233Questioning Paul

Towrahless

…Without Guidance

 

6

Kakos | Pernicious

 

Do not Accept…

Yahowsha’s prophetic warning to Shim’own was the last he would make. It would be some thirty nine years later that a mal’ak | spiritual messenger would warn those Yahowchanan | John was serving about the same wannabe “Apostle” and those who had now leagued with him. He said to this beloved Disciple… “To the messenger of those Called Out in Ephesus write....”

This was the principal place where Yahowchanan’s and Sha’uwl’s paths crossed. Yahowchanan | John had moved to Ephesus which, second only to Rome, was the most important city in the ancient world. There, the man named “Yahowah is Merciful” was challenged by the Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing. It was the beloved disciple against a self-proclaimed apostle named Question Him.

Addressing the gentiles, living in the once Greek now Roman metropolis, who were subject to the disparate pleas, the spiritual messenger said…

“I am aware of and recognize (oida) your (sou) works and undertakings (ergon – the things you have responded to and have engaged in), these difficult and exhausting encounters (kai ton kopos – the bothersome troubling burdens encountered), and your (sou) unswerving and enduring perseverance (kai ten hypomone – continual steadfastness and unwavering dependability, fortitude under circumstances where others 234would succumb) and that (kai oti) you cannot possibly accept, tolerate, support, or endure (ou dynamai bastazo – you haven’t the will, desire, ability, or state of mind to take up with, walk alongside of, lift up, or carry forward, advance, sustain, or promote) that which is incorrect, immoral, injurious, pernicious, destructive, or baneful (kakos – errant, wicked, wrong, evil, harmful, noisome, morally corrupt, diseased, culpable, mischievous, demonic, or hurtful having an ill effect, a bad nature which is not as it ought to be, and a mode of thinking, feeling or acting which is invalid).

And you have observed, examined, and objectively tested (kai peirazo – you have scrutinized, coming to learn the nature and character of others through enquiry, judging them and catching the mistakes of) those who claim and maintain (tous phasko – those who say, affirm, profess, declare, promise, or preach) of themselves (eautous) that they are (eimi) apostles (apostolos – special messengers who are prepared and sent forth) but are not (kai ouk eisin). And (kai) you have found them (heurisko autos – you have examined and scrutinized them, you have come to understand, discovering and learning through closely observing them that they are) false, deceitful, and deliberate liars (pseudes – are pretending to be something they are not, they are erroneous deceivers).” (Revelation 2:2)

It is especially relevant to this statement that Ephesus was the only city listed among the seven described in Revelation’s seven letters where Paul and his pals were known to have preached. And it is the only city to be singled out with a warning against false Apostles. Surely this is not a coincidence.

While Revelation is a prophetic book, this commendation was written in the present and past tense. And that is significant because Yahowchanan | John scribed Revelation in 69 CE, seven years after Sha’uwl 235wrote his letter to the Ephesians, and two years after the self-proclaimed apostle’s death. Therefore, Paul and his traveling companions were the only men who claimed to be Apostles in Ephesus during this time, or even thereafter. As a result, it is patently obvious that the heavenly implement was calling Sha’uwl an “errant, demonic, deceitful, charlatan.” Christians are without excuse. A child could put these pieces together and come to this conclusion. Therefore, even if they choose to ignore the word of God, Christians still cannot claim that they were not warned about this horrible man. Paul was exposed and condemned at the beginning (Matthew 5-7) and at the conclusion of their “New Testament” in Revelation 2.

Even the mal’ak’s parting comments paralleled things we have read pertaining to the distinction between Yahowah’s Way and Paul’s way.

“And you have demonstrated loyal steadfastness and enduring consistency (hupomone) and have endured (bastazo) through my name. You have worked hard (kopiao) and have not grown tired.” (Revelation 2:3)

Since I have made the claim that Sha’uwl | Paul and his posse preached in Ephesus, that they presented a contrarian view to that of Yahowsha’s disciples, notably, Yahowchanan | John, and thus singled themselves out as being the deceitful liars who were falsely claiming to be apostles, let’s consider the evidence. I will be providing this testimony based upon the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27^th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear to be as accurate and fair as possible. This is Paul’s personal testimony as recorded by his associate and confidant, Luke. And so as we have come to expect, much of what he said aggrandizes Paul and is difficult to comprehend.

Let’s begin with a shocking announcement in the 19^th 236chapter of Acts. The first name mentioned is that of a man unapologetically named after Apollo, the Greek god of “truth and prophecy, of healing and light, of poetry and archery.” Apollo was the “giver of laws,” the “son of Zeus,” and, therefore, the “Son of God.” Notwithstanding all of the pagan baggage, this man not only served as Paulos’ ambassador, he, unlike his mentor, did not change his name.

“But it became in the Apollos [Paul’s disciple who continued to bear the name of the Greek god Apollo] to be in Corinth [the Greek city where Paul preached for the longest period of time and to which he wrote two early letters], Paulos, having gone through the uppermost parts, came down to Ephesus so as to find some disciples. (Acts 19:1)

But he said against and regarding them, ‘If conditionally, spirit holy you received having trusted the ones but not him, then not spirit holy there is we heard.’ (Acts 19:2)

He said, ‘But into what then were you immersed?’ And they said, ‘Into Yahowchanan’s immersion.’ (Acts 19:3)

But Paulos said, ‘Yahowchanan immersed immersion of change mind to the people, saying to the coming after him that they might believe this is in the Iesous.’ (Acts 19:4)

So having heard, they were immersed into the name of the Lord Iesou. (Acts 19:5)

And having set on them the hands of Paulou, it came, the spirit of the holy on them. They were speaking but in tongues and were uttering prophecy. Were but the all men as twelve.” (Acts 19:6-7)

While it is impossible based upon the writing quality to know for certain what happened, it appears that Paul was 237threatened by the information he received from Apollos in Corinth. He knew that his message was vastly different than Yahowsha’s disciples, and he was convinced that one or more of them was treading upon his turf by speaking to these Gentiles. So he headed south, arriving in Ephesus to find the disciples who had challenged him. When he arrived, rather than meeting with Shim’own or Yahowchanan, Sha’uwl sought to undermine them, suggesting that the Spirit they received as a result of responding to Yahowchanan was not the right spirit – substituting one of his own.

Then this dialogue gets a bit murky because Paul’s next sentence has two hypothetical conditions, three buts, and a negation in the original Greek text. Navigating through them, it appears that Paul was troubled by the idea that the Ephesians had been immersed in Yahowchanan’s message. Paul immediately claimed that Yahowchanan had instituted unauthorized changes. He then questioned the nature of the Spirit they had received. After listening to Paul’s contrarian view, a dozen Ephesians were rebaptized by Paul, with Paul laying his hands on them. This then imbued these men with an entirely different spirit, one which caused them to blather on in tongues, believing that they were inspired prophets. But whatever they were saying, the twelve were now Sha’uwl’s disciples, just as Yahowsha’ had chosen twelve.

Make no mistake: this was a competition.

It is telling, however, that Yahowsha’ never once immersed or baptized anyone, so there is no need for it and no established way to do it. Therefore, it was absurd to suggest that Yahowchanan’s technique was wrong and Sha’uwl’s was right. Further, baptism is not the means Yahowah or Yahowsha’ designated to receive the Set-Apart Spirit. There is no mention of it anywhere in the Towrah. And adding insult to injury, when the Spirit came upon those who were set apart in Yaruwshalaim on Seven 238Shabats, they were empowered to speak the languages of the gentile nations surrounding Yisra’el. They were not baptized, there was no laying on of hands, they knew nothing of Sha’uwl, they did not speak in tongues, and they did not prophesize.

Paul’s was obviously not the same spirit. And sadly for Christians, in 2^nd Corinthians, Paul announced to all who would listen that the spirit that possessed him was from Satan.

If I were to share nothing else with you except the previous pronouncement in Revelation 3 and this acknowledgment in Acts 19, you would have every reason to reject Paul, his fourteen letters, Luke, and Acts. And Luke would continue to zealously promote Paul while inadvertently impugning him at the same time...

“But having gone into the synagogue he was preaching fearlessly (paresiazomai) for three months, disputing (dialegomai – arguing and contending) and persuading (peitho – to coax followers to become disciples and to seduce them to obey) about the kingdom of the god.” (Acts 19:8)

“Preaching fearlessly” was from parhesiazomai, which means that he was “personally speaking in a daring manner.” It is a compound of pas, which means “individually,” and rheo, meaning “to pour forth.” Let there be no mistake: this was Sha’uwl’s message and his alone. And equally insightful, “disputing” was from dialegomai, which means “to argue against someone using different thinking.” It is “to contend with and convince through discourse.”

Even peitho is telling. It could have been rendered “seducing,” because it means to “win the favor of others by misleading and coaxing them,” even to “conciliate and strive to please.” Peitho speaks of “tranquilizing those who listen, inducing them through words to believe, persuading 239them to favor one individual over another and to join with them.” Therefore, it is hard to miss the fact that Paul is confessing to the crime Yahowah’s mal’ak | spiritual representative addressed in the letter to Ephesus through the Disciple Yahowchanan.

Also, the order of the verbs is revealing because it means that the message and Spirit of Yahowchanan | John had to be “dialegomai – disputed, even argued against by presenting a different message” prior to Paul “peitho – persuading others to obey him, winning them over and seducing them to become his followers.”

Then we find Sha’uwl’s hypocrisy in full bloom. He presented his “Gospel of Grace” as the alternative to observing Yahowah’s Towrah, which he misrepresents as an onerous set of laws. And while there is no Hebrew word for “obey,” and while Torah does not mean “law,” Sha’uwl routinely demanded that his audience obey him...

“But as some were being stubborn (sklerynomai – were being hardheaded and obstinate, even offensive and intolerable, refusing to listen) and they were disobedient (apeitheo – they were disobeying, refusing to believe, rejecting faith, being noncompliant, rebellious, and insubordinate), speaking abusively of and maligning (kakologeo – cursing and maligning, insulting and denouncing) the way before the crowd. Having revolted against, forsaken, and alienated them (aphistamai – abandoned, avoiding association with them), he appointed and marked off boundaries, separating (aphorize – he set aside and excluded in an attempt to get rid of) the disciples (tous mathetes – those who had been taught by and followed Yahowsha’) through daily (kata hemera) disputes (dialegomai – arguments and speeches presenting a different message) in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. (Acts 19:9)

And this took place for two years so that everyone 240residing in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Judeans and Greeks.” (Acts 19:10)

We are continuing to rely on the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds English Interlinear to recount Paul’s testimony, while augmenting and clarifying it using the most highly regarded lexicons. By doing so, we are presenting Luke’s assessment of Paul’s fight against John without prejudice, fairly and accurately.

If you recall, the Heavenly messenger specifically stated that there were some in Ephesus who did not believe the false apostle, a reality which has been resoundingly born out in Luke’s accounting of Paul’s own words. And while Yahowah’s mal’ak praised the Ephesians for rejecting the liar and his lies, Sha’uwl saw them differently. The very people Revelation commended, Sha’uwl condemned, calling them “sklerynomai – stubborn, hardheaded, and obstinate, even offensive and intolerable, for refusing to listen.”

Based upon skleros, Paul viewed those he could not beguile as “hard, harsh, and rough men who were stern, intolerant, offensive, and violent.” That is almost funny considering the source.

Sha’uwl went on to say that his rivals were apeitheo, which means that he saw Yahowchanan | John as being “insubordinate” because Yahowsha’s disciple “disobeyed him and rejected his faith.” If that does not take your breath away, considering whom he was rebelling against, you may want to check your pulse.

One of the most egotistical and presumptuous men to ever purport to speak for God called Yahowsha’s most beloved disciple “apeitheo – disobedient,” and that was because John “apeitheo – refused to believe” him when his message differed from the one God had conveyed in word and deed.

Paul was laying down the law, his law, to which 241everyone had to obey or suffer the consequences. There was a new Lord in town. The hypocrisy was now especially thick. The man who was opposed to “obeying” God’s Towrah demanded obedience.

The next verb in Paul’s intolerant diatribe was translated “speaking abusively of and maligning” as a rendering of kakologeo, which is “to curse and to revile, denouncing through evil and insulting speech.” The verb is a compound of kakos, which describes that which is “of a bad nature” and is an “inappropriate mode of thinking, feeling, or acting which is troublesome, pernicious, baneful, and wicked,” and logos, the “spoken word.” Paul, like all insecure individuals, was ever ready to curse his perceived opponents, but would not tolerate reciprocation.

Yahowsha’ and his disciples are often translated using histemi to convey that God stood up for us so that we could stand with Him. But Paul’s twist on this is markedly different. Aphistamai, rendered “having revolted against, forsaken, alienated, and separated” from them, is colored by apo, which speaks of separation, even of abandonment. It tells us that Paul “caused the rebellion” and then “avoided association, forsaking and abandoning, misleading and withdrawing from” the Disciple Yahowchanan. It was and continues to be, Paul pitted against Yahowsha’s disciples and Yahowah’s Towrah.

Aphorize, rendered “he appointed and marked off boundaries, separating” the disciples, means that Sha’uwl did exactly what Yahowsha’ warned Shim’own and Yahowchanan would occur. Paul “set aside and excluded them in an attempt to get rid of” the disciples, “severing the relationship while excommunicating them in an attempt to drive them out” of Asia. By selecting this word, Paul was admitting “to excluding” the disciples because he claimed that they “were disreputable.” Aphorize is also from apo, “to separate,” but then shaped by horizo, meaning “to define, setting boundaries and limits, determining and 242appointing territory.”

Aphorizo’s primary connotation is therefore: “to determine, to define, and to mark off boundaries for those who are disreputable, to separate them by establishing limits which they may not transgress, excluding them.” And since the objects of these constraints were Yahowsha’s disciples, Paul was admitting to the very crime about which Yahowsha’ warned the Ephesians.

Contentious to the bitter end, Paul once again bragged of “dialegomai – arguing against and disputing” the disciples because their “thinking was markedly different.” But this time, Paul was not to be found in the synagogue – in the place where those seeking to learn about Yahowah considered His Towrah. Sha’uwl turned instead to the “Tyrannos Schole,” where Tyrannos denotes “the Lord is a Tyrant” and Schole means “freedom from labor.” There should be no mistaking that Paul’s Lord was indeed a despot seeking supremacy. And Paul was lecturing on his behalf.

It is a fact little known, but since Paul’s preaching is reflected in his letters, he never accurately conveyed anything Yahowsha’ said. In just one of his fourteen letters, including Hebrews, he made a brief passing attempt, citing a few words Yahowsha’ spoke about Passover, albeit taking his testimony completely out of context while misquoting him. So rest assured, when Sha’uwl claims that everyone in Asia heard him “preach the word of the Lord,” he was preaching Satan’s mantra. Reinforcing this reality, Yahowah consistently refers to the Adversary as “ba’al – lord” because Satan craves supremacy, mastery, control, obedience, subordination, enslavement, and ownership.” Sha’uwl’s predilection for these very same things is revealing.

How is it that Christians adhere to a faith whereby the central players are at war with themselves? If Paul was 243truthful, John, Peter, and James are liars, as are Yahowsha’ and Yahowah. But even then, the principal player in Christendom cannot be right because he began this charade claiming that he was authorized to speak for the God he has continually contradicted.

Yahowah and Yahowsha’ routinely tell us that “dunamis – ability, inherent power, miracles, signs, and wonders” typify braggadocious false prophets. But since Christians do not listen to either Yahowah or Yahowsha’, they typically associate “miracles and signs” with God. And yet here, Paul is saying that God had nothing to do with them. His supernatural power and his extraordinary mastery and skill were the work of his hands, conceived, fashioned, and brought forth without God’s assistance.

“Miraculous miracles and wondrous supernatural powers (dynamis – the ability to perform miracles and wonders) and not having obtained in association with the God (te ou tas tygchano o theos – having disclaimed an experience with, having disavowed happening upon or meeting with, even relationship with God) were performed through the hands of (dia ton cheiron – by way of the person, authority, control, and power of) Paulou.” (Acts 19:11)

I realize that this sounds too incriminating to be an accurate reflection of the text, not unlike confronting Paul’s admission of being both insane and demon-possessed. Nonetheless, I encourage skeptics to verify the meaning of te (likewise and corresponding to, serving as the marker of a relationship), ou (constituting a negation and denial), tas (the definite article in the accusative form), and especially tygchano for yourself. It was negated in this statement by “ou – not in any way” and precedes “tas theos – of God,” and in this context denotes “having disclaimed an experience with God, having disavowed happening upon or meeting with God, and of not having a relationship with God.”

244And while that is indicting, by turning to tygchano’s secondary connotation we find Paul admitting to “not hitting the mark regarding extraordinary and unexpected performances which require uncommon skills.” Therefore, it appears that the very attitude which got Satan expelled from heaven was now afflicting Paulos.

According to Luke, his legend grew with these fanciful claims...

“Also that (kai hoste – and as a result) upon the weak and infirmed (epi tous astheneo – upon those who are being incapacitated and ill) there was to be carried away (apophero – to be led off and taken away) from the skin of him (apo tou chrotos autou – separated from the surface of his body) handkerchiefs (soudarion – napkins or pieces of cloth often used for wiping perspiration, blowing one’s nose, or during preparation for burial) or aprons (e simikinthion – or worker’s smocks) and to be settled upon them (kai apallassomai apo auton – so to be set free, separated from them) for the illnesses (tas nosous – the sicknesses and diseases) and the (ta te – denoting a closely related association with) annoying spirits (pneumata ta poneros – worthless, morally corrupt, seriously faulty, toilsome, and wicked spirits) to depart out (ekporeuesthai – to come forth, go out, and leave).” (Acts 19:12)

“Handkerchiefs” is from soudarion, which also means “pieces of cloth, towels, or napkins which may or may not be used as burial cloths over the face of the deceased, to blow one’s nose, to wipe perspiration from one’s face, or to dry one’s hands.” It is of Latin origin. “Aprons” was rendered from simikinthion, another Latin word, which is “a bib-apron worn by common workers and servants to protect their clothing.” Therefore, what Paul is claiming is that napkins or aprons were placed upon his skin and then carried to those who were sick, and that as a result annoying spirits were exorcised from the diseased. This is creepy in the extreme, not unlike today’s charlatans who 245fleece their flock by pretending to heal the sick during religious spectacles. It is another case of Paul claiming to be divine. But this time he was also incriminating himself by suggesting that “evil spirits” cause “disease” and must be “exorcised” to heal the “sick.”

The term Paul chose to infer that his handkerchiefs were healing the infirmed, apallassomai, means “to be set free, separated from them,” as if a piece of cloth that has contacted his skin would exorcise demons. And while that is obviously untrue, this term’s secondary connotation, “to change, to settle with, and to reconcile,” infers that the feeble may have simply come to accept their maladies. It is derived from allasso, which denotes “exchanging one thing for another.” So perhaps the blind became lame and the deaf became dumb?

The “spirits to depart out” were called “poneros – annoying, burdensome, harassing, troublesome, wicked, corrupt, worthless, faulty, and criminal.” It is the same revolting word Paul associated with “the old system” which he continually identified as the Torah. And here, the Spirit associated with Yahowchanan, Yahowsha’s most beloved disciple, was the one rejected by Sha’uwl and replaced by another of his choosing during the rebaptism. So I suspect that the reason Paul saw the Set-Apart Spirit as “annoying” is that She was opposed to everything he said and did.

Paul’s account gets stranger by the moment. Consider what he claimed next (again as reported in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27^th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear and corrected by the Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains in an effort to be as accurate as possible)...

“But (de) were attempting to put our hands on (epicheireo – with the assistance of anyone were trying to promote an undertaking upon) some (tines), and the (kai 246ton) circuitous wanderers (perierchomai – the traveling about and roving around) of the Judeans (Ioudaion – an errant transliteration of the Hebrew Yahuwdym, meaning Related to Yah), exorcists (exorkistes – those who drive out evil spirits; from exorkizo – to extract using an oath or force to adjure) to be known (onomazomai – to name or designate) for the (epi tous) possessing (echo – having and holding on to) the evil and annoying spirits (pneumata ta poneros – the worthless, morally corrupt, seriously faulty, toilsome, and wicked spirits) the name of (to onoma) the Lord (tou kuriou – the master who owns, controls, subjugates, and possesses (a Satanic title)) Iesou (Iesou – an errant misnomer without any semblance to Yahowsha’), saying (legontes) put under oath (horkizo – implore and swear) you the (umas ton) Iesoun (Iesoun) whom (on) Paulos (Paulos – of Latin derivation meaning Lowly and Little) announces (kerysso – preaches in his official capacity).” (Acts 19:13)

Recognizing that the Interlinear version, even amplified, is at best confusing, let’s consider the New American Standard Bible which claims to be literal: “But also some of the Jewish exorcists, who went from place to place, attempted to name over those who had the evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying ‘I adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preaches.’”

There is no discussion of exorcism in the Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms, nor in the Talmud or the Oral Law of Yahuwdym. There is no such thing as a Jewish exorcist. Apart from Dowd’s | David’s harp and singing, irritating the demon which possessed King Sha’uwl sufficiently to take momentary leave of his victim, spirits are not displaced. (1 Samuel 16:14-23)

Therefore, this is a complete fabrication. More damning still, Paul, in his testimony to Luke, actually admits the obvious: there is a difference between “the Iesous whom Paulos proclaimed” and the actual individual 247who was proclaimed by Yahowsha’s disciples, Yahowchanan and Shim’own.

While I cannot attest to the veracity of the following scholarship, I found it both credible and interesting relative to the origins of Sha’uwl’s “Iesou.” This is important because while Paul’s Iesou shared nothing in common with Yahowsha’, his audience shared an awareness of this individual. So from whence did Iesou come? Since you may be wondering as well, in the Gospel History and Doctrinal Teaching Critically Examined by Arthur Dyott Thomson, which was written and published in London by Longmans, Green, and Company in 1873, under the heading “Derivation of the Name of Jesus,” on page 247, we find a series of interesting insights. He begins by correlating all of this with Roman Mithraism – which was the worship of the sun:

“The whole system is developed in the Mithraic monuments, but it is only necessary to observe here that the seven fires, stars, or flames which are on the bas-reliefs which represent this myth, and which are always placed between the sun and the moon, refer to the Pleiades, which correspond to the constellation of the Bull.

When Christianity arose, the Jews had thronged Alexandria, and had acquired by means of bribes many of the privileges reserved to the companions of Alexander (Jos. Cont. Apion, 1. Ii. C. 4). The Ptolemies being patrons of literature and of science, learned men of all nations resorted to Alexandria, which soon became the theatre of religious disputes, and each party in turn appealed to the Egyptian monuments, on which the secretes of the mysteries were preserved in the symbolic characters. Contact with Paganism produced the same effect on the Jews as it had done previously when the Asmonean princes had been compelled to issue an edict forbidding the Jews to read Greek books. Sects were formed, the Jewish sacred books were translated, and commentaries were written 248upon them. The Caraites wished to keep to the literal meaning of the “Scriptures,” but the majority addicted themselves to the allegorical interpretation of them, and Aristobulus went so far as to write a commentary on the Mosaic text in favour of Ptolemy Philometer.

At this time some of the Alexandrian astrologers ascertained that it was the blood of Aries, not that of the Bull, to the commencement of which the Iesou corresponded in the zodiacs. Iesou in the sacred language signifies the divine power of the heavens, or the winter solstice, because it is at that period that the sun resumes his strength in order to return toward the north.... The Iesou, or winter solstice, always corresponded in the zodiacs to the first degree of Aries. This Iesou, which was symbolically represented by a child sucking its finger, was placed over the interval between Aries and Pisces, and as Virgo, the symbol of the summer solstice, had to come to the primitive Iesou, in order to determine when the reign of God should commence, by means of the precession of the equinoxes, this Iesou was called the sacred, or anointed one, which the Greeks have correctly translated Christos, but which does not in the least correspond to the Hebrew mashyach / Messiah....

The Alexandrian astrologers conceived the error into which the followers of Mithras had fallen, and either through ignorance or design, took Virgo, who marked the commencement of the year (Hor. Apollo, Hierog. Iii.) for the symbol of the vernal equinox, at which period the Alexandrine year used to commence. They announced, therefore, that the end of the world would take place when the vernal equinox corresponded to the star alpha of Pisces. In the mystic language they would have said: ‘The blood of the Ram has just been shed; the union of Virgo and Aries has just been brought about; Virgo has just given birth to Aries; Virgo has just given birth to Iesou; Virgo has just crushed the head of the serpent [the spirit of death and 249darkness]; the reign of God is at hand.

We know that the names of Jesus, John, and Mary are found on the monuments long anterior to Christianity. On the Zodiac of Denderah the Celestial Virgin holding Horus, symbols which the Egyptians called Marim and Iesou in the mystic language, have been so mutilated by the Christians that only the heads of them remain. This was probably done because there were hieroglyphs which might have revealed the mystery. Iesu, that is, “the divine power of the world,” was the sacred name of the Word, or Demiurgus, and was therefore easily confounded with the Iesou of the Zodiacs. The Iesu whom the Virgin carried in her arms was to be put to death at the end of the world, in order to rise again, or give place to another Iesu. This mystery is represented in the sanctuary of the temple of Hermonthis (see Atlas de la Commiss. D’Egypte, A, Vol. I.).”

Returning to the book which usurped and then promoted the myths ascribed to Iesou, we find the McReynolds Interlinear interpretation of the Nestle-Aland:

“But were of some, Skeva, a Jewish ruling priest, seven sons this doing.” (Acts 19:14) From this, the New American Standard Bible published: “And seven sons of one Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this.” Skeuas is of Latin origin, not Hebrew, and it means “mind reader.” But that is not the worst of Paul’s misstatements. No “Jewish” priest, much less a high or chief priest, by that name, or any other name remotely akin to Skeva / Sceva, ever existed. Furthermore, there never were any “Jewish” high priests living in Ephesus. As such, this too is a complete fabrication – a fairytale – in the midst of the Christian New Testament.

“But having answered, the evil and annoying spirit said to them, ‘Indeed, Iesoun I know (ginosko) and this Paulon, I understand (epistamai), but who are you?’” 250(Acts 19:15)

For another perspective, the New American Standard Bible reports: “And the evil spirit answered and said to them, ‘I recognize Jesus, and I know about Paul, but who are you?”

According to Sha’uwl, Satan’s demon only “ginosko – recognized and was generally aware of” Yahowsha’, while said demon “epistamai – knew everything there was to know, was completely acquainted with and totally understood” Paul. An individual’s choice of words, especially when making a distinction, reveals so much about them. Such is the case with Sha’uwl who, like Satan, wants to be seen as having a higher status than God. And when we recognize that Paul fabricated this whole story for the express purpose of elevating his status and acclaim, it is especially devastating.

Now it appears as if spiritual beings have legs and are leapers, that they have dominion over the sons of imaginary “Jewish high priests,” and that they are imbued with the power, authority, and inclination to disrobe and wound them...

“And having leaped upon the man on them in whom there was the annoying and evil spirit, having dominion and mastered over, overpowering and lording over both (katakyrieuo amphoteroi – ruling over the two), was strong against them so that naked and having been wounded to flee out from that house.” (Acts 19:16) This tall tale of spiritual deception was chronicled in the NASB, which reads: “And the man in whom was the evil spirit leaped on them and subdued both of them and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.”

While we should not be surprised, the New American Standard Bible edited Paul’s testimony to correct an obvious contradiction. The seven sons became 251“amphoteroi – a total of exactly two” in the Greek text. Moreover, the point Paul is trying to make here is that Jews were incapable of doing what he did routinely. Paul claims to have had unbridled influence over the demonic spirits which by contrast routinely overpower and lord over Jews. And while there is no indication that demons plague Jews more than any other race, the reason they responded to Paul was because he was working for the same Lord.

“So this became (ginomai) known (gnostos) to all Judeans both and Greeks, the ones residing in Ephesus. And pressing against, falling upon, and embracing fear and terror on (phobos epi) all of them. And was being made great the name of the Lord Iesou.” (Acts 19:17) Or if you prefer, the following rendering of demonic daring-do is from the NASB: “And this became known to all, both Jews and Greeks, who lived in Ephesus; and fear fell upon them all and the name of the Lord Jesus was being magnified.”

So that there is no confusion, the verb is “ginomai – came to exist.” And gnostos, the basis of Gnostic, was used as an adjective to convey “what is known and what can be known.” Therefore, Sha’uwl was terrifying his audience by saying that those who rely on the testimony and ability of Jews will become demon-possessed and it was only by believing him and his Lord that one could be saved from this horrible fate.

Keep in mind, the Disciples Shim’own, Ya’aqob, and Yahowchanan were Yahuwdym. So this entire fabrication was conceived to make this point. It is not unlike a Christian threatening damnation and hellfire on those who do not submit.

The point has been made, and it is obvious that Paul was the false, self-proclaimed, and dishonest apostle of whom the Revelation prophecy warned against in the letter to the Ephesians. But there is a bit more to this incredulous 252story. “So many of those who believed (pisteuo) were coming, agreeing, consenting, confessing, and professing allegiance (exomologeomai – giving thanks and offering praise) and declaring their deeds (praxis – actions, functions, and practices).” (Acts 19:18)

Sha’uwl | Paul is therefore saying that he and his pals won, that the people of Ephesus believed him, consenting, confessing, and professing their allegiance en masse to him, praising and thanking the self-proclaimed apostle in opposition to Yahowsha’s disciples.

Now that Sha’uwl has denounced and marginalized Yahowchanan | John, establishing a precedent that would haunt the world for centuries to come, the paranoid preacher promoted the burning of books. He wanted his suppression of the truth to remain unchallenged.

May I remind you, this diatribe was spoken against Yahowsha’s disciples Yahowchanan | John and Shim’own | Peter…

“So enough (de hikanos) of the ones who were busybodies and meddlers with their superfluous, impertinent, and trifling information and interference (ton ta periergos – of the ones who overstepped their authority and were fixated on the details, neglecting what actually matters, the ones intrigued by conspiracy theories while overemphasizing the satanic influences).

Having received and experienced (prasso), having gathered together (symphero) documents consisting of scrolls and books (biblos), burning them (katakaio) in front of everyone (enopion pas).

And they calculated, computing (kai sympsephizo) monetary values, price, and worth (time) of them and (autos kai) discovered (heuriskomai) fifty thousand pieces of silver money (arguion myrias pente).” (Acts 19:19) Too bad they did not burn his letters instead.

253While I do not suspect that it can be proven, especially since there are no pronouns associated with the verbs or nouns in the first or second sentence, making it difficult to ascertain who was doing what to whom, but based upon everything we have learned about Sha’uwl, the scrolls and books which were burned were almost certainly the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms along with the eyewitness accounts of Yahowsha’s words and deeds as they were recorded in Hebrew and by Yahowchanan. They were in irreconcilable conflict with Paul’s message, proving that he was lying. And with Paul now providing the uncontested sermons, scripture, sacrifices, and salvation, healings and exorcisms, there was no room for anyone or anything else.

Burning books shortchanges knowledge and impoverishes us. It seldom if ever produces anything of value, especially money. And by claiming that this was a godly idea, the founder of the Christian religion legitimized a horrid practice. By way of example, rather than burning Qur’ans, I collected them, studied them, and then, in light of what I learned from the Islamic Sirah / Biography, Tarikh / History, and Hadith / Oral Reports, I was able to help many Muslims the world over reject their overtly Satanic religion.

And while Paul’s message is as incomprehensible and incomplete as ever, there are some things we can reasonably discern. For example, with periergos, which in the plural speaks of those who “overstep their authority, who are overly fixated on the details while neglecting what actually matters, the ones intrigued by conspiracy theories while overemphasizing satanic influences,” and thus from Paul’s perspective are: “irrelevant and superfluous meddlers interfering” in his affairs while “fussing over other people’s business in a disrespectful and unnecessary way.” Sha’uwl is taking one last swipe at Yahowsha’s disciples, the men and the message he went to Ephesus to refute and repress. Insecure men are not only intolerant of 254rivals, real or imagined, they are compelled to tear them down, trashing their reputations. Paul would never forgive them for not endorsing his message nor respecting his dominion over the Greek and Roman world.

In that this will become especially relevant in a moment, it is helpful to know that periergos is a compound of peri, which “expresses concern about an act while noting the point from which it proceeds,” and ergon, the Greek word for “works, speaking of actions, attempts, and undertakings. Paul uses ergon repeatedly to besmirch God’s Word, saying that no one can be saved by “ergon nomos – works of the Torah.” He is trying to smear Yahowsha’s disciples and Yahowah’s Towrah with the same brush.

Also relevant to our understanding of what and whom Paul wanted to be eliminated from consideration, this tormented troubadour deployed periergos a second time in his letter to Timothy, the only other occasion it appears in the Christian New Testament, and in that context, he defined it for us:

“But (de) at the same time (hama) also (kai), they learned (manthano – they came to realize) that these thoughtless and useless ones (argos – the inconsiderate and indifferent) were going around to the houses (perierchomai tas oikias), not alone (ou monon), but the thoughtless and useless ones (de argos) to the contrary (alla) were foolish gossips and babblers, disrespectful tattlers uttering vain and stupid things (phluaros – snitches rambling on with condescending hearsay) and also (kai) overstepping their bounds with their superfluous and trifling interference (periergos – busybodies and meddlers overdoing it, fixated on the details and neglecting what actually matters while intrigued by conspiracy theories and overemphasizing the occult) speaking that which (laleo ta) was not necessary or beneficial (me dei – not binding or proper).” (1Timothy 2555:13)

While Paul was demeaning women in this portion of his letter to his lover, Timothy, he left no doubt as to the meaning of periergos. And considering the fact that he applied all of its decidedly negative connotations to Yahowsha’s disciples, Sha’uwl indirectly revealed that they were trying to rein him in, to diminish his appeal, and to emphasize what really matters while exposing the Satanic overtures found throughout Paul’s preaching.

Recognizing that what Paul had just ordered was devastating for their business, the authors of the New American Standard Bible took great liberty with their rendering of the Greek. “And many of those who practiced magic brought their books together and began burning them in the sight of all; and they counted up the price of them and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.”

The etymology of periegos does not support the “practicing magic” rendering found in the NASB, nor in any other popular translation. But desperate to justify Paul’s decision to burn books, simply calling them “gossipy” or “meddlesome” was woefully insufficient. It was Paul’s unjustifiable decision which led to the unjustifiable definition.

That is not to say that you will not find “magic” buried in the definitions of periergos in the lexicons compiled by Christian publishers. It is there to make the founder of their religion appear lucid. In affirmation of this, when the same word appears in the same author’s letter to Timothy, there is no reference to magic in any popular bible translation, including the NASB, KJV, NIV, or NLT.

Based upon this testimony, no informed or rational person would refute the fact that the individual Yahowsha’ referred to as a wolf in sheep’s clothing during his first public declaration is the same individual he has called a false apostle and deceitful liar in Revelation’s final public 256statement. Remember, he said:

“I am aware of and recognize (oida) the things you have responded to and have engaged in (sou ergon), the difficult and exhausting encounters (kai ton kopos), and your unswerving and enduring perseverance (sou kai ten hypomone) and that (kai oti) you cannot possibly accept, tolerate, support, nor endure (ou dynamai bastazo) that which is incorrect, immoral, injurious, pernicious, or invalid (kakos).

And you have observed, examined, and objectively tested (kai peirazo) those who claim and maintain (tous phasko) of themselves (eautous) that they are (eimi) apostles (apostolos) but are not (kai ouk eisin). And (kai) you have found them, by examining and scrutinizing them to be (heurisko autos) false, deceitful, and deliberate liars, pretending to be something they are not (pseudes).

And you have loyal steadfastness and consistency (hupomone) and have endured (bastazo) through my name. You have worked hard (kopiao) and have not grown tired.” (Revelation 2:2-3)

So now that we have matched the crime with the perpetrator, the only unresolved issue is whether Paul had accomplices working with him in Ephesus to justify the plural deployment of apostolous. And that issue is resolved by Paul, himself, later in this same chapter of Acts, because he admits to returning to Ephesus with Gaius and Aristarchus to meet Timothy and Erastus in order to resolve a controversy. Incriminating himself further, Paul bragged, “I have fought with beasts at Ephesus,” in 1 Colossians 15:32. (Since the only opponents this brute has mentioned in association with the metropolis of Ephesus are Yahowsha’s disciples, he was now inferring that “Peter” and “John” were “beasts.” The man who conceived and promoted the religion of Christianity was such a 257charming and articulate fellow.)

And then in 1 Timothy 1:3, Paul told Timothy to remain in Ephesus, as a legitimate agent of his apostleship to issue a command prohibiting the presentation of any doctrine different than his own. That letter begins so presumptuously and inaccurately, I thought I would share it with you. It is particularly germane because Paul not only claims to be an apostle, he admits to trying to influence the Ephesians through his deputy, Timothy, making him the accomplice the Revelation prophecy was referencing. It is a very short list of men who made these claims in this place at this time. And none were as famous, influential, argumentative, or deceitful as Sha’uwl and Timothy.

Once again, to make quick work of this, I will be citing the McReynolds English Interlinear due to its association with the Nestle-Aland, correcting it only when a name as it is presented in the text is altered or its rendering veers away from a word’s primary connotation.

“Paulos (Paulos), Apostle (Apostolos) of Christou Iesou (Christou Iesou) by mandate, command, and direct order (epitage – ordinance and authority) of God (theou), deliverer (soter – rescuer) of us (emon), and (kai) Christou Iesou (Christou Iesou), the hope of us (tes elpis emon), (1:1) to Timothy (Timotheo – meaning Putting a Price on God; from time – determining and establishing the price and theos – god), genuine and legitimate (gnesios – lawful, true, sincere, and loyal) child (teknon) in (en) faith (pistis – belief), grace (charis – the name of the Greek goddesses of charity, licentiousness, and merriment, known as the Gratia in Rome, and thus the Graces), mercy (eleos), peace (eirene) from (apo – speaking of separation, departing, and fleeing) god (theou), father (patros), and Christou Iesou (Christou Iesou), the Lord (tou kuriou – the master who subjugates and controls, possesses and lords over, and owner) of us (emon). (1:2)

258Accordingly (kathos – in as much as) I pleaded (parakaleo – I begged) with you (se) to remain longer (prosmeno – to stay on and continue) in Ephesus (en Ephesos) [while I was] traveling (poreumai – proceeding) to Macedonia (eis Makedonin) in order that (hina) you might command (parangello – you may order and instruct) certain individuals (tisin – those considered important and everyone else) not to teach a different doctrine (me heterodidaskaleo – not to teach heresy)...” (1 Timothy 1:1-3)

Confessing to the crime revealed by Yahowchanan in Revelation, Paul admitted that Ephesus was the primary battleground in his war against Yahowah’s Towrah and Yahowsha’s disciples. Having fought for years against both, he would deploy every resource to keep his adversaries at bay – especially now that he was complying with the direct order of the God who never ordered anyone to do anything.

Now seeking to undermine the Torah with its genealogies, whereby the beneficiaries of the Covenant are documented, the weaver of myths and fables opines:

“...nor (mede – neither) carefully consider (prosecho – turn to or give oneself over to) myths and fables (mythos – tales and legends) or (kai) endless genealogies (aperantos genealogia – unlimited family lineages), or whatever (hostis) worthless speculation and aimless arguments (ekzetesis – questioning and debate, imagined controversy, or idle disputes; from ek – from and zeteo – seeking, thinking, and reasoning) they maintain (parecho – they hold and cling to), instead of (mallon), as the alternative (e – it is better), the administration (oikonomia – the management, trusteeship, and stewardship of the household affairs and oversight) of god (theou) in the faith (ten en pistis – according to the belief system).” (1 Timothy 1:4)

259It is the Torah which Paul is degrading as a collection of “myths, fables, endless genealogies,” even “worthless speculations.” Paul considered God’s testimony so horrific, he wanted Timothy to curtail and condemn any mention of it. In place of God’s Word, he wanted the alternative: “the administration of god in the faith.” He is thereby advocating his new religion, prioritizing it over following Yahowsha’s example, above Yahowah’s teaching, over the disciples’ witness, above the Covenant, and over the Word of God.

Paul was now “managing” his god, just as Christians have done throughout the ages. In this regard, Paul was also demanding that “pistis – faith” in his “oikonomia theou – oversight and stewardship of the affairs of God” take precedence over “ekzetesis – seeking knowledge, thinking, and reasoning.”

It was a religious trifecta: God’s testimony was suppressed, religion trumped God, and evidence and reason were now foes. Is it any wonder Yahowah and Yahowsha’ expressly condemned this man and his message?

According to Paul, his flock can dispense with the Torah, because all you need is love and a clean heart. And sadly, to their own demise, Christians the world over believe him.

“So (de) the end (to telos – the result and entirety) of the command (tes paragelia – of the proclamation, announcement, order, or instruction) is (estin – exists as) love (agape) from (ek) a clean (katharos) heart (kardias), (kai) a good conscience (agathos syneidesis – a moral awareness, worthy psychology, or useful sensitivity), and (kai) non-hypocritical and unquestioning faith (anypokritos pisteos – sincere and genuine belief; from a – not as a form of negation and hupokrinomai – accepting another’s statements based upon what they have decided 260for themselves)...,” (1 Timothy 1:5)

Wrong in his assessment, Paul was ever the hypocrite. The darkness of demonic spirits and the hatred of God darkened his heart while all manner of deceptions clouded his conscience.

The Towrah never speaks of having a “clean heart,” so Paul’s claim that it is the “end and result of the command” cannot be true. The only place we find a reference to a “leb tahowr – clean heart” in the totality of God’s Word is in Psalm 51:10, where the entire Mizmowr / Song is devoted to asking Yahowah to cleanse and perfect every aspect of our corrupt nature. It symbolically speaks of “bones rejoicing” and “lips singing” but they did not make Paul’s list.

Since we can always learn something from the Architect of life, let’s read what Yahowah inspired Dowd | David to write. And while we are at it, see if you can condense these six stanzas of his song, much less the entirety of the Torah and Prophets into a trio of platitudes.

“Hide (sathar – conceal) Your presence (paneh – Your appearance and face) from (min) my errors (cheta’ ‘any – my guilt for having gone astray), and all of (wa kol) my corruption (‘awon – wrongdoing, distortions, and perversions) blot out and destroy (machah – wash off and wipe away so that they no longer exist and are no longer known). (Mizmowr / Psalm 51:9)

Create (bara’) for me to approach (la), O God (‘elohym), a clean and clear (tahowr) conscience and judgment (leb – heart and thinking, the seat of good judgment), with (wa) the Spirit (ruwach) established and renewing (kuwn chadash – preparing, supporting, restoring, and reaffirming) in my inner nature (ba qereb – in my midst). (Mizmowr / Psalm 51:10)

Please do not cast me away from (‘al shalak min la) Your presence (paneh), and therefore (wa) the Set-261Apart Spirit (ruwach qodesh) do not take away (laqach) from me (min). (Mizmowr / Psalm 51:11)

I want to be restored (shuwb la – please return me) to the joy (sasown – happiness) of Your salvation (yasha’), and so with (wa) the Spirit (ruwach) who is worthy of respect (nadybah – who is willing and generous) sustain and uphold me (samach). (Mizmowr / Psalm 51:12)

I will choose to consistently teach (lamad) the rebellious (pasha’ – those who transgress by stepping away) Your ways (derek – Your path through life) and (wa) those who have missed the way (chata’ – those who are currently wrong) will return to You (‘el shuwb – will change their mind, attitude, and direction regarding You, God). (Mizmowr / Psalm 51:13)

Deliver me (natsal – save me) from dying with bloodguilt (min damym – from being cut off, silenced, unable to respond, and destroyed; from damam), O God (‘elohym), the God (‘elohym) of my salvation (tashuwa’ah – of my deliverance).

My tongue (lashown) will sing for joy (ranan) of Your righteous vindication (tsadaqah – of Your justice which exonerates and establishes upright).” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 51:14)

While we could linger here and immerse ourselves in the beauty and merit of these lyrics, alas, since our mission is to question Paul, let’s return to his summation of “tes paragelia – the command.” And in this regard, while we are encouraged to use our “neshamah – conscience” to distinguish between truth and lies, having “agathos syneidesis – a moral awareness” will prevent an informed and rational individual from embracing Pauline Doctrine.

The last of Paul’s triumphant trio of virtues is a bit of an odd duck. Since “faith” fills the void when we do not understand, how can it be “genuine?” Since “believing” is 262the result of not knowing, how can it be “sincere or non-hypocritical?”

It is only by searching anypokritos’ etymological roots that we can make any sense of this. As a compound of “a – do not” and “hupokrinomai – accept another’s statements based upon what they have decided for themselves,” we have Paul suggesting that the virtuous reject the testimony of those who opposed his mantra. And in this regard, “unquestioning faith” may be the most accurate rendering of Sha’uwl’s inaccurate and unsupported conclusion.

But I must ask: if the following is true, why was Paul the antithesis of what he claimed was virtuous?

“So the end and result of the command and proclamation is love from a clean heart, a good conscience with moral awareness, worthy psychology, or useful sensitivity, and unquestioning faith,...” Why was Sha’uwl so argumentative, condemning everyone who did not capitulate, and why was he deliberately duplicitous, if all that matters is a loving and pure heart?

If that were the case, why wasn’t Yahowsha’ loving, even nice, when he lashed out so viciously at most all of those who opposed him? By Paul’s standard, Yahowsha’ should be condemned. So should Yahowah.

He does not agree with Sha’uwl either. According to God, those who ignore His seven annual invitations to meet with Him, either die with their souls ceasing to exist, or they are eternally separated from Him in She’owl.

If a clean heart, good conscience, and unquestioning faith are the means to salvation, Paul’s claim that some deviated and strayed based upon idle discussions would be impossible, because evidence and reason are irrelevant to feelings and faith.

“...of which (on tines), some deviated and erred (astocheo – abandoned these goals, wandering away and 263deviating from the proper aim). They were disabled through avoidance (ektrepomai – they strayed, turning aside, and were becoming dislocated) by (eis) meaningless conversations (mataiologia – idle and empty talk, senseless and vain words). (1:6)

Deciding and desirous of (thelo – proposing, wanting, and enjoying, even delighting in) being (einai – of presently and actively existing as) teachers of the Towrah (nomodidaskalos – a compound of nomos – an allotment for an inheritance (the Greek substitute for towrah throughout the Septuagint) and didaskalos – teacher), not ever giving thought or understanding (me voeo – not considering, comprehending, or recognizing), neither (mete) what they say (a lego) nor (mete) concerned about (peri) what they state with such confidence (tinon diabebaioomai – what they insist upon, maintain, and proclaim so assuredly).” (1 Timothy 1:7)

No matter where one turns in Paul’s writings, the argument is almost always the same. It is Paul’s teachings against Yahowah’s Towrah teachings. And yet Paul wants everyone to believe that the God of the Towrah chose him, a rude, arrogant, often enraged, murderous, perverted, anti-Semitic, always duplicitous, and usually disingenuous man, to undermine and contradict everything He had said and promised. And let’s not mince words: Paul is accusing Yahowsha’s disciples, and notably Shim’own | Peter and expressly, Yahowchanan | John, in Ephesus, of “thoughtlessly teaching the Torah without considering or comprehending it.”

Since the God Sha’uwl claims authorized his mission also authored the Towrah, how can that Towrah only be good under the conditions he imposes on it? But before you answer that question, and before I attempt a translation of what appears to be a nearly incomprehensible string of words, let’s use the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27^th Edition with McReynolds Interlinear as a guide: “We 264know but that good the law if some it lawfully might use (8) knowing this that to right law not is set to lawless but and unsubmitting irreverent and sinners unholy ones and desecrators, father killers, mother killers, men murderers, (9) sexually immoral ones, male bed partners, man trappers, liars, perjurers, and if some other in the being healthy teaching lies against (10) by the good message of the splendor of the fortunate God which was trusted I.” (1 Timothy 1:11)

Now if I may, please note that what you are about to read is not only untrue, it is insane. But nonetheless, this is what Sha’uwl wrote to Timothy in support of his open war against Yahowah’s Towrah, against those who observe it and teach it. When I consider the words Sha’uwl claimed were inspired by God, it is hard to fathom how someone this irrational, this jaundiced, this pathetically hostile to Yahowah’s testimony and teaching found one person to believe him, much less billions. He and his message are beyond reprehensible. This is repulsive...

“But (de) we have come to be somewhat aware (oida – we previously acknowledged, albeit vaguely, the possibility (representing the weakest form of knowing in Greek which was further weakened by the indicative mood and then put into the past by the perfect tense)) that (oti) good (kalos – moral and advantageous, sound and fit) the Towrah (o nomos – the nourishing allotment which provides an inheritance (nomos is universally used in the Greek Septuagint rendering of the Hebrew Towrah to translate towrah)) if conditionally (ean – if ever with the implication of a reduced probability) someone (tis – an individual) might deal with it (chraomai auto – might possibly treat it a certain way, perhaps currently and passively using it (present passive subjunctive)) correctly in accordance to the rules (nomimos – properly). (1 Timothy 1:8)

Having realized this (oida touto – having become 265aware of this (perfect active participle)), that (oti – because) the Towrah (nomos) is not in place (keitai – is not appointed, set, or situated) for the righteous (dikaios – the upright or innocent) but for the Towrahless (de anomos – those without an allocation or an inheritance, for those without the Towrah), (kai) for the disobedient who are not subject to religious beliefs (anypotaktos asebes – the independent, uncontrollable, and insubordinate, who are not subdued, refusing to worship, lacking regard for religious practices), (kai) for unholy sinners (anosios – unreligious and not obedient outcasts who are mistaken), (kai) who are accessible and open-minded (bebelos – the approachable and receptive who are irreligious and worldly, willing to step up and walk across the threshold) who kill their own fathers (patroloas) and (kai) for murders their mothers (metroloas), those slaughtering mankind (androphonos – slaying humankind), (1 Timothy 1:9)

...for the sexually immoral and perverted (pornos – fornicators and marketers), homosexual pedophiles and sodomites (arsenokoites), slave traders and kidnappers (andrapodistes), liars (pseustes), perjurers (epiorkos – who provide false witness), and also (kai) if (ei) some other, different, or alternative (ti eteron) thing be opposed to (antikeimai – thing hostile and adversarial to) the accurate (te hygiaino – the sound) doctrine (didaskalia – teaching and instruction) (10) in accord with (kata) the beneficial message (to euangelion – the healing messenger) of the brilliant and glorious (tes doxa – the great and mighty), the blessed and fortunate (makarios – the blissful and lucky) god (theou) which (o) was entrusted to me (pisteuo – have faith place in me (aorist passive indicative first person singular)), myself (ego – I (scribed in the nominative, thereby renaming the subject, which in this sentence was the lucky god)).” (1 Timothy 1:10-11)

266While they have mistranslated nomos as “law,” and feature some antiquated phrasing, the King James Version proudly presents Sha’uwl’s unGodly rant just as the wannabe apostle intended: “But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; (8) knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, (9) for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for men-stealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; (10) according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.” (1 Timothy 1:11)

Collectively, Paul and Timothy “have become aware that good the Towrah,” but only “if as a condition someone deals with it in accordance with the rules.” But those rules are not found in the Towrah, because on Paul’s planet the Torah is for those without the Torah. Of course, that means that the Torah cannot be for anyone because the moment those without the Torah grasp hold of it, they would cease to be Torahless, thereby disqualifying themselves. Paul may have been schooled in religion, but not in logic.

Also according to Paul, as professed at the end of this rant, everything regarding God has been entrusted to him. So therefore, his “blissful god is fortunate, even blessed,” to have someone with Paul’s credentials conveying this healing message. But it does cause one to wonder why God bothered providing humankind with His Torah and Prophets, especially now that they have been replaced by Paul’s letters. After all, it has to be embarrassing for God to have failed so miserably, only to have to rely on this man to fix all of the problems He couldn’t resolve. And it is either that, or Paul was lying.

If you are prone to ignorant and irrational rants, Sha’uwl has reinforced the central plank of his argument 267against the Towrah by stating: “the Towrah is not in place, appointed, nor suited for the righteous, upright, or good.” It is a backhanded way of saying “the Torah cannot save” – which was the primary premise of his Galatians letter. But here he takes this point way beyond incapability to corruptibility. From Paul’s perspective, one he initially articulated in his letter to the Romans, the Towrah, rather than discouraging bad behavior, encourages it. And I suppose that reflects Satan’s view, because it most certainly is not God’s.

I do find Sha’uwl’s listing of Torah-prone behaviors, revealing. The Torah does not ask us to obey anything or anyone, and in fact there is no Hebrew word for obey, completely eliminating this possibility. And yet the first thing Sha’uwl says of those who prefer God’s instruction to his own is that they are “anypotaktos – disobedient.” That can only mean that Sha’uwl is demanding obedience, which is to say that he is now reflecting his Lord’s persona.

Claiming to free souls from having to be obedient to a set of arcane laws by way of faith in the Gospel of Grace, Pauline Christianity takes its devotees in the opposite direction. While Yahowah’s Towrah liberates, Paul’s religion calls for obedience, while denouncing those who do not readily comply.

Those who are anypotaktos reject religious beliefs and are averse to worshiping their gods, just as the Towrah implores. Therefore, once again we see Paul demeaning what Yahowah encourages. Their messages are the antithesis of one another. Similarly, while lords and their political institutions subordinate and subjugate in a quest to control, our Heavenly Father’s Covenant resolves these human tendencies.

Asebes, the second unsavory term on the Pauline list of despicable behaviors is defined as “an aversion to religious beliefs and practices.” Therefore, Paul considers 268anything that is “opposed to religious beliefs” to be “ungodly and irreverent,” even “wicked,” And yet Yahowah is overtly opposed to all aspects of religion and views our willingness to walk away from such beliefs and practices as being Godly and reverent. Once again, God loves what Paul hates.

Not that it was Sha’uwl’s intent, but the Towrah is for “anosios – unholy sinners,” for “societal outcasts,” the “disobedient,” and “the unreligious.” Yahowah’s guidance was specifically designed to save sinners who, by disobeying religious and political edits become societal outcasts.” It is these souls who are invited into His home.

Likewise, Yahowah’s Towrah Teaching only appeals to those who are “bebelos – open-minded and accessible.” Those interested in approaching God along the path that He has provided, those who are receptive to and respond to His invitations to meet with Him, are saved. Interesting in this regard is that bebelos literally speaks of “being willing to step up and walk across a threshold,” and therefore expresses a willingness to approach God by walking through Passover’s life-giving door and across the redemptive threshold of UnYeasted Bread which collectively prepare us for adoption into the Covenant family.

The fourth item on Paul’s list, “patroloas – father killers,” is a twist on the Second of the Three Statements Yahowah etched on the First of Two Tablets, where God told us that one of the reasons He is opposed to religion is that by twisting His testimony fathers corrupt their own children, and their children’s children, precluding their salvation. And then when we add “metroloas – mother murderers” to the list, we have an upheaval of the Second of Seven Instructions Yahowah etched on the Second of the Two Tablets whereby God encouraged us to value our Heavenly Father and Spiritual Mother. And by embracing the Towrah, we demonstrate our respect for God in this 269way.

The Third of Seven Instructions listed in the Towrah asks us not to make a habit of killing, and yet Sha’uwl would like his religious, and thus ignorant and irrational, audience to believe that the Towrah inspires killing. It is ironic, without the Towrah, all men and women die, their souls ceasing to exist. But with the Towrah, a way is provided to life eternal. It is the path Yahowsha’ followed; his very purpose.

Beyond discouraging incest, rape, pedophilia, bestiality, and especially spiritual adultery, the Towrah has very little to say about human sexuality. It is Sha’uwl, not Yahowah, who is fixated on “pornos – fornication.” And while homosexual pedophilia made Paul’s list, it is interesting that he omitted adultery, the lone act in this category to make it onto Yahowah’s top ten list. And it is telling that Paul’s lone love was the boy to whom this letter was written.

Kidnapping and slave trading are forms of theft and are thus opposed by God. In fact, for the victims of such crimes, He has a remedy – one known to those who read the central book of the Towrah and consider the purpose of the Yowbel. And even in the First Statement Yahowah etched in stone, God states that His purpose is to free us from slavery. Therefore, here again we find Yahowah and Sha’uwl at cross purposes.

The same thing can be said of “pseustes – liars” and “epiorkos – perjurers,” in that both behaviors are discouraged by the same Instruction: “You should not make a habit of being a false witness.” There is no affinity between the Towrah and lying.

And then there was the broad net, the catchall phrase: “and also if some other, different, or alternative thing be opposed to the accurate doctrine in accordance with the beneficial message...entrusted to me.” Anything in 270opposition to Pauline Doctrine was thereby defined as a crime akin to murder. And that is perhaps why the Roman Catholic Church for the better part of a thousand years exterminated everyone who would not capitulate.

The idea that God would cease to speak for Himself through His Towrah and Prophets would repudiate that testimony, would abdicate the thing He was best at doing, to hand the single most important job in the universe to a stunningly flawed, admittedly insane and demon-possessed individual who was an abject failure at rational communication, is ludicrous. And here, Paul was not just claiming the world apart from Yisra’el for himself, he was claiming that “the beneficial message...of god was entrusted to him.” So why did Yahowah bother with Yahowsha’? Why did Yahowsha’ select and train twelve disciples? Why were Yahowsha’s and Paul’s message so different? How can Paul’s god be trusted if his previous attempt to deal with humankind was a complete failure?

This statement from Paul to Timothy highlights the ways these wannabe apostles differed from Yahowah and Yahowsha’. The humans positioned God’s Torah as a set of laws that condemned mankind. God, however, presents His Towrah as a set of instructions that guide His children toward a relationship with Him so that, by way of its promises, He can perfect and adopt His children, empower and enrich them. Since it is His Towrah, and since Yahowah and Yahowsha’ are of like mind on its merit and purpose, who do you suppose is right?

It is God’s position that His Towrah guides individuals who are seriously flawed, directing them to the provisions He has provided to make His Covenant children right and thus vindicated. Therefore, His Towrah is the only book for righteous individuals, because it was written expressly to teach imperfect men and women how to become perfected, and thus acquitted and innocent. But Sha’uwl wants to associate the Towrah, not with divine righteousness, but 271instead, with the worst of human behavior.

Since God says that there is one Towrah for everyone, that its purpose is to make men right, that it is guidance to be observed not laws to be obeyed, that it makes us Godly by curing us of our errors, and that it clearly instructs us not to murder, methinks Paul is completely wrong. But nonetheless, since Paul despised those who were Torah observant, he continued to equate the Torah with the very things it opposed.

Those trying to exonerate Paul, might protest, saying that the Torah is not needed by righteous men because they are already perfect, and that Paul was suggesting instead that it was designed for faulty individuals. But such justifications are absurd. First, there is no mention of “righteous men.” Paul wrote “to righteousness the Torah is not appointed,” which is to say that, according to Paul, it is not the Torah’s purpose to perfect us.

Second, since the only means to righteousness is by observing the Torah’s instructions, the Torah is the one and only book every righteous man and woman has in common. Third, while the Torah can save a disobedient sinner, even a murderer and lying slave trader, if these behaviors define an individual, as they are presented here, then such people would be averse to the Torah because it is averse to these behaviors.

Fourth, this ridiculous justification requires us to ignore everything Paul has written up to this point and to believe that the Torah he has been assailing is the means to salvation when in fact he has made the exact opposite claim. And fifth, Paul just told Timothy that “accurate instruction and beneficial doctrine is opposed to it,” with “it” representing the “Towrah.”

Paul is so consistently arrogant, disingenuous, and duplicitous, I am seldom surprised by anything he says. But on occasion, something he writes is so evil it takes our 272breath away. Such is the case with his concluding line, where he infers that God is somehow “blessed and happier, blissful, fortunate, and lucky” to have him on the job.

Sha’uwl not only claims that his convoluted and contradictory diatribe is “hygiaino – accurate,” even that he was a “euangelion – good, healing, and beneficial messenger,” but that God’s purpose was in Paul’s voice: “pisteuo ego – entrusted to me.” The God Paul claimed was impotent and could not save anyone was now mute. Paul would do the talking and saving from now on.

Sha’uwl no doubt realized that his Lord, especially with the godlike mystique he invented for him, was pleased. As a result, he would be less tormented by his goad. He no doubt believed that his new and improved message would be much more popular than his adversary’s, ultimately making Paul the most influential individual in human history.

But I have had enough of him. So now that we have demonstrated that Paul and Timothy were the deceitful apostles immortalized in Revelation, let’s turn the page and press on. We still have a lot of nasty ground to cover.

Since we have not yet dealt with the fourth chapter of Galatians, and Paul’s “Two Covenant Theory,” had we not considered Paul’s testimony in Acts and First Timothy, you might have been left wondering what it was about this man that caused Yahowah and Yahowsha’ to be so averse to him. After all, he was just one guy sharing his opinion. But there was more to Paul than this.

Returning to the portion of the book of Acts that we considered briefly in a previous chapter, we discover that Paul deliberately put a pagan proverb into his god’s mouth 273in the third of his three depictions of his “lightning” conversion experience. In Acts 26:14, with Sha’uwl defending himself before King Agrippa, we read:

“And every one (te pas) of us (emon) having fallen down (katapipto – having descended from one level to another, lower one) to the earth (eis ten ge), I heard (akouo – I paid attention, listening, comprehending, and obeying) a voice (phone – a sound, crying out) saying to me (lego pros ego – speaking according to me) in the (te) Hebrew (Hebrais) language (dialektos), ‘Sha’uwl, Sha’uwl (Saoul, Saoul – a transliteration of the Hebrew name, Sha’uwl, meaning “Question Him,” a designation synonymous with She’owl – the pit of the dead), why (tis) are you actually pursuing me (dioko me – are you following me, really striving with such intense effort to reach me, hastening and zealously running toward me)?

It’s hard (skleros – it’s demanding and difficult, even rough, harsh, violent, and cruel, especially offensive and intolerable) for you (soi) to resist (laktizo – to kick, to strike with the heel) against (pros) the goad (kentron – a pointed sharp stick used to prick and prod and thus control animals featuring the stinger of a deadly scorpion with the power to ruin and kill, making resistance vain or perilous).” (Acts 26:14)

While it is absurd to suggest that Yahowsha’ would choose to say “it’s difficult for you to kick against or resist a goad stinger,” on this occasion, if those who are prone to give credence to Paul’s claim of a godly encounter do a little homework, they will discover that this citation was actually derived from pagan literature. You will find the phrase cited on line 790 of Euripides’ play, The Bacchae, where “kicking against the goad” was used to describe the consequence of trying to resist Bacchus or Dionysus (the Roman and Greek god who was considered the son of the sun). Rebelling against popular religious beliefs is difficult because the prevailing religious establishment is typically 274hostile to a person’s refusal to worship their god or gods. This insight from Euripides’, therefore, became a common Greek idiom.

The Bacchae was named after Bacchus’ maenads – or female followers. Euripides’ story pictures the pagan god intoxicating those who believe him. In that the play was written centuries after the Towrah, the faithful are shown striking rocks in Mosaic fashion with Dionysus’ staff, such that water and wine gushed forth from the earth. Honey trickles down from his thyrsus, just as manna came down from heaven.

In Euripides’ play, the maenads had King Pentheus’ cousin betray him, luring the king into the woods so they could murder him, literally tearing him apart, after he banned the worship of Dionysus. It was all reminiscent of the Babylonian Tammuz, for whom Christmas, Lent, Easter, Sunday Worship, and the Christian cross first originated.

So, we are left with three less-than-ideal choices:

1) Yahowsha’ revealed himself to Sha’uwl in the same way he witnessed Satan falling from heaven and then cited a pagan proverb because he couldn’t think of anything better to say.

2) Satan revealed himself to Sha’uwl in his natural form and quoted a pagan proverb from Dionysus because there was no better counterfeit upon which to base Pauline Doctrine or the religion of Christianity.

3) Paul was struck by lightning and made up the rest of the story, citing the line from The Bacchae because he thought that King Agrippa would be impressed by his grasp of Greek and Roman literature. Paul may also have hoped that King Agrippa would equate the Pauline god with Dionysus or Bacchus, with whom he would have been familiar.

275Dionysus (known as Bacchus in Roman mythology, Osiris in Egypt, and Tammuz in Babylon) was chosen by Sha’uwl (or Satan) as a model for his god, because the Son of the Sun in pagan literature provided the closest Greek and Roman counterfeit of Yahowsha’. As the most recent of the twelve Olympian gods, Dionysus represented change: a new and different kind of relationship with the gods. And unlike the vengeful gods of old, Dionysus was fun, even forgiving—foreshadowing the Christian distinction between Yahowah and Yahowsha’. Very few, if any, religions have created their gods out of whole cloth, but have instead woven the strands of earlier tapestries into their own. The names and locations tend to change, but not much else.

Dionysus was considered an “epiphany – the manifestation of god who mysteriously arrives on the scene to occasionally interact with humankind.” His appearance was said to illuminate his followers and change the meaning and essential nature of what had come before – in perfect harmony with Pauline Doctrine. Even today, January 6^th is observed as the Epiphany, commemorating the Magi, or Gentile recognition of god’s appearance, in keeping with the Dionysian Mysteries. And considering Paul’s affinity for being both a divine messenger to be heeded and a divine example to be emulated, Dionysus’ constant companion was Hermes – the messenger of the gods.

Just as blood is represented by wine in the Torah, and therefore became associated with Yahowsha’s fulfillment of Passover, Dionysus was the god of wine. Just as Yahowsha’ had a divine father (Yahowah) and a mortal (falsely alleged virgin) mother (Mary), Dionysius had a divine father (Zeus (the father of the gods)) and a mortal virgin mother (Semele). Just as Yahowsha’s Heavenly Father told Yowseph to carry the newborn child to Egypt, as soon as Dionysus was born, Zeus carried him away to 276Egypt to protect him from the envy of rival gods.

But now as we press forward, deeper into the mythology, we find that the following aspects of the pagan god’s existence foreshadowed their adaptation into Christianity. By his death and resurrection, Dionysus was responsible for liberating his believers and thereby providing the faithful with eternal salvation, in complete harmony with being saved by way of faith in Paul’s Gospel. Dionysus was not only killed and then resurrected each spring; his holy week mirrors the week-long Christian observance of Easter. The annual resurrection of Dionysus, on the Sunday closest to the Vernal Equinox, celebrated the promise of resurrection from the dead. As such, Dionysus, and thus Bacchus, was known as the “Eleutherios – Liberator,” mirroring the central thrust of Paul’s letters where “believers were freed from being slaves to the Law.” The very mission of Dionysus was to bring an end to burdens and worries. According to Greek mythology, Dionysus was the first to open communications between the living and the dead, paving the way for prayers to Mary and the Christian saints. Even the Roman Catholic Eucharist myth of transubstantiation, where priests allegedly turn wine into blood, was first practiced in the Dionysian religion.

Dionysus was a hermaphrodite, blurring the lines between male and female, and thus contributed to the corruption of Yahowah’s Covenant symbols of father and mother, husband and wife. And he was sexually confused, as was Sha’uwl.

Known as the god who inspired religious rituals, Dionysus’ holy week was celebrated over the course of five days each Spring. And it was the Dionysia which set the stage for the Christian replacement of Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children, with Palm Sunday (“Passion Sunday”), Maundy Thursday (“institution of Communion”), Good Friday (“death and burial of Jesus 277Christ”), Holy Saturday (where “Jesus rested in the grave”), and Easter Sunday occurring during the last week of the Babylonian festival of Lent (where the last day of Mardis Gras, called “Fat Tuesday,” precedes the first day of Lent, called “Ash Wednesday”).

Just as the Christian “Jesus Christ” is bereft of his Hebrew heritage, Dionysus was considered an alien among the gods – distanced from his Olympian birth. And consistent with the Lord Ba’al manifestation of Satan, the bull, satyrs, and the serpent became the enduring symbols of the Dionysian religion. He is often shown as a mighty hunter, wearing leopard skin, and standing in a chariot drawn by black panthers – all of which is symbolic of Nimrod, the father of the Babylonian religion. The thyrsus staff he is often depicted holding is distinguished by the adornment of a large pinecone – a phallic symbol representing “coming forth from the seed,” and thereby foreshadowing Paul’s animosity to circumcision and his devotion to the seed of Abraham. By way of this “seed,” the uninitiated were miraculously purified and enabled to dwell with the gods so long as they believed the words of their messengers.

Especially troubling, considering Sha’uwl’s affinity for the Greek Charis and Roman Gratia, according to some myths, Dionysus was their father. They are sometimes presented as the “love children” of his affair with Aphrodite – the goddess of love.

Two hundred and fifty years before Sha’uwl associated Dionysus’ testimony with his conversion experience, Greeks living in what is now southern Italy, as born-again maenads, began celebrating the Bacchanalia, a drunken festival replete with grotesque debaucheries in which the faithful rebelled against all forms of authority, foreshadowing the Catholic celebration of Mardi Gras.

And troubling as all of this is to the credibility of the 278Christian religion, there is more to the Dionysus line than first meets the eye. Satan used it to warn Sha’uwl that he would not be able to rebel against him. The Adversary had a way of controlling the man. Paul’s ego would be his vulnerability, and demon possession would be the implement. This confession is found in 2 Corinthians 12, the ego-laden demonic encounter we have considered previously.

By way of review, Paulos wrote: “But when Kephas came to Antioch, I was opposed to and against his presence. I stood in hostile opposition because he was convicted and condemned, even ignorant. (Galatians 2:11)

Because, before a certain individual came from Ya’aqob, he was eating together with the different races, but when he came, he was withdrawing and was separating himself, out of fear of the circumcised. (Galatians 2:12)

So they were hypocritical, and also the remaining Yahuwdym. As a result even Barnabas was led away and astray with them in the duplicitous hypocrisy.” (Galatians 2:13)

Beyond what Yahowsha’ and Shim’own had to say about Sha’uwl and his letters, there are additional ways to ascertain the merits of his epistles. One way would be to examine the writing quality. For that, I present Exhibit A: Galatians 2:14. But before we ponder this incomprehensible verse, please note that Papyrus 46, dated potentially to as early as 85 CE, likely to around 175 CE, but no later than 225 CE, omits “kai ouchi zao Ioudaikos,” from the end of this passage. Translated, the extra-textual 279phrase means “and do not live Yahuwdym.”

Therefore, with the scribal additions in brackets, along with the omitted words, Sha’uwl evidently recited:

“Nevertheless (alla – by contrast and to the contrary), when (hote) I saw (horao – perceived as a result of seeing with my own eyes) that (hoti – because) they were not walking through life rightly (ou orthopodeo – they were not behaving as they should; literally straight or upright foot) with (pros) the (o) truth (aletheia – that which is in accord with reality) of the healing messenger and beneficial message (euangelion), I said (eipon) to (to) Kephas (Kephas – a transliteration of the Hebrew word for Rock of Reconciliation) in front of (emprosthen) all (pas): ‘If (ei) you (sy) Yahuwdym (Ioudaios – an inaccurate transliteration of the Hebrew Yahuwdym, meaning Related to Yah, commonly known today as Jews) actively being (hyparcho – existing as (present active)) ethnic (ethnikos – races or ethnicities; a derivation of ethnos – ethnicity; while only used this once as an adverb, as a noun Paul uses it to infer Gentile) [and (kai) do not (ouchi) live (zao) Yahuwdym (Ioudaikos)], how (pos – in what way) the ethnicities (ta ethnos – people from different races and places) you compel and force (anagkazo – you necessitate by compulsion) (being / acting) Yahuwdym (Ioudaizein – Paul concocted a Greek verb out of the Hebrew proper noun, Yahuwdym – Related to Yah (verb present active infinitive))?’” (Galatians 2:14)

In the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27^th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear, we find this same amalgamation of words, albeit inclusive of the extraneous clause, rendered: “But when I saw that not they walk straight to the truth of the good message, I said to the Cephas in front of all if you Judean existing nationally and not Judaically live how the nations you compel to judaize?” This was written so poorly, these scholars had to make up two words, “Judaically” and “judaize,” in their attempt to 280“translate” Paul. And sadly for them, there is no such thing as a “judaizer,” never has been and never will be. Rabbis do not proselytize like Christians. They want Jews to practice Judaism and for Gentiles to leave them alone.

If we are to believe Paul when he protests that faith alone saves, then a person’s walk through life should be irrelevant. And who appointed Paul judge – the one who determines who is right and who is wrong? Moreover, what was the basis of his verdict?

While poorly worded, the opening clause is at least comprehensible: “Nevertheless, by contrast, when I perceived that they were not walking rightly, behaving as they should, with the truth of the beneficial message,....” Sha’uwl claimed in his letter to Timothy that his “euangelion – beneficial message” had been entrusted exclusively to him, and to him alone, by God, so anyone who did not capitulate regarding his mandate and agree with his doctrine was behaving improperly. And since both claims were in conflict with Yahowsha’ and the Towrah, Shim’own’s actions, as his disciple, would have consistently been inconsistent with the “truth” according to Sha’uwl. Further, the reason Sha’uwl did not explain why he believed “the Rock” was wrong is that, according to God, Shim’own was probably right.

For the record, Shim’own would have been in violation of Rabbinical Law for sharing a meal with Gentiles, and in compliance with the Talmud when he left. And while that is interesting, it is also irrelevant because the disciples did not adhere to rabbinical teaching. Since nothing else was mentioned, any other conclusion would be speculation. The menu was not described. All that we know is that the participants were mixed with regard to their ethnicity.

The second clause, especially without the scribal addition, makes no sense: “I said to Kephas in front of 281all: ‘If you Yahuwdym actively being ethnic, how the ethnicities you compel and force (being / acting) Yahuwdym?’” The first problem is that, as an adverb, “ethnikos – ethnic” is modifying the verb, “hyparcho – existing as,” making it “existing ethnically” I suppose. And since Sha’uwl typically uses ethnos to address races other than Yahuwdym, by extrapolation he may be saying that the disciples were “acting like Gentiles.” But that notion is torn asunder by the realization that Paulos preferred the Gentile ways to those of his brethren, which would have received an accommodation from Paul, not condemnation. And from a logical perspective, the disciples could not have been “Judaizers” if they were adapting to the Gentile customs.

The second issue is that Ioudaizein is not a word. It begins by attempting to transliterate the plural of Yahuwdah which is Yahuwdym, but then ends in an attempt to make the proper noun a verb. If we were to play along, Ioudaizein in the modern vernacular, it would convey “being or acting Jewish.” But then Sha’uwl’s argument falls apart, because he is opposed to what he is proposing. Moreover, neither Yahowah, Yahowsha’, the Towrah, nor the disciples ask Yahuwdym to convert Gowym. While we are offered the same advice and guidance, and the same opportunity and benefits, Gowym do not become Yahuwdym.

Third, with God, freewill is sacrosanct, and thus compulsion is abhorrent to Yahowah, as is any form of oppression or submission. Therefore, this is pointless, and likely errant.

Further, Sha’uwl has it all wrong. God never asks Gowym to act like Yahuwdym, but instead asks Yahuwdym not to act like Gowym. And that is because of the Babylonian influence on Gentile nations. Their religions shaped the world as we know it, a world from which Yahowah wants us to disassociate ourselves. 282Therefore, Yahowah does not want Yahuwdym to adopt the cultures and traditions of the Gentile nations, ostensibly because they are pagan. But by the same token, Yahowsha’ made it clear that the societal customs and traditions of religious Jews were errant, hypocritical, and even Satanic.

While the Talmud, Oral Law, and Rabbinical traditions are Jewