonged, severe hunger and thirst, infrequently going without food, in cold and nakedness, (2C11:27) independently and by myself (choris – without help, apart, alone, disassociated, and separated, estranged without a relationship), beyond the constant stopping to quell rebellions (o epistasis – of halting to suppress attacks and upheavals, of the pressure, concern, the burden of authority, and disturbing hindrance associated with riotous mobs) of the extent of my daily anxiety and distracting care of all of the called-out assemblies. (2 Corinthians 11:28)

Not only was Paulos killed multiple times, but he also 54facilitated his own personal resurrections. He would outdo Jonah, having spent twenty-four hours at the bottom of the sea. In that the maximum depth of the Aegean Sea is 11,624 feet just east of Crete, it is easy to see why he put this remarkable feat on his résumé.

Every reference to that which was perilous, dangerous, and threatening came from kindynos. It was repeated after journeys, rivers, bandits, kin, races, a city, solitude or perhaps a desert, and a body of water, which I suppose was a lake because he had already mentioned his derring-do on the high seas. So maybe it’s just me, but if in addition to all of this, I had been overburdened, severely beaten, and killed multiple times, and had received thirty-nine lashes five times, had been attacked by sticks and stones, even shipwrecked, I might look for a better god.

I realize that Yahowah is not a micromanager, but He protected the Children of Yisra’el when they were in the wilderness with Him. He kept those who sought to harm them at bay. He fed them, quenched their thirst, and tended to their clothing. He bore their burdens, doing all the heavy lifting Himself. He even quelled their rebellions. It is obvious that the God of Yisra’el and Paulos’ god are different.

Pathetic as ever, the naked, emaciated, and mutilated apostle of an absentee god was annoyed because he had to “epistasis – constantly stop what he was doing to quell rebellions, to halt upheavals, and to suppress attacks from riotous mobs which became a disturbing hindrance.” So the world’s most infamous punching bag must have simultaneously been a one-man army. And all the while there was anxiety over the distracting care of all of those assemblies. In his own mind, he was superhuman, a phenomenon of epoch proportions. He was also demon-possessed and insane, but who of us is perfect?

Rather than conveying the extent and purpose of 55Yahowsha’s Passover sacrifice and how it relates to our immortality, rather than explaining what transpired during UnYeasted Bread to perfect us, enabling our adoption, on Firstborn Children, Sha’uwl | Paul made this all about himself, claiming imaginary ordeals without reason or merit. Paul was fixated on delineating his personal afflictions, some self-inflicted, others imagined, even though they are absolutely of no value to anyone, nor do they have any bearing on anyone’s salvation.

Beyond the anguishing litany of abuse, if we are to judge the validity of a message by the extent of the messenger’s sacrifice, rather than the merit of his testimony, we should turn to the Qur’an and worship Allah based upon a jihadist’s desire to sacrifice his life killing others. Sure, the motivation is delusional, and the result is counterproductive, but the terror is real.

Ironically, Sha’uwl | Paul described his ordeal on the road to Damascus similarly. He was incapacitated, crippled, and blinded by his god. If only he had been killed.

That said, Paul’s depiction of his conversion experience, of the Yaruwshalaim Summit, and of his interactions with Jews were all contradictory and inaccurate. Therefore, the likelihood that Paul endured any of these things is remote. And yet it is hard to miss the intent: Sha’uwl had surpassed his god. Or, Paul, like Muhammad after him, manufactured his god in his own image.

Problems abound in his last statement. First among them: by using “parektos – in addition” and “choris – separately and estranged” in succession, we are compelled to render choris as “without any help,” as in “independently, apart from any relationship,” as opposed to translating it “besides.” In other words, Paul is not saying “in addition as in besides,” but instead, “beyond being beaten up, and going to bed hungry and cold, I alone 56have borne the burden of suppressing riots and caring for all of the assemblies.” So now, even the pretense of representing the actual Yahowsha’ is gone. It is Paul against the world in addition to being against God.

It is not often that we are afforded such a window into a deranged and psychotic mind. But Paul, in addition to being insane, was a megalomaniac. He was ever ready to expose his mental illness.

And now he seems to be telling us that when he is empowered, Yahowah and His Torah are weakened, becoming incapacitated and impotent. And that so long as he is not shot down in flames, God’s credibility is questioned, with His Towrah becoming unbelievable as a result of having been slandered and scandalized.

