112Questioning Paul

Towrahless

…Without Guidance

 

3

Shama’ | Listen

 

Learning Something…

The moment Sha’uwl finished incriminating himself at the Yaruwshalaim Summit with his testimony about the “signs and wonders he had performed,” Yahowsha’s brother stood up. Ya’aqob | Jacob had heard more than enough. His brother, who had served as the Passover Lamb, made it abundantly clear that the disciples were called to share his healing and beneficial message with the world. Gentiles were not Sha’uwl’s private domain. This reality had then been further underscored when on the Invitation to be Called Out and Meet with God on Seven Shabats, the Set-Apart Spirit had equipped each of them with the ability to speak the languages of the Gentiles.

“But after (de meta) their silence (to autous sigao), Ya’aqob (Iakobos – a transliteration of the Hebrew Ya’aqob, describing one whose walk is steadfast as a result of digging in his heels; changed by Christians to “James” to honor the English king) responded, saying (apokrinomai lego – answered the question by saying), ‘Men, brothers (andres adelphos), listen to me (akouo mou).’ (Acts 15.13)

‘Shim’own (Symeon – a transliteration of Shim’own, from shama’, meaning He Listens) has made fully known to us (exegeomai – told the whole truth, providing detailed information, carefully describing, explaining, and 113teaching) in the same way as (kathos) previously (proton – earlier and formerly) God (theos) carefully chose to care, doing what was required (episkeptomai – He sought to visit, to look after, to help, and) to receive (lambano – to acquire and grasp hold of) from (ek – out of) the races and nations (ethnon – different ethnicities) people (laos – ordinary individuals) in His name (to onomati autou).’” (Acts 15:14)

According to Yahowsha’s brother, Ya’aqob, the Disciple Shim’own, and Yahowsha’, Himself, witnessing to the Gentiles was not an innovative marketing ploy under new management, but instead was something Yahowah had promised by way of His prophets. This is why Yahowah’s children, whether they be naturally-born or adopted, are called Yahuwdym | Beloved of Yah. We are called to embrace Yahowah’s name, not Paul’s.

And you will notice, rather than telling us to “believe” him, Ya’aqob said that Shim’own, just like Yahowsha’, “exegeomai – told the whole truth, providing detailed information, carefully describing, explaining, and teaching to make everything fully known to us.” It is in this way that we demonstrate our compassion and concern for people the world over. Making known by teaching is what is required for men and women to be received by God.

To prove his point, Ya’aqob quoted the Prophets. So, let’s take this opportunity to compare the Greek translation to the Hebrew original.

“And regarding this (kai touto), the words (oi legos – the thoughts, reasoning, or statements) of the prophets (ton prophetes) agree, (symphoneo – are consistent, a perfect match), inasmuch as (kathos) it has been written (grapho): (15:15)

‘With (meta – beyond) this (houtos) I will return (anastrephomai – I will come back) and (kai) I will repair and rebuild (anoikodomeo – I will reestablish) the 114sheltered dwelling place (ten skene – tent and tabernacle) of Dowd (Dauid – transliteration of Dowd, meaning Beloved in Hebrew) which has fallen (ten pipto – that has prostrated itself and has been destroyed), and (kai) that which has been torn down (ta kataskapto autes – the things which have been razed and demolished, being dug asunder).

I will reestablish (anoikodomeo – I will repair and renew) and (kai) I will restore them, making them upright again (anorthoo auten – I will straighten them up from a position which is bent over).’” (Acts 15:15-16)

Skene, translated as “sheltered dwelling place,” is synonymous with Sukah, which is most often translated “Shelters” and speaks of “Camping Out” with God. It serves as the name of Yahowah’s seventh Miqra’ | Invitation to be Called Out and Meet, where we are invited to camp out with our Heavenly Father. As a “protective covering,” skene addresses the role our Spiritual Mother plays in our relationship. By way of Her Garment of Light, we become Yahowah’s “tabernacles” on earth.

The lexicons tell us that skene is related to skeuos, which is “a vessel,” “an implement,” and a “protective covering” – all of which are descriptive of the Spirit’s purpose. Along these lines, skene is also associated with skia, which is “a lesser dimensional representation of something which serves as a foreshadowing of something bigger and better.” When we are born anew from above by way of our Spiritual Mother, we become more like God, holding onto the promise that we will continue to grow as His adopted children. So, by using skene in this translation of Yahowah’s testimony, we find acknowledgements of His Spirit and affirmations of His love, all in concert with Shelters, His final Feast.

Ya’aqob elected to quote the prophet, Amos, who spoke of the impending destruction of the nation of 115Yisra’el. Fleshing out the context of this citation, we discover that, as a result of Yisra’el’s forming a covenant with the Lord (“ha Ba’al” in Hebrew, and thus Satan), Yahowah’s judgment had become inevitable.

The Yisra’elites had separated themselves from God, so He told them that the house of Ya’aqob would be shaken. He said that those among His people who erred, and thus missed the way, would die, and that those who remained would encounter an evil calamity which would cause great suffering. He was speaking of the Roman invasion which resulted from Rabbi Akiba’s insistence upon a false-Mashyach | Messiah. It led to the Diaspora and eventually to the Holocaust.

But Yahuwdym would be restored in Yisra’el, according to the words Yahowah revealed to the prophet, Amos. This then is the testimony which Ya’aqob quoted at the Yaruwshalaim Summit:

“In (ba) that (huw’) day (yowm), I will stand, rise up, and establish (quwm – will stand upright, enabling) the Sukah (Sukah – seventh Miqra’, meaning sheltered dwelling place and protective covering, tent and tabernacle) of Dowd (Dowd – the Beloved), which has fallen (naphal – has been neglected).

I will repair and restore (gadar – rebuild) its (henah) cracks and breaches (peres – that which is exposed, broken, or torn, that which is foolhardy and dissipates) and that which is in a state of disrepair (harysah – is lying in ruins).

I will raise it up (quwm huw’ – cause him to stand) and (wa) rebuild it, restoring (banah – renew and reestablish) it (hy’) such that its (ka) days (yowm) are everlasting (‘owlam – of antiquity and forever into the future).” (Amos 9:11)

This is Yahowah’s promise to restore Yisra’el and to establish the Millennial Shabat in harmony with the 116prophetic symbolism of the Miqra’ of Sukah. The timing of this anticipated reconciliation coincides with His return on Yowm Kipurym in year 6000 Yah (sunset in Yaruwshalaim on October 2^nd, 2033). And as a surprise to many, Yahowah is returning with His beloved son, Dowd – the King of Kings.

Worth noting is the fact that “Sukah – Shelters” is a feminine noun, associating God’s protected enclosure with our Spiritual Mother who “shelters and protects us.” By using “hy’ – it / Her” in reference to “rebuilding, restoring, renewing, and reestablishing,” we discover that Yahowah intends to renew the “Sukah – protective enclosure,” “restoring this home such that its days are everlasting.” As it was, it will be. This is particularly significant because Sukah is synonymous with the Gan ‘Eden | Garden of Eden where gan also describes a “protected garden enclosure” and ‘eden speaks of “great joy.”

This is one of many references in the Towrah and Prophets to something extraordinary. During the Miqra’ of Sukah, the Earth will be restored to the conditions experienced within the Garden of Eden. This will make the time when we are invited to camp out with God especially enjoyable.

And since the Millennial Shabat commences on the Miqra’ of Sukah, we know that God’s plan is to restore and renew, to repair and rebuild our world during this time, taking us back to the perfect realm and relationship we once enjoyed. And that means that there is no “New Testament,” but instead the renewal of the existing Familial Covenant Relationship. This is something Yahowah affirms in no uncertain terms in Yirma’yah / Jeremiah 31, when He speaks of the still future renewal of His Covenant.

Recognizing that the translation of this passage had to pass through several languages, Hebrew to Greek and then Greek to English, and through the hands of countless 117scribes, Ya’aqob’s | Jacob’s quotation was reasonably accurate. It was also spoken, not written, and then attested by someone who was not actually present. And in some ways, it was akin to what is found in the Septuagint, although not entirely. For example, Luke’s interpretation of Ya’aqob’s quotation begins “With this (μετα ταυτα),” while the Septuagint reads “In that day (εν τη ημερα εκεινη),” putting the Septuagint in accord with Yahowah’s citation, but Acts in discord.

Next, the Septuagint uses “anhistemi (αναστησω),” to say: “I will stand upright, rise up, and establish,” mirroring the Hebrew quwm in Amos 9:11, and yet Luke’s Greek transcript reads “I shall return (αναστρεψω),” which is inconsistent with God’s word, and thus errant.

From this point, the Codex Sinaiticus (our oldest witness to Acts 15:15) jumbles the Septuagint’s word order. Agreeing with the Hebrew text, the Septuagint reads: “the Sukah of Dowd which has fallen, and I will rebuild her things that are broken, as well as her things that are in a state of disrepair, (from: την σκηνην Δαυιδ την πεπτωκυιαν καὶ ανοικοδομησω τα πεπτωκοτα αυτης και τα κατεσκαμμενα αυτης).” But, the Codex Sinaiticus, while conveying a similar message, is again imprecise: “And I shall rebuild the Sukah of Dowd / David which has fallen, and her things that have fallen into a state of disrepair I shall rebuild, (from: καὶ ανοικοδομησω την σκηνην Δαυιδ την πεπτωκυιαν και τα κατεσκαμμενα αυτης ανοικοδομησω).” Recognizing how easy it would have been for Luke, and the scribes responsible for the Codex Sinaiticus, to get this right (recognizing that the Septuagint is correct), we have to ask ourselves: who was responsible for these mistakes? And acknowledging that these errors exist, we must deal with the fact that passages which are not found in extant 1^st, 2^nd, or 3^rd century manuscripts are especially suspect, and thus unreliable.

But that is not the end of the disparities. The 118Septuagint continues with: “I shall stand up and repair her just as the days that are everlasting (from: αναστησω και ανοικοδομησω αυτην καθως αι ημεραι του αιωνος),” which is as close to the Hebrew text as different languages allow. But in the Codex Sinaiticus, we find Luke’s hearsay transcription of Ya’aqob’s quotation changed to: “And I shall straighten her (και ανορθωσω αυτην),” which is inconsistent with the Hebrew. Therefore, Ya’aqob, speaking Hebrew, was either misquoted in Luke’s translation or subsequent scribes were careless.

This exercise serves to demonstrate that the acclaim attributed to the Codex Sinaiticus is not justified. One might even argue, as I will do in the concluding volume, that this manuscript was written in Rome on the order of Emperor Constantine and then sent to Egypt where it remained in the Roman Catholic monastery named in honor of Constantine’s mother, “Saint Catherine.” The spurious work was placed on the shelf along with the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, and Sirach, until the goatskin hides were plucked from the trash by a Leipzig archaeologist, Constantin von Tischendorf, moments before they were to be burned in the ovens. Giving further weight to its Roman origins, the chapter divisions in the Codex Sinaiticus’ rendition of the book of Acts coincide only with the Codex Vaticanus and early copies of Jerome’s Vulgate, adding considerable weight to the conclusion that the Codex Sinaiticus was politically and religiously inspired.

More recent history aside, Luke’s hearsay presentation of Ya’aqob’s citation of Yahowah’s next revelation through the Prophet Amos, reads:

“So that (hopos) then (an – conveying a possibility in an uncertain time of an if-then proposition) will diligently scrutinize and seek out (ekzeteo – will search out, investigate, pursue, and / or bring charges against) this remnant (oi kataloipos – those who remain) of mankind 119(ton anthropos) of the (ton) Upright Pillar of the Tabernacle (ΚΝ – a placeholder used in the Septuagint for either ‘edon, the Upright One or for Yahowah’s name), and (kai) all (pas) of the races and nations (ta ethnos – of the ethnicities) upon (epi) whom (ous) has been called and surnamed (epikaleomai – has asked for help, appealing to a higher judge and as a result had the name put upon them, permitting oneself to be surnamed after someone, and to be called and summoned as a witness (in the perfect tense this describes a completed action in the past which has current ramifications, in the passive voice, the individual is being acted upon, and in the indicative mood, this describes an actual occurrence)) in association with (to) My (mou) name (onoma) upon (epi) them (autous) says (lego) Yahowah (ΚΣ – placeholder used by Yahowsha’s disciples and throughout the Septuagint for Yahowah’s name using the Greek kurios), doing (poieomai – performing) this (tauta) (15:17) which was known (gnostos – is that which could be known) from (apo) world and universal history (aionos – from long ago and at all times since).” (Acts 15:17-18)

Unfortunately, Luke’s Greek hearsay rendition of Ya’aqob’s citation did not accurately reflect Amos 9:12, a fact which we will consider in a moment. But since it is so remarkably different than what the Hebrew prophet quoted Yahowah saying, let’s verify the Greek text by way of the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear: “So that [not applicable] will seek out the rest behind of the men the Master and all the nations on whom has been called on the name of me on them says Master doing these known from age.” The New American Standard Bible, which erroneously claims to be a literal translation of the oldest manuscripts, suggests: “In order that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.”

120There is not an extant 1^st through 3^rd century manuscript of this particular citation in Greek, so scribal error may have contributed to some of the discrepancies. Of particular issue is ‘Edowm, usually transliterated “Edom,” which is the name of a place in the Hebrew text. But since it is related linguistically to ‘adam, the Hebrew word for “man,” and because it is also associated with ‘edon, the basis of Yahowsha’s title, meaning “the Upright One and the Upright Pillar of the tabernacle and its foundation,” scribes could easily have become confused. Therefore, in place of ‘Edowm, we find both “anthropos – mankind” and a placeholder for “kurion – lord and master.”

Noting these issues, the much older Hebrew witness of Amos 9:12 reads:

“‘So therefore (ma’an – for the purpose and intent), those who have beneficially (‘asher – those who in accord with the way to get the most out of the relationship) summoned (qara’ – called out and invited) My (‘any) name (shem – personal and proper designation) for themselves will inherit (‘al yarash – will receive as an heir and possess) the remainder of (sha’eryth – remnant and rest of) ‘Edowm (‘edowm), the entirety of (kol) the gentile realm (gowym – places which are not part of Yisra’el),’ prophetically declares (na’um – announces ahead of time) Yahowah (), who will engage, enabling (‘asah – who will act, doing) this (zo’th).” (‘Amows / Bearing a Burden / Amos 9:12)

If what we considered previously is even marginally consistent with what Luke intended, then we can lay the myth of Divine inspiration to rest. God would not have misquoted Himself to this extent. These errors instead demonstrate just how desperate Luke was for credibility and the lengths Paul’s associate would go to achieve the pretense of replicating what actually occurred.

Beyond the unwarranted omission of Edom, and the 121additions of “mankind” and “Master / Lord,” in the Greek hearsay translation of Ya’aqob’s quotation of the Hebrew passage, the Acts transcription replaced “inherit” with “seek,” and turned another affirmation of the importance of Yahowah’s name into a muddled mess. So while we’ve come to expect tremendous imprecision in Paul’s letters to the Galatians, Thessalonians, and Corinthians, these mistakes were recorded in the book of Acts, now causing Luke’s historical presentation to be suspect as well.

Turning to the Septuagint as a point of reference, we find that it is not a particularly good match for the Hebrew text of Amos or Luke’s Greek rendering of Ya’aqob’s quotation. It reads: “So that the remnant of men and all the nations shall seek out, upon those whom My name is called upon them, says Yahowah, the God who does these [things].” To this, the Codex Sinaiticus adds “an – it is possible” and “ton ΚΝ – the Lord and Master,” in addition to what is now found in Acts 15:18, which reads “which was known from world and universal history.” Adding to the confusion, the oldest Greek witness of this proclamation then omitted the placeholder for God’s title (ΘΣ) from the Septuagint’s translation, albeit ‘elohym wasn’t actually written in Amos 9:12.

Perhaps more disconcerting than the inaccuracy of the quotation, this passage, while it is profoundly important in that it speaks of an inheritance and not a witness, was not especially germane to the point Ya’aqob was making. This means that if this was correctly attributed to him, he should not have cited it to refute Sha’uwl. And while we may never know, my guess is he did not quote it. I say that because our only options are to conclude that either Ya’aqob | Jacob was wrong for citing it, that Luke was wrong for attributing this quotation to Ya’aqob, or that a later scribe added it because a subsequent mischaracterization of the citation seemed to fit. If you are among those who believe that the “New Testament” is “the 122inerrant word of God,” pick your poison.

On the positive side, we have another confirmation that the placeholder, ΚΣ, which was based upon the Greek kurios, was used to represent Yahowah’s name. At first blush, however, unless it was a legacy of the Septuagint, it is curious that the disciples would have chosen a placeholder which was based upon a title, as opposed to one predicated upon YaHoWaH. And yet, recognizing that these Placeholders consistently begin and end with the first and last letter in the title or name they are attempting to convey, and often include an internal consonant, we discover that it would have been impossible to write an abbreviation for Yahowah’s name in Greek because the four vowels which comprise it have no counterpart in the borrowed alphabet. There is no “Y,” “oW,” or soft “aH” among Greek letters. (The capitalized characters which share a common appearance with the English alphabet’s “Y” and “H” represent Upsilon and Eta, respectively, and thus do not convey a similar sound.)

Also, ‘Edowm is the land of Esau and his descendants. In Observations, based upon a comprehensive translation and evaluation of Yasha’yah / Isaiah, we will determine that ‘Edowm is used prophetically to represent what Yahowah disdains about Roman Catholicism. So Yahowah appears to have been prophetically speaking about returning the possessions Imperial Rome and its legacy, the Roman Catholic Church and Western Europe, stole from Yahuwdym | Jews over the course of the past two thousand years. The irony is sweet.

If Ya’aqob’s statement was not associated with Amos 9, the testimony ascribed to him could be reordered to say:

“‘So that (hopos) if (an) the remnant (kataloipos) of mankind (anthropos), and (kai) all (pas) the races and nations (ethnos) upon (epi) whom (ous) My (mou) name (onoma) is summoned (epikaleomai) by (epi) them 123(autous), diligently seek (ekzeteo) the Upright One (ΚΝ),’ says (lego) Yahowah (ΚΣ), ‘doing (poieomai) this (tauta), it will be known (gnostos) to (apo) the world and history (aionos).” (Acts 15:17-18)

But alas, this revision of the text is invalidated knowing that Ya’aqob specifically said that he was quoting something written in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, and thus there was no justification for “mankind (anthropos)” or “Upright One (ΚΝ).”

While Ya’aqob did not cite the final three verses of Amos’ prophecy, there is no reason we shouldn’t consider them. They read:

“‘Look now and see (hineh – behold, stand up, look up, and reach up to God), the day (yowm) is coming (bow’),’ prophetically declares (na’um) Yahowah ( – a transliteration of YaHoWaH as instructed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), ‘…when I will return and restore (shuwb – come back and reestablish) the property and that which makes life easier and more secure for (sabuwt – the fortunes, restoring that which is good and establishing more favorable circumstances for) My (‘any) family (‘am – people and nation), Yisra’el (Yisra’el – individuals who engage and endure with God).” (‘Amows / Bearing a Burden / Amos 9:13-14)

This is a powerful statement. It not only affirms that Yahowah will return, but also that His purpose will be to “shuwb – reestablish” His family and to “sabuwt – fortuitously restore all that is good.” And that is why the related title, Shabuw’ah, is defined as Yahowah’s “vow, His sworn and contractual promise between parties in a relationship to truthfully attest to our innocence.” The fact is, the Miqra’ey of Shabuw’ah and Sukah are related, with one leading to the other. And it is Yahowah’s Ruwach | Spirit who makes us appear innocent, indeed perfect, 124before our Heavenly Father.

In His closing statement, Yahowah may be describing what occurred in 1948 and thereafter:

“And they will rebuild (banah) their desolate (shamen) cities (‘iyr) and live in them (yatsab – inhabit). And they shall plant (nata’) vineyards (kerem) and drink (shatah – consume) wine (yayn – fermented grape juice).

And they shall fashion (‘asah – make) gardens (ganah) and eat (‘akal – consume) fruit (pary – their harvest) from them. And I will root them (nata’ hem – firmly embed and plant them, establishing their encampment) upon (‘al) their (hem) soil (‘adamah – earth and land).

And they shall never be uprooted (lo’ natash – pulled up and expelled) again (‘owd) from (min) upon (‘al) their land (‘adamah hem – soil) which relationally and beneficially (‘asher) I gave (nathan) to (la) them (hem), says (‘amar) Yahowah (Yahowah – written as directed by His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), your God (‘elohym ‘atah).” (‘Amows / Bearing a Burden / Amos 9:14-15)

Those who are careful observers of Yahowah’s Word recognize that God does not always present future history sequentially, so it would not be unusual for Him to discuss His return prior to presenting the conditions which will precede it. Moreover, this conclusion spans time, beginning before and continuing after His return. Yahowah is not doing this because He would like us to appreciate time the way He perceives it, and He does not want His prophecies to influence, and thus change, future events. So long as His reports regarding future history are understood by those devoted to Yahowah’s Word, and thus to Him, it prevents the duplicitous from trying to sabotage His predictions – even though such a thing would be 125impossible.

In this prophetic declaration, Yahowah said He would personally see to it that following an “evil calamity,” He would reestablish Yisra’el. But also, that once His people returned, they would never be uprooted again. Therefore, there is no reason to worry about another Islamic invasion, or an Iranian nuclear attack. After the Roman Diaspora and German Holocaust, Yisra’elites are home for good. Liberal politicians and Islamic terrorists are not going to prevail, try as they might.

Returning to the book of Acts, according to Luke’s hearsay testimony, after attempting to cite Yahowah’s prophecy in Amos, Ya’aqob | Jacob (renamed “James” to flatter the English king) said:

“Therefore (dio) I (ego) conclude (krino – decide and judge by way of separating fact from fiction, right from wrong, exercising judgment), not (ue) to make it more difficult (parenochleo – cause trouble for, excite, annoy, or disturb), by separating (apo) the races and nations (ethnos) who are returning (epistrepho – who are changing their perspectives, attitudes, thinking, and ways).” (Acts 15:19)

The Nestle-Aland’s Interlinear reads: “Wherefore I judge not to annoy along the ones from the nations returning on the God.” As was the case with the first nine verses of the fifteenth chapter of Acts, starting with the nineteenth, we again benefit from the witness provided by Papyrus 45, a 3^rd century manuscript. In it we discover that the phrase “epi ton theon – on the God” was added by a 4^th century scribe at the end of this passage and thus should not be considered.

In the next verse, the phrase “tes porneias kai – the perversion, corruption, or sexual immorality” is not found in Papyrus 45 and may have been added by a scribe to harmonize Ya’aqob’s statement with the subsequent letter 126memorializing this compromise. The Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear reports, “But to write letter to them the to hold off the pollutions of the idols and of the sexual immorality and the choked and the blood.” The oldest manuscript of this passage reads:

“To the contrary (alla – nonetheless and notwithstanding), to write to them a letter (episteilai autois – to send them an epistle) for the (tou) sufficiency of receiving in full or holding separate (apechesthai – the primary meaning is to receive, the secondary connotation is to be enough or sufficient, the tertiary definition is to be away from, the fourth implication is to experience, the fifth is to avoid or abstain, and the sixth is to close an account) of the (ton) polluted and defiled (alisgema – condemned religious rituals which corrupt and make impure) of the (ton) idols and objects of worship (eidolon – the overt or outward appearance of religious worship, imagery, likenesses, idolatry, and false gods), and the (kai tou) strangled (pniktos – choked to death or suffocated as part of a bloodless religious ritual or means to kill an animal before it is butchered), and the (kai tou) blood (haima).” (Acts 15:20)

Apechesthai, which is the present middle infinitive of apechei, is an awkward term because it is based upon an internal contradiction. It is a compound of apo, which speaks of “separation,” and “echo – to have and to hold.” Most English translations, therefore, ignore its primary definitions, and render the verb “abstain.” Also telling, since there is no Hebrew word associated with abstaining or abstinence – this admonition is not based upon God’s Word.

Confusion and duplicity aside, the first item on this list has merit, in that it is a derivative of the Second of Three Statements God etched on the First of the Two Tablets. Yahowah specifically asked us to avoid being religious. However, the reference to “pniktos – strangled” (which 127will be discussed in reference to the 29^th verse) is a subset of Rabbinical Law, and thus does not come from the Torah. It is not appropriate. Further, while Yahowah asks us not to drink blood (thereby undermining the Catholic Eucharist), in conjunction with strangulation, this reference to blood would only serve to enrich Kosher butchers. So if this list was deemed sufficient, it makes you wonder why God bothered to write the Torah or inspire the Prophets.

Considering that these largely inappropriate conclusions were attributed to Ya’aqob, for his sake, I hope that they were a product of Luke’s scribal error. Yahowsha’ made no attempt to summarize his instructions, only the Ten Statements – and this bears no resemblance to this recap. Also, while Yahowah did provide a synopsis of some of His Towrah | Instructions by writing the Ten Statements, only one aspect of one of the statements memorialized on His Tablets was reflected in this list.

But alas, at least there was one worthy contender among the three prohibitions. Alisgema, translated “as polluted and defiled” and describing “something which has become corrupt and impure by way of a religious ritual,” is often associated with “sacrificial meat and drink offerings made to pagan deities.” A portion was usually taken by the priests, but the remainder was either sold in the marketplace by the donor or eaten by the religious practitioner. So, by including it in his brief list, Ya’aqob was suggesting that we should avoid all contact with anything associated with religion, its imagery, rituals, and sacrifices.

However, when a similar list reappears in the “Apostles’” letter (presented in Acts 15:29), the one thing which changes is the reference to “idols, objects of worship, and polluted and defiled religious rituals which corrupt.” The more ubiquitous prohibition was replaced by saying that it is only necessary to avoid meats that have been sacrificed to idols. As such, the letter was a step 128backward from an already impoverished position.

Ya’aqob’s next comment, however, was manna from heaven. “Because (gar – for indeed) Moseh (Mouses – a transliteration of the Hebrew Moseh, meaning to draw out, the scribe of the Towrah), from (ek) generations (genea – ancestors from the same ethnic group) ancient (archaios – antiquity, therefore existing for a long time), the ones announcing Him (tous kerysso auton – those who proclaimed Him and made Him known), is actually and actively held (echei – is genuinely grasped hold of, possessed and experienced) in (en) the synagogues (tais synagoge – a transliteration of the Greek word meaning assembly meetings). In accordance with (kata) every (pas) Shabat (sabbaton – a transliteration of the Hebrew shabat, meaning rest, promise, and seven), it is being read and known (anaginosko – it is publicly recited aloud so that it might be understood).” (Acts 15:21)

Before we dissect this statement, please note that Papyrus 45 omits “[throughout / accordingly (kata) their towns and cities (polis)].” Also, “echei – is actually and actively held,” shown as εχει in the third person, singular, present, active, indicative in the Nestle-Aland 27^th Edition, was scribed as ekei (εκει), meaning “there, in that place,” in Papyrus 45. But since most early manuscripts reflect the later form, which also works better within the flow of the sentence, methinks the oldest witness reflected a scribal error which is why I have neglected it. However, “tous – the ones” should have been written in the singular as “the one” making Him known.

The bookkeeping behind us, understand that Ya’aqob referenced “Moseh | Moses” to say “Towrah | Guidance” the same way we would say “prophets” to designate the books of Yasha’yah | Isaiah, Zakaryah | Zechariah, or Mal’aky | Malachi. By doing so, he eliminated the potential confusion between Yahowah’s Towrah and Rabbinical Traditions.

129There are three revealing verbs in this passage, all of which manage to convey an aspect of Yahowah’s intent regarding His Towrah | Teaching. The first, kerysso, translated “announcing,” means: “to proclaim a message publicly with the intent of encouraging people, urging and warning them to acknowledge the instructions.” The Towrah is Yahowah’s message to mankind. It is comprised of His prescriptions for living. He wants His guidance proclaimed publicly in hopes that people decide to listen to His advice. And He wants His promises fulfilled, which is the reason Yahowah provided Yahowsha’.

It is written: “The entirety of the Word and every promise (kol ‘imrah – every statement and each prescription) of God (‘elowha) is pure, tested, and true (tsaraph – refined and valuable, precious and worthy), a shield for (magen – an enclosure which surrounds, defends, and saves) those who put their trust in (chasah – those who seek salvation through reliance upon) Him.” (Mashal / Word Pictures / Proverbs 30:5)

The second verb describing the intent of the Towrah | Instructions is echei. It is a variation on echo, which was rendered “actually and actively held” in association with unfurling the scroll of the Towrah so that it can be read and recited aloud in the synagogue on the Shabat. Echo’s primary meaning is “to grasp hold of something and then hang on to it.” In relational terms, it speaks of “embracing” someone whom or something which you care deeply about. Secondarily, echo speaks of “being clothed in something” or of “wielding it as a tool or implement.” Echo’s tertiary connotation is “to figuratively and literally accept something [in this case the Torah] so that it keeps you safe, preserving you.” Other definitions of echo are also germane relative to the Torah and include: “coming to possess something, owning it, carefully considering it, respecting and regarding it favorably, revering and enjoying it.” These are the most appropriate responses to 130the Towrah.

It is written: “Yahowah’s (Yahowah – a transliteration of , our ‘elowah – God as directed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence) Towrah (Towrah – teaching, instruction, direction, and guidance) is complete and entirely perfect (tamym – without defect, lacking nothing, correct, sound, genuine, right, helpful, beneficial, and true), returning, restoring, and transforming (shuwb – turning around and bringing back) the soul (nepesh – consciousness).

Yahowah’s (Yahowah – written as directed by His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence) enduring testimony (‘eduwth – restoring witness) is trustworthy and reliable (‘aman – verifiable, confirming, supportive, and establishing), making understanding and obtaining wisdom (chakam – educating and enlightening oneself to the point of comprehension) straightforward for the open-minded (pethy).” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:7)

This echoes Yahowah’s consistent advice, whereby God continually encourages us to read His Towrah | Directions, especially in our homes and to our children. He has asked us to take His Towrah | Guidance with us when we travel, to have it with us when we go to bed at night, and to embrace it when we wake up in the morning. God advises us to place His Towrah | Teaching between our eyes, upon our hands, on our doorposts and front gates so that it provides the proper perspective, guides our actions, and defines our relationship with Him and others.

Yahowah wants us to clothe ourselves in His Towrah | Instructions, and to wear and wield its promises as if they were shields and tools. Yahowah wants us to closely examine and carefully consider what He has to say in His Towrah, so that we come to know Him and appreciate what He is offering. He would like us to respect His Word, and 131as a result to revere and enjoy its Author’s promises, grasping hold, and hanging onto Him as if our life depended upon it. Just imagine what the world would be like if everyone echoed the Towrah.

Many speak of loving God, but few understand the way to achieve this: “Love Yahowah, your God, with all your mind and heart, with all your soul and consciousness, and with all your ability.

The Word (dabar) exists to be a prescription for living upon mind and heart. Repeat these prescriptions so as to teach them by rote to your children.

Speak the Word (dabar) among them where you live (yatsab – and where you are joined in marriage), in your house and home (beyth – family and household), during your travels (halak – your walk) along the way (derek – the path), and when you lie down and when you stand up (quwm).

Bind them as a sign on your hand and as a sign between your eyes. And write them on the doorframe of your home and the gate to your community.” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 6:5-8)

The third verb in this translation of Ya’aqob’s statement in Acts 15:21 before those who had gathered to judge Paul was also directed at the Towrah. Anaginosko, which was translated “it is being read and known” affirms that Yah’s Teaching was being “recited” in order to reveal God’s instructions. Listeners were coming to know the Towrah, its Author and plan, as a result of it being “publicly proclaimed.”

While anaginosko is most often used to describe an “open and unrestricted presentation of a written document,” its literal meaning is represented by its parts. Anaginosko is a compound of ana, meaning “in the midst of,” and ginosko, which means “to learn and to know, to perceive and to understand, to become acquainted with, 132and to acknowledge.” The verb conveys the idea of “publicly reciting [the Torah] in a way that those who listen to it come to accurately recognize and acknowledge its message.” This is akin to Yahowah’s repeated instructions to “shama’ – listen to” and “shamar – observe” His Towrah | Guidance.

It is written: “Gather together and assemble (qahal – summon people to a central place for a particular purpose, uniting and congregating) the family (‘am – people), the men (‘iysh), the women (‘ishah), and the little children (tap), as well as the people from different races and places (ger – strangers and foreigners from different cultural, ethnic, or geographical communities who are visiting, even just passing through, temporarily living in your midst (i.e., Gentiles)) who, for the benefit of the relationship (‘asher) are within (ba) your gates and doorways (sa’ar – your property, towns, cities, and communities) so that (ma’an – for the intended purpose that) they can listen (shama’ – hear the message and receive the information), and so that (ma’an – for this intended purpose) they are instructed and learn (lamad – so that they gain access to the information which is required to be properly guided and respond appropriately), coming to respect and revere (yare’) Yahowah, your God (Yahowah ‘elohym), observing (shamar – closely examining and carefully considering) and then acting upon (wa ‘asah – engaging in, celebrating, and profiting from) all (kol) the words (dabar) of this (zo’th) Towrah (towrah – teaching, direction, guidance, and instruction).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 31:12)

“Now (‘atah) write (kathab) for all of you the words (dabar) of this (zot) song (sirah – these lyrics with an emphasis on instruction), and teach this to (lamad – provide information, guidance, instruction, and training for) the Children of Yisra’el (ben Yisra’el – children who engage and endure with God).

133Put them in her mouth (peh) so that they will exist (hayah) with Me (‘eth), with these lyrics (sirah) serving as an everlasting witness (‘ed – as eternal evidence and restoring testimony) amongst (ba – within) the Children who Engage and Endure with God (ben Yisra’el).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 31:19)

At the very least, by affirming God’s instruction on the Towrah’s role in our lives, Ya’aqob’s declaration not only negated Paul’s position, but it changed the nature of the debate. It was no longer the wannabe apostle against Yahowsha’s chosen disciples. It was now Sha’uwl v. Yahowah.

If you are still a Christian, or if you are trying to liberate a Christian from their faith, consider this conundrum: to side with Paul against Yahowsha’s hand-picked and personally trained disciples in this debate over the role of Yahowah’s Towrah in our lives is to conclude that Yahowsha’ was incompetent. This undeniable conclusion mirrors another even more profound realization: if the Towrah, which was authored by God and is the most important and brilliant document ever written, is incapable of saving anyone, how is it then that letters written by a man claiming to be inspired by the Author of the Towrah he discredits, are believable relative to mankind’s salvation? This has to be the single most irrational position that has come to be widely held.

Beyond the three insights provided through the verbs Luke deployed when trying to convey Ya’aqob’s declaration, there was another potential treasure in the disciple’s statement. The Torah “was read aloud and became known” “in the synagogues in accordance with every Shabat.” The Christian fixation on Sunday Worship, the Lord’s Day, even Easter Sunday, is unjustifiable in every respect.

It is written: “Remember and recall (zakar – 134recognize, memorialize, and be earnestly mindful of) that the Shabat (shabat – the seventh day, the time of observance and celebration) day is set apart (yowm qodesh – separated unto God). Six days you shall work (‘abad) and do (‘asah) all your service of representing the messenger and proclaiming the message (mala’kah – Godly duties and heavenly labor).

The seventh (shabiy’iy – seven; from shaba’, meaning solemn promise and oath, and shaber meaning to interpret and explain the meaning or significance of a communication) day, the Shabat (shabat – the time of promise to reflect, observe, and celebrate) of Yahowah ( – a transliteration of YaHoWaH as instructed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), your God (‘elohym), you shall not do (‘asah) any part of the work of God’s representative and messenger (mala’kah – from mal’ak, the ministry and mission of the heavenly envoy and dispatch; the labor of God’s spiritual message), not your son, not your daughter, not your servants and employees, not your means of production, nor those visitors in your home or property.” (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 20:8-10)

Preachers are misinformed when they say that “the first Christians went to church on Sunday to worship the Lord by proclaiming the Gospel.” They were not “Christians,” but instead were called “Chrestucians” which means “upright servant and useful implement.” The first to accept Yahowsha’ were Towrah observant. They referred to themselves Ebionites and as “Followers of the Way.” As a result, they gathered on the Shabat in accordance with Yahowah’s Towrah | Instructions and Yahowsha’s example. And they met in synagogues, not churches. There were no “Gospels.” They listened to Yahowah’s Towrah being recited, instead.

In the presence of Ya’aqob | Jacob (changed to “James”), Shim’own Kephas | Peter, and all of the other 135disciples and elders of the Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem Ekklesia | Called Out, Yahowsha’s brother who has become known as James, admonished Sha’uwl | Paul and warned subsequent believers in the religion predicated upon his writings that nothing has ever been more important than observing Yahowah’s Towrah | Teaching – coming to know it, understand it, and share it. It is the source from which all good things flow, including our relationship with God and our salvation.

This next line suggests that Yahowsha’s disciples did not trust Sha’uwl. “Then (tote – at that time) the Apostles (apostolos – those who were prepared and sent out) and the elders (presbyteros – the community leaders), along with (syn – in association and together with) the entire (holos – and complete) Called-Out Assembly (ekklesia – from ek, called out and kaleo, to call), concluded that it would be appropriate for (edoze – after consideration and thinking they were disposed to) themselves to select spokesmen (eklegomai andras – choose men to speak out, from lego, to speak and affirm and ek out and andras – man) from (ek) among them (auton) to send (pempo –dispatching messengers with the Word) to (eis) Antioch (Antiocheia – the capital of Syria based upon a transliteration of King Antiochus) with (syn) the Little and Lowly (to Paulos – the Paulos (of Latin origin following the definite article meaning the insignificant)) and (kai) Barnabas (Barnabas – a transliteration of the Aramaic / Hebrew bar, son of, and naby’, a prophet) – Yahuwdah (Ioudas – a transliteration of the Hebrew Yahuwdah meaning Beloved of Yah), called (ton kaloemenon – the person named) Barsabbas (son of Sabbas) (Barsabbas – a transliteration of the Aramaic / Hebrew bar, son of, and tsaba’ meaning military conscript) and (kai) Silas (Silas – of Latin origin meaning woody), [who were] leading men (hegeomai andras – highly regarded men with the authority to provide direction and leadership) among (en) the brethren (adelpois).” (Acts 13615:22)

It was the unanimous conclusion of Yahowsha’s disciples, the elders, and the entire Yaruwshalaim Ekklesia that Sha’uwl required supervision. Yahuwdah and Silas were given the authority to act on behalf of the disciples to control the Lowly One (Paulos). It is a shame they did not prevail.

While this all blew up in Sha’uwl’s face in Antioch, if we flip back through the pages of Acts, we find that Paul had previously been in Lycaonia, which was just north of Cilicia, before traveling south through Syria. That is relevant because of the addresses listed on the Apostolic letter.

“Through (dia) having written (grapho) by their hand (auton cheir), the Apostles (oi apostolos – those who were prepared and sent out) and the elders (presbyteros – the community leaders) amongst (kata) the brethren (adelpos) to the (tois) Antiocheia (Antiochian), Suria (Syrian), and Kilikia (Cilician) brothers (adelphos), to the ones (tois) from (ek) the ethnicities (ethnos – different races, nations, and places): Joyful Greetings (chairo – a happy hello)!” (Acts 15:23)

Remember, this meeting had been called to confront Paulos’ contrarian testimony. So now if your mind is open and focused, it is telling that upon its conclusion the letter which was drafted wasn’t from Paul and that it was addressed to the places the man being judged had previously spoken. The real Apostles were leaving nothing to chance. Far too much was at stake to allow Paul’s attack on the Torah to prevail.

But that is not to say that they were not in a horrible predicament. Paul had positioned himself as God’s messenger to the nations and had traveled the world preaching his perverted Gospel. He was a Roman citizen, and they were not, giving Paul an enormous advantage. 137Paul was better educated, better connected politically, far more ambitious, and a much more verbose speaker and writer.

The Apostles could have silenced Paul, but that would have required killing or imprisoning him, for which they had no legal authority. They could have openly opposed him, but that would have created an aurora of distrust between the disciples and the people this charlatan had been soliciting. Or they could have tried to work with him – but that required compromise, something wholly unacceptable to God. And frankly, what was to be gained by negotiating with a self-proclaimed murderer and pervert, with a man who would soon admit to being both insane and demon-possessed? It would be akin to making concessions with a Muslim regarding peace in Israel.

What follows suggests that Yahowsha’s disciples improperly chose the latter in direct opposition to Yahowah’s instructions and Yahowsha’s example. They would try to control Paul by working out an accommodation with him. It was the mother’s milk of politics. Whenever you compromise on essential values, you devalue them, degrade yourself, and postpone the inevitable, ultimately paying a much higher price.

While the Yaruwshalaim Summit had begun and had ended referring to the Torah, the Torah would not be mentioned in their letter. Christianity is the consequence.

Considering that the perpetrator of the contrarian view used “tarasso – intimidation, perplexing his audience by confusing them,” this next statement provides a chilling summation of the meeting held to judge Pauline Doctrine. In that God made Himself known to facilitate trust, His adversary “instilled doubts” to necessitate faith.

Knowing that the Spirit he was opposing brought peace though reconciliation, Sha’uwl had used “fear tactics to terrorize” his audience into submission. And all of the 138“perplexing and unanswerable questions” which arose from his rhetoric, through tarasso we learn the troubling statements “were born out of a complete lack of scruples.”

Here then is the Apostles’ written declaration to the nations...

“Since (epeide – seeing and recognizing that) we heard (akouo – we received news) that (oti) someone (tis) from (ek) us (emon) [went out (exerchomai) (excluded from Papyrus 45)] stirred up trouble by confusing (tarasso – distressing, disturbing, and agitating, without scruples perplexing by causing doubts, frightening and terrorizing so as to intimidate) you (umas) with statements (logos – with words, speech, a message, acquisition, or treatise) with unsettling and troubling words (anakeuazo logos – with distressful and upsetting speech, with destructive and ravaging statements, with mindless and irrational reasoning, with a treatise designed to overthrow, upend, and subvert by being terrifying) for your souls (tas psyche umon – for your psyche) which (ois) we did not authorize (ou diastellomai – we did not arrange, prepare, set into place, or send out),…” (Acts 15:24)

Keep in mind, this was written by Yahowsha’s disciples, by the hand of the witnesses he had personally trained, to the communities in which Sha’uwl had preached regarding the merits of the self-proclaimed apostle’s message. And that is indeed “tarasso – disturbing” and “anakeuazo – distressing.” These are especially condescending terms – and they were spoken of Paul.

Unfortunately, while everything Paul had promised was now suspect, nothing specifically was repudiated. All the disciples said was that Paul’s message was confusing, perplexing, troubling, and unsettling, and that they had not “authorized” the “logos – statements” Paul’s audiences had heard.

To be fair, Yahowsha’s Disciples did not know even 139one percent as much about Paul as we do today. At the time this meeting took place, Paul’s first epistle, Galatians, which was written as a hostile rebuttal to his censure at this meeting, was still months away. Paul’s next four letters, the two anti-Semitic rants to the Thessalonians and the pair of schizophrenic tomes to the Corinthians, were three to five years off. As a result, no one knew that Sha’uwl would admit to being insane or demon-possessed. And Luke’s portrayal of this man’s life would not be compiled for a decade or more. Therefore, it would be some time before the world was made aware of Paul’s preposterous conversion experience or his duplicitous and conflicting testimony. So all Sha’uwl had to do at this meeting to appear credible was to lie. And that is what he did best. He likely relented, curtailing his anti-Torah rhetoric long enough to fool the disciples into believing that he would be compliant.

Having been in their position in business, where information was sketchy and incomplete, and where the participants are naturally prone to give every party the benefit of the doubt, the strategy deployed by the disciples is not uncommon. They would never disavow the Torah because it would put them in direct opposition to God. But they did not know enough about Pauline Doctrine to categorically state that it was entirely divergent from what they knew to be true.

Confused by Paul’s conflicting testimony, the last thing they wanted was to form a conclusion that would place them in direct opposition to the many thousands, and soon millions, of politically empowered Greeks and Romans who found Paul’s preaching to their liking. They deployed a tactic called “the art of emphasis.” The Disciples told the truth as clearly as they knew it, but they did not confront the full array of Paul’s deceptions because they were unaware of the majority of them. And yet as a result, those unwilling to scrutinize Paul’s letters, 140systematically comparing his testimony to Yahowah’s, were left to wonder who was telling the truth.

While the art of emphasis may be an effective marketing strategy, it is not remotely appropriate in association with God. So I recommend Yahowah’s approach, which is to be clear, consistent, uncompromising, and blunt, while offering as complete an explanation as can be compiled, no matter how many words that requires. Yada Yahowah is long because of this approach, as is An Introduction to God, Observations, and Coming Home – including Questioning Paul.

We do not have an answer to every question, and there are many things that we are still learning, but there are some things that can be known. First among them is that we cannot go wrong when we convey Yahowah’s Word accurately, or when we advocate and condemn those things which He advocates and condemns. Yahowah has asked that we circumcise our sons as our sign that we want to be part of His Covenant. And He has told us that we should observe His Towrah and listen to Him. That is good enough for me.

Based upon Yahowah’s Word, unity with Yahowah is essential, while unity among men is only advisable when those men and women share a common and accurate understanding of the Towrah and its Covenant. In fact, God would prefer that we distance ourselves from the thinking, approach, and institutions of men. Therefore, the disciples are purported to have instructed:

“...it occurred (edozen – a derivative of dokei, presumed and supposed) to us (emin) to come to exist (ginomai) with one purpose or passion (homothymadon – common accord emotionally and temperamentally, being similarly angry; from homou, together, and thumos, expressing passion), having ourselves selected a spokesmen (eklegomai andras – choosing men among 141ourselves to speak out, from lego, to speak and affirm and ek out) to send (pempo – dispatching messengers with the Word) to (pros) you (emas) with (syn) the dear (tois agapetos – the beloved; from agapao – speaking of persons who have been welcomed, even entertained) of us (emon), Barnabas and also Paulo (Barnaba kai Paulo).” (Acts 15:25)

By using a derivative of dokei, Yahowsha’s disciples were limited to their personal “opinions and suppositions” regarding the troubling message Paul had been conveying. They simply did not know enough to be certain. And as such, they could not have been speaking for God.

Homothymadon does not mean that “they were of one mind,” but instead that their “passions and desires were similar.” The Greek word for mind is dianoia, not thumos which addresses “strong emotions,” and in particular, “being angry.” It is also used to convey being “inflamed by sufficient wine to cause the drinker to be mad or kill himself.”

Further, the disciples were hedging their bets by calling the spokesmen “eklegomai – ones who speak out, proclaiming and affirming the Word.” When the context is God, the “legos – Word” is the “Torah and Prophets Psalms.”

Lastly, it is interesting that Barnabas’ name was listed first in this letter, suggesting that he, along with those the disciples were dispatching, were “tois agapetos – the beloved.” With Paul being listed last, and following “kia – and also,” he was separated from the potentially endearing term. Elsewhere, it is always the other way around, with Paul receiving top billing. And in that light, it is telling that Barnabas and Paul would soon split up, with Barnabas disagreeing with Paul. Further, the root of agapetos, agapao, simply means that the disciples “welcomed the man to their meeting and entertained his story.”

142“Men (anthropos) having given over (paradidomi – having delivered and instructed; a compound of para, from, and didomi, to give) their (auton) souls (psyche – consciousnesses) for the sake of (hyper) the name (tou onoma) of the Upright One (tou ΚΥ), our Ma’aseyah (ΧΥ – Divine Placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement to usurp the Septuagint’s credibility and infer Divinity) Yahowsha’ (ΙΥ – Divine Placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Iesou which became “Jesus” instead of Yahowsha’ in the 17^th century after the invention of the letter “J”).” (Acts 15:26)

At this juncture, it is not clear whether Yahuwdah and Silas were being described or if this affirmation pertained to Barnabas and Paul. But, even if the identity of those being offered for the sake of Yahowsha’s name was not quickly resolved by what comes next, unlike Paul and Barnabas, most of the Called Out in Yaruwshalaim knew him personally. And Yahuwdah, in and of itself, is a testament to Yahowah’s name.

“Therefore (oun – wherefore and indeed) we have delegated, prepared, and sent the Apostles (apostello – we have equipped and dispatched for this particular purpose messengers conveying the Word), Yahuwdah (Ioudas – a transliteration of the Hebrew Yahuwdah meaning Beloved of Yah) and (kai) Silas (Silas), and (kai) through (dia) their (autous) speech (logos – word and statements) reporting and proclaiming the same message (apangello ta auta – announcing; from apo, separation and aggelos, message and messenger).” (Acts 15:27)

Therefore, the ones referred to as Apostles, the ones who were prepared and equipped to speak on behalf of Yahowsha’ and his disciples, the ones proclaiming the same message, were Yahuwdah and Silas, not Paulos or Barnabas.

143Before you consider the next concern, a word of caution is in order. Many people say that their thoughts are inspired by the Spirit. And some may be right some of the time. For example, the accurate revelations found in Yada Yahowah, An Introduction to God, Observations, and Coming Home, and indeed, Questioning Paul were inspired by the Spirit and the Word of God, while all of the errors are a result of a flawed and inadequate implement processing their guidance. I am incapable of being a perfect conduit, and so were the disciples.

Unfortunately, the following statement is wrong. I base this conclusion not upon my standards, but instead upon Yahowah’s teaching, His guidance, and the instructions He established in the Towrah. That which is in complete accord with the Towrah is right, that which conflicts with Yahowah’s Towrah and Naby’ is wrong, and that which cannot be affirmed or rejected based upon the Towrah is suspect. By that standard, this is not true:

“For (gar) the Set-Apart (hagios – set apart for God’s purpose, dedicated and consecrated, separated from the profane and purifying; a Greek variation on the Hebrew qodesh – set apart) Spirit (ΠΝΑ – a Divine Placeholder representing the feminine ruwach – spirit from the Greek neuter noun pneuma) seemed to be of the opinion (dokei – supposed and presumed), and also (kai) to us (emin), nothing (medeis) more (pleion) of a burden or hardship (baros – of a weight or trouble, suffering or difficult duty) to be placed upon you (epitithemai emin – should you be subjected to) except (plen) these (toeton), the indispensable requirements (ton epanagkes – things which are absolutely essential and necessary):…” (Acts 15:28)

Before we pass final judgment, please consider the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear’s presentation: “It thought for to the spirit the holy and to us nothing more to be set on to you burden except these the necessary.” 144Beyond more accurately rendering “thought” and “holy,” the reason that the word order differs in these presentations of Acts is that, in addition to translating the meaning of the words from Greek to English, I’ve also tried to transition from Greek to English grammar, wherein English subjects precede verbs and nouns follow adjectives.

To begin, the “ruwach – Spirit” of Yahowah is not “holy” nor is She “neuter.” Few things are as essential to understanding Yahowah’s nature and approach as the realization of what it means to be “qodesh – set apart,” and that, in a family such as the Covenant, a Father and Mother are required for children to live and grow.

Because the “Ruwach Qodesh – Set-Apart Spirit” is a part of Yahowah, set apart from Him to serve us, She does not “dokei – presume or suppose” anything. She is devoid of “opinions.” As part of God, set apart from Him, the Set-Apart Spirit has complete access to all pertinent information and Her judgment is impeccable. In Greek, you would say that She “epiginosko – has evaluated all of the evidence and has come to know and understand without any hint of uncertainty.” Therefore, to suggest that the Set-Apart Spirit “seemed to be of the opinion,” regarding Yahowah’s message generally, and the Towrah specifically, is to say that they either didn’t receive Her directions or they didn’t process them appropriately.

Baros, in the accusative case, translated “of a burden or hardship,” speaks of something which is “a tremendous weight or a difficult duty which leads to suffering and sorrow and is oppressive.” Its inclusion in this translation of the disciples’ letter strongly suggests that this report is fraudulent.

There are five requirements which have to be known, understood, accepted, and acted upon to engage in the Covenant. These are not “difficult duties,” but are instead easy, and rather than being “oppressive,” leading to 145“suffering and sorrow.” They are not only liberating, nothing is more rewarding or enjoyable than being adopted into our Heavenly Father’s Family. Not one of the five requirements is a “burden.” They are not a “hardship.” This burdensome view of Yahowah, His Towrah, and His Covenant is entirely Pauline.

While I would encourage you to read Volume 3 of Yada Yahowah, In the Family, or Volume 2 of Observations, simply entitled, Covenant, for a complete and contextual presentation of the Beryth | Covenant’s requirements and benefits in Yahowah’s own words, suffice it to say for now, the conditions are as follows: 1) Walk away from your country, including all things Babylon which means disassociating from religion and politics. 2) Come to trust and rely upon Yahowah instead. 3) Walk to God to become perfect, a path which is laid out by Yahowah through the seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God. 4) Closely examine and carefully consider the instructive conditions of the family-oriented Covenant relationship, so that once you understand its provisions you can respond to God’s offer. And 5) Parents should demonstrate their acceptance of the Covenant and their willingness to raise their children to become God’s children by circumcising their sons, because all males must be circumcised to participate.

The benefits of doing these five things are: 1) The Covenant’s children become immortal on Passover. 2) We become perfect from God’s perspective on UnYeasted Bread, our flaws are no longer seen or known. 3) The Covenant’s children are adopted into God’s Family on Firstborn Children, inheriting everything Yahowah has to offer. Then 4 & 5) We are enriched with God’s teaching and empowered by God’s Spirit on Seven Shabats.

Yahowah, Yahowsha’, and the Set-Apart Spirit enabled each of these benefits by fulfilling the promises God had made regarding the Covenant, in succession, on 146the precise days of these Mow’ed Miqra’ey, in year 4000 Yah (33 CE on our pagan calendars).

As for the rest of the Towrah, once you embrace these rewarding requirements, the benefits are entirely liberating. There are no other requirements, no burdens, no hurdles, no difficult duties. At this point, like Dowd | David, a person is able to err without eternal consequence. Ignoring the rest of Yahowah’s guidance is inadvisable and counterproductive, but as Dowd reveals, a child of the Covenant remains right and thus vindicated, immortal and enriched, not because he or she obeys every rule, but because Yahowah honors His promises.

In this light, it is interesting to note, there is no Hebrew word for “obey.” And as you now know, Towrah means “teaching, guidance, direction, and instruction,” not “law.” So the whole notion of “baros – difficult duties and oppressive burdens” is wholly inconsistent with God’s approach to life.

The intent of the Towrah is to free us from “oppression,” which is why Yahowah engaged to free His children from slavery. Its purpose is to remove our “burdens” by way of the Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God. Properly observed, the Torah liberates us from “suffering and sorrow” by bringing us into a familial covenant relationship with our Heavenly Father. Yahowah says as much in the Towrah:

“Indeed (ky), you should consistently and genuinely listen to (shama’) the voice (ba qowl) of Yahowah ( – the pronunciation of YaHoWaH as guided by His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), your God (‘elohym), to approach by (la) diligently observing, closely examining, and carefully considering (shamar) His terms and conditions (mitswah – His authorized directions and instructions regarding His Covenant contract) and (wa) His inscribed prescriptions for living 147(chuqah – His engraved advice regarding being cut into the relationship) in this specific (ba ha zeh) written scroll (sepher – written document) of the Towrah (ha Towrah – the teaching and direction, the instruction and guidance) if (ky) you want to actually and eternally return (shuwb – you want to be genuinely and always restored, forever changing your attitude, direction, and thinking) to (‘el) Yahowah (Yahowah – written as directed by His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), your God (‘elohym), with all of your heart (ba kol leb) and with all of your soul (wa ba kol nepesh).

Indeed (ky), these (ha ze’th) terms and conditions (mitswah – authorized instructions regarding the covenant contract) which relationally and beneficially (‘asher) I am (‘anky) instructing you (tsawah – directing and guiding you by sharing with you) this day (ha yowm) are not difficult or challenging (lo’ pala’ – are not hard, troublesome, or a burden). This is not beyond your reach (huw’ min wa lo’ rachowq).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 30:10-11)

If circumcision was a “considerable hardship causing great suffering and sorrow,” then it would have been barbaric for Yahowah to ask parents to do this on behalf of their sons eight days after their birth. As for adult circumcision, all that is required is the removal of a small amount of skin. And if we are unwilling to do this, what does it say about our appreciation for the sacrifice Yahowsha’ made on our behalf, where most of his skin was ripped from his body by metal-studded Roman flagellum, where he suffered excruciating pain by being nailed to the upright pole as the Passover Lamb, and where his soul endured separation from God, allowing the soul to be tortured in She’owl on our behalf?

The use of “plen – except” in this context infers, by way of translation, that the disciples were saying the items on the following list were “baros – tremendous burdens.” 148And also, that these represented the only “epanagkes – indispensable requirements” of the Torah – neither of which is accurate.

The totality of the list was then comprised of: “…to stay away from (apechomai – to separate and keep a distance from, thereby avoiding and abstaining from) sacrificial meats (eidolothyton – animal flesh offered to pagan idols), and (kai) blood (haima), and (kai) strangled (pniktos – choked to death and suffocated as part of a bloodless religious ritual), and (kai) sexual immorality (porneia – fornication, prostitution, or illegal intercourse), from (ek) which (hos) avoiding (diatereo – keeping or abstaining from) yourselves (eautous) beneficial (eu – healthy and prosperous, good and correct) you do (prasso – you practice, carry out, and accomplish). Farewell (rhonnymai – goodbye, be strong, healthy, and prosperous).’” (Acts 15:29)

As a summation of the Towrah, this is inaccurate, grossly inappropriate, and stunningly deficient. Moreover, it is wholly inconsistent with Yahowsha’s statements recorded in Matthew 5 through 7 from his Instruction on the Mount. Not one of these edicts was sufficiently important to make an appearance in the Ten Statements Yahowah etched in stone. So since this wasn’t God’s list, whose do you suppose it might have been?

Eidolothyton is a compound of eidolon, meaning “images and likenesses,” and thuo, which conveys the idea of “sacrificial slaughter.” It is but a subset of the earlier admonition in Acts 15:20, from which the Gentiles were asked to “stay away from condemned (alisgema – religious rituals and impure) idols and false gods (eidolon).” This diminishment in scope, and distancing of the message from the Second Statement Yahowah etched in stone, is interesting because, apart from the addition of “porneia – sexual immorality,” the rest of the list was identical with Ya’aqob’s previous declaration.

149As a surprise to many, Yahowah does not instruct against “porneia – sexual immorality,” much less condemn it. He does not insist on one wife but is not fond of adultery. There is no admonition against premarital sex. Divorce is as simple as a letter. God does not even speak out against homosexuality as we will discover when we properly translate His admonition. Yahowah’s instructions warn us against incest, rape, and bestiality.

Diatereo, rendered “avoid,” is most often translated as “continually and carefully keep.” It is from dia, “through,” and tereo, “to observe and attend to, to guard and to keep.” The author of this text first used diatereo in Luke 2:51, where Yahowsha’ returned to “Nazareth” with his parents and “was subordinate to them. And his mother always ‘remembered and treasured (diatereo – kept and preserved)’ these words in her heart.” Sadly for Luke’s credibility, Nazareth did not exist in the 1^st century.

There is considerable room for confusion here – especially because Nazareth did not exist at the time. This is an issue we will examine further when we expose some of the many inaccuracies found in the Christian New Testament, in the concluding volume of Questioning Paul.

However, it is true, albeit an afterthought: according to the Towrah we should not consume things offered as a sacrifice to a god or goddess. We find this instruction in Shemowth / Names / Exodus 34:12-15, where Yahowah asks us to avoid any association with religious activity.

As we read through this, please remember that it was Sha’uwl who established and boldly proclaimed a new covenant in association with the inhabitants of the nations he claimed as his own. It became a trap, ensnaring those who came to favor the altars and religious shrines that grew out of his letters – especially his association with the Graces. And Sha’uwl’s religious pronouncements were always focused on an additional and very different god, one 150whose name was unassociated with Yahowah.

“To approach you should be observant (shamar la – to come near closely examine and carefully consider [Yahowah’s “tsawah – instructions and directions” which was the focus of the 11^th verse]) lest (pen) you cut a covenant (karat beryth – you establish a familial relationship) in association with the inhabitants of the land (la yashab ha ‘erets) which beneficially (‘asher) you are coming upon (‘atah bow’ ‘al), so that it does not (pen) become (hayah – exist as) the onset of a snare in your midst (la mowqesh ba qereb). (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 34:12)

But rather accordingly (ky ‘eth), their altars (mizbeach – their construction of places where gifts and sacrifices are offered during rituals to their deities) you should choose to actually and consistently tear down and shatter (nathats – you should elect to demolish) and with regard to (ba ‘eth) their religious pillars and sacred memorials (matsabah), you should, of your own volition, destroy (shabar).

And with regard to an association with ‘Asherah (ba ‘eth ‘Asherah – the name of the Babylonian and Canaanite goddess who was considered to be the Mother of God, the Madonna and Child, and the Queen of Heaven), you should choose to actually and continually sever, cut off, and uproot (karat – banish). (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 34:13)

Indeed (ky – because), you should not act in such a way that you continually speak (lo’ chawah – you should not make pronouncements with a verbal display of words explaining about or worshiping) with regard to another different god (la ‘el ‘acher – to approach an additional ‘El, the chief deity of the Canaanites whereby “ha Ba’al – the Lord” was the son and nemesis of “‘El – god,” something remarkably similar to the “Christian Lord Jesus” replacing 151Yahowah’s Towrah with his Gospel of Grace).

Surely (ky) Yahowah ( – the pronunciation of YaHoWaH as guided by His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence) is His name (shem – is His proper designation). He is jealous regarding exclusivity in the relationship (qana’ – pertains to zeal, passion, and devotion). He is (huw’) a zealous, passionate, and devoted (qana’ – jealous regarding relational exclusivity) God (‘el). (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 34:14)

You should not ever make (pen karat – you should not cut, create, or establish) a covenant (beryth – a family-oriented relationship or marriage vow) to approach or with regard to the inhabitants of the land (la yashab ha ‘erets) and (wa) follow after (‘achar) their prostitution to solicitation on behalf of (zanah – their disloyal and adulterous acts designed to profit by offering favors to) their gods (‘elohym), especially (wa) if a sacrifice is offered (zabach) to approach their gods (la ‘elohym), and they opt to make an announcement to you (wa qara’ la – then he will elect to summon you, he will of his own volition call out to you with his proclamation, he will ask you to read and recite his calling, inviting you to meet with and welcome him with regard to you accepting his appointment and calling) and (wa) you decide to actually partake in and consume (‘akal – you elect to eat, feed upon, imbibe, and ingest) as part of (min – by means of and because of) this sacrificial offering (zebach – his propitiation or expiation as an act of worship toward a deity).” (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 34:12-15)

It is telling, of course, that in light of what we now know, it’s hard not to see Sha’uwl cast as the adversary throughout this presentation. He did everything God has asked us to avoid. He even claimed to have, himself, made a sufficient sacrifice to save believers. Moreover, in 1^st Corinthians 8, Paulos not only rejects the disciples’ letter, renouncing it, but in addition, refutes God. Listen to this 152duplicitous man renounce knowledge as he preys on the unsuspecting while contradicting himself...

“Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies. If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know, but if anyone loves god, he is known by him.

Therefore, concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no god but one. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is one god, the father from whom are all things, and we for him.

However not all men have this knowledge, but some being accustomed to the idol until now eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol, and their conscience being weak is defiled.

But food will not commend us to god, we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat. But take care lest this liberty of yours somehow becomes a stumbling block to the weak.

For if someone sees you who has knowledge dining in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christo died.

Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, that I might not cause my brother to stumble.” (1 Corinthians 8:1-13 as presented in the New American Standard Bible)

For those who value consistency, Paul constantly contradicts himself, the disciples, Yahowsha’, and Yahowah. And his rhetoric continues to be convoluted and 153irrational. So rather than devote more time to correct all of the errant statements found throughout this diatribe, since the point was to show that Paul was being duplicitous with regard to food sacrificed to idols, let’s move on.

Noting that the first “burden” was only indirectly valid, and totally irrelevant apart from religion, the admonition not to drink blood is legitimate. The Towrah asks us not to consume blood in Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 9:4, Qara’ / Called Out / Leviticus 3:17 and 17:12-14, as well as in Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 12:16 and 12:23. However, these five statements pale in comparison to the many times Yahowah speaks to us about when and why we are to eat unyeasted bread in celebration of Pesach and Matsah, and none of that was even mentioned. Consuming blood is sickening and disgusting, while ignoring the celebrations of Pesach and Matsah is deadly.

Particularly troubling, there is absolutely no instruction from Yahowah in the Towrah regarding animals which are to be “strangled.” This edict comes instead from Rabbinic Law. Kashrut, the Jewish dietary rules pertaining to how an animal is to be slaughtered for consumption, requires that the carotid and jugular arteries in the neck, which carry oxygenated blood to the head and deoxygenated blood from it, be slit while the animal is still alive so that the heart pumps the majority of blood out prior to butchering.

By including “strangling” in the shortlist of four things to be avoided, this horrendously shortchanges the Towrah, while at the same time endorsing Rabbinical Law (which Yahowsha’ condemned). Further, if Gentiles took this list to be a summation of the essential elements of the Torah, they would enrich rabbis, as the only place they could purchase meat and be assured that an animal was not strangled was from a Kosher Jewish butcher with a rabbinical endorsement.

154The heart of the Towrah’s story is the Covenant, and yet not one of its conditions, benefits, or its sign were mentioned. At the heart of the Towrah, we find Yahowah’s Ten Statements, yet not one of them found its way into this list. Nothing was said about Yahowah, His Word, His Name, His Teaching, His Covenant, His Instructions, His Invitations, or His Way – and those represent the seven things which are the most important to God.

Qara’ / Called Out / Leviticus sits in the middle of the Towrah, and yet not one of the seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God delineated therein was described as essential – even though they provide the lone path to God, the means to the Covenant, and the method of salvation. Not even the Great Instruction: “to love Yahowah, your God, with all of your mind, soul, and might,” was found among the “indispensable requirements.” So to say this list of four items (one of which was based in Rabbinical Law) “was inspired by the Spirit” is to demean God and His Spirit.

If this list is accurate, and I suspect that it is not, in trying to compromise with Paul, the Apostles became like Paul: misleading. This was not worth the papyrus it was written on.

Pathetic as it was, the letter was sent and read, first in Antioch and then in the other places Paul had been. The audiences cheered as Yahuwdah and Silas shared their “lengthy message” with the Called-Out Assemblies, but not a word of what they conveyed was recorded for our benefit.

It was then just four sentences later that a new rift emerged, this one between Paul and his traveling companion, Barnabas.

“But now (de) there emerged (ginomai – came to be) an intense argument (paroxysmos – a severe disagreement leading to exasperation). As a result (hoste), 155they separated from one another and parted company (apochorizomai autous apo allelon – they definitely severed their relationship with each other).

And so (ton te) Barnabas (Barnabas), having brought along with him (paralambano) Mark (Markos – a Latin surname), sailed (ekpleo) to Cyprus (eis Kypros). (15:39)

But (de) Paulos (Paulos – of Latin origin meaning Lowly and Little), having chosen the name (epilegomai), Silas (Silas – of Latin origin meaning Woody), went away (exerchomai – literally: out of existence), having been given over to (paradidomi – having been betrayed and handed over to the authority of) the Grace (te Chariti – the Greek goddesses of favors, merriment, and licentiousness known as the Gratia, or Graces in Roman mythology) of the Lord (tou kurios – the Master who owns, possesses, and controls, the title God uses in reference to Satan) by the brothers (hupo ton adelphon).” (Acts 15:39-40)

While Sha’uwl did not change his name for the third time, that is the way the text reads. I think Luke meant to say that Paul went away with a fellow named Silas who got caught up in the mythos of Grace and became beholden to the Lord.

They had chosen sides, different sides. And they would tell an entirely different story about entirely different gods – one real, the other His adversary.

Then, in the oddest twist of irony and with a large dash of twisted humor, Paulos, after having chosen “Silas | Woody,” circumcised Timothy, the next Greek man who desired him.

“This one (touton) wanted and desired (thelo – enjoyed and took pleasure in, consented to and wanted to have, was inclined to and ready for, aiming at) the Lowly and Little (o Paulos – the insignificant and tiny in Latin), together with him (oun auto) coming out (exerchomai).

156And so (kai) he having grasp hold (lambano) circumcised him (peritemno auton) on behalf of (dia) the Yahuwdym (Ioudaious – an inaccurate transliteration of Yahuwdym, meaning Related to Yah, errantly called “Jews” today), the ones being in the places (tous ontas en tois topos) those had known (ekeinois edeisan – the ones having awareness), for (gar) entirely (hapas – all) that (oti) Greek (Hellen) the father (o pater) of him (autou) was existing (hyparcho – identically belonged to).” (Acts 16:3)

Make of that what you will, but I got a chuckle out of it, especially in the beginning. I suspect Luke did as well. You just can’t make stuff like this up.

The Apostolic Council was over. And in its wake, Paul’s letter to the Galatians was crafted as his rebuttal to more easily establish and promote the precepts of Pauline Doctrine. This is the best explanation of why Paul vociferously detailed his credentials and background, why he misrepresented what was said during the meeting, why he spoke so derogatorily of the disciples, especially Shim’own and Ya’aqob (the two men who spoke against him), and why he focused his epistle on discrediting the Towrah and disparaging circumcision.

As a result, we can now discard Galatians, Corinthians, Thessalonians, and Romans, recognizing that much if not most of what Sha’uwl wrote in them is unreliable. And with regard to Paul’s other letters, when he affirms something which is written in the Towrah, rely on the Torah. When Paul contradicts the Torah, ignore him. And when Paul waxes poetic on a subject not covered in the Torah, be careful.