“Who is weakened and incapacitated (tis astheneo – what is powerless, incapable, and impotent by being corrupted and perverted) when I am not incapacitated nor weak (kai ouk astheneo)? Who stumbles, ceasing to be credible (tis skandalizomai – what is slandered and scandalized becoming unbelievable, even offensive, being trapped, distrusted and deserted) when I am not (kai ouk ego) myself destroyed in the fire (pyroomai – myself consumed by flames, burning with passion, greatly worried and distressed, tempted with desires, or aroused sexually, incensed or indignant)? (2C11:29) So since it is necessary to brag (ei kauchasthai dei) of my limitation and weakness (ta tes astheneia mou – of this infirmity, lack of insight, frailty, incompetence and inadequacy of mine), I will boast (astheneia – I will brag, glorifying myself).” (2 Corinthians 11:30)

Commenting upon 2 Corinthians 11:21, I alerted you to the fact that Paul would transition from attributing the process of astheneo, and thus the concept of astheneia, from God to himself. That is beginning here. He is saying that the negative aspects of astheneo / astheneia befall God 57when they are not attributed to him. Therefore, it is germane for you to realize that astheneo / astheneia depict: “perversions which have made us ill, inadequacies and infirmities caused by our corruptions.” They speak of “sicknesses borne of our dishonesty, weakness which results from our tendency to defile and profane, dishonoring that which is set apart.”

We are witnessing “incapacitation, weakness, and lack of insights derived from a willingness to pollute and sully the established conditions.” I will demonstrate the authenticity of this amplified definition in the context of the Passover Lamb when we consider 2 Corinthians 12:9. We will do so in concert with Satan’s influence on Sha’uwl’s life, and with the effect of the Graces.

When we consider the implications of what this man just wrote in this light, the implication is that Paul is suggesting that, even bridled by his Lord, even beaten and bruised by Jews, even starved and naked, even distracted by riotous mobs, even fighting off pesky thieves, even fording perilous rivers and dangerous waters, oh my, he is still able to thwart God by perverting His testimony. And if these afflictions are not what he is bragging about overcoming to incapacitate the most trustworthy and noteworthy foe, then what and who is he boasting about besting?

The notion of glorifying oneself in association with God should make us nauseous. For example, when someone credits something I have written with being responsible for them coming to know Yah, I cringe. All I am doing is sharing His message. It is His testimony, not mine, and He is doing all the work. I am nothing more than a flawed implement who is a beneficiary of the same guidance. So to brag about besting God is beyond my comprehension. It is beyond my capacity to understand why anyone would purposefully try to slander and undermine the most brilliant, loving, and generous 58individual in the universe. I love my Dad, and I am grateful for everything He has done for us – especially since we are offering relatively little in return.

After what we have just read, Paul’s next statement is that of a delusional megalomaniac...

“The God (o ΘΣ – the Divine Placeholder for Theos | God) and father (pater) of the Lord (tou ΚΥ – a placeholder used to convey kurios, giving the Greek word for lord and master a Divine sheen) Iesou (ΙΗΥ – Divine Placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Iesou which became “Jesus” in the 17^th century after the invention of the letter “J”) has known (oida – has actually and completely been aware of and has recognized and acknowledged) the one being (o on) praised and worthy of commendation (eulogetos – one being blessed; from eulogeo – with praiseworthy words and beneficial speech) throughout the universe and forever (eis tous aion) because (hoti) I absolutely cannot lie (ou pseudomai – could never deceive or mislead by speaking falsely or conveying anything that is not true).” (2 Corinthians 11:31)

Paul wants us to believe that he, like Yirma’yah | Jeremiah and Yasha’yah | Isaiah, was known to God before he was born. He has become the most highly praised individual in the universe. Laying claim to the Gentile world had become insufficient. So in the midst of this braggadocious diatribe, and with Sha’uwl presenting himself as the source of universal truth, the most rational conclusion is that this may be Sha’uwl’s most presumptuous and delusional statement thus far.

However, there may be a glimmer of truth in these words, especially when we recognize that Sha’uwl’s Lord is auditioning for the role of God. Through Paulos, Satan wants to father a different covenant by way of his New Testament, thereby causing the existing one to be considered obsolete. And as the means to this madness, the 59Adversary must recast Iesou as his ally and Yahowah’s adversary.

What the Devil could not achieve by tempting Yahowsha’ in the wilderness, he would accomplish by having Paul claim that he was the lone authorized apostle for Iesou. This enabled him to change his identity, to corrupt his testimony, and to counterfeit every aspect of his life. By claiming to be the chosen one, the one whose words were praiseworthy and commendable, the one whose message was universal and eternal, and as the one who could never lie, for the gullible, it was mission accomplished. All Sha’uwl and his Lord had to do now were play the cards from the hand they had dealt to themselves from the bottom of the deck.

As for Yahowsha’, He never sought commendation or praise. His every inclination was to direct our reverence and esteem toward where it is deserved, which is toward Yahowah.

While every aspect of this premise is invalid, once the poison is ingested, the antidote, which is the Towrah, is discarded. And with the remedy removed, the venom paralyzes its victims. For example, this statement by itself is irrational. In the midst of discrediting and invalidating God’s previous testimony, Paulos is claiming that this same unreliable God can be trusted to provide him with a universal endorsement. Equally absurd, the God whose testimony is to be forgotten is then presented as knowing and remembering, while the newly minted source of universal and everlasting truth is unaware and forgetful.

Only a deceptive man would say that he cannot lie. It is yet another telling sign of Sha’uwl’s craving for acclaim and validation. Those who suffer from his infirmity habitually deceive, all while claiming that they are “truthtellers.” Paul is a classic case. And few things he said were more incriminating than what he had previously 60stated to this same audience:

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

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

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

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

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

61More simply stated, Paul was deliberately deceptive. He lied.

I would be remiss if I did not tell you that when Paul admitted to being “weak and sick” he used asthenes, the adjective variation of the verb astheneo and the noun astheneia. Therefore, he was admitting to being: “weak as a result of his corruptions and sick due to his perversions.”

We do not have to look far to find another deliberate lie. What follows is not only inaccurate, it is both irrelevant and incongruous.

“In Damascus (en Damasko), the official appointed by (ethnarches – the governor with the royal authority of) King Aretas (tou basileus Areta) was posting guards against the city (phroureo ten polis) of Damascus (Damaskenon) to capture and arrest me (piazo me – to catch and seize me). (2C11:32) But through a small opening in a wall (kai dia thuridos – and by a diminutive aperture, tiny window, or little door) in a woven basket (en sargane – with a twine hamper), I was let down (chalao – I was lowered, released gradually by slackening the line) through a city wall (dia tou teichos) and I fled, escaping (kai ekpheugo – I ran away to avoid) the hands of him (tas cheir autou).” (2 Corinthians 11:33)

In Galatians 1:18, Paul wrote that three years transpired prior to his initial visit to Yaruwshalaim. He said that he traveled throughout Syria and Cilicia thereafter in 1:21. Then in Galatians 2:1, Paul stated that another fourteen years passed before he, Barnabas, and Titus went back to Yaruwshalaim for the summit with the Disciples Yahowchanan, Shim’own, and Ya’aqob. That meeting took place in 50 CE. This totals 18 years.

King Aretas is a bit of an enigma. Proposals that control of Damascus was achieved by Aretas between the death of Herod Philip in 33 to 34 CE and his death in 40 CE are contradicted by substantial evidence against the 62possibility that Aretas had any influence over the city prior to 37 CE. There is also considerable evidence to demonstrate that control could not have been a gift from Caligula between 37 and 40 CE. In fact, from a historical perspective, there is no support for the Pauline proposition that troops belonging to Aretas controlled Damascus at that time, or at any time.

Putting the historically inaccurate reference to King Aretas aside, even the timeline is fictitious. Subtract eighteen years from 50 CE and the Moses wannabe is in the basket circa 32 CE, a year before Yahowsha’s fulfillment of Passover. And if Paul’s revisionist timeline prevails, then there could not have been a Damascan official present appointed by Aretas. Moreover, there would be no reason for Sha’uwl to have been sought out for arrest by anyone, much less by a Nabataean king, following his encounter with a lightning bolt.

Further discrediting Sha’uwl’s testimony, in Acts 9:23-26, we were told that “Jews plotted together to do away with him,” and that “their plot became known to Sha’uwl.” These same Jews “were watching the gates day and night so that they might put him to death,” which is why “his disciples took him by night and let him down through the wall, lowering him in a basket.” But now the foe is King Aretas, a Nabataean, and therefore not a Jew.

Even more incriminating, Aretas would never have deployed Jewish guards. His daughter had married Herod Antipas, but when Herod divorced Phasaelis to take his brother’s wife, Aretas, to avenge his daughter’s honor, invaded Yahuwdah and defeated Herod, capturing the West Bank of the Jordan River. When Herod complained to Emperor Tiberius, he dispatched the governor of Syria to attack Aretas, an action which was not actually carried out because of Emperor Tiberius’ death in 37 CE. So, suffice it to say, there is no chance that Aretas had control over Syria, and thus Damascus, during this period. And 63even if so, the last people he would have assisted would have been Jews. Therefore, by reviewing Aretas’ history, Paul’s evolving and conflicting stories are exposed as contradictory fabrications.

This means that Paul was not only a false prophet, he was unable to keep his own history straight. So much for the myth that he was not able to lie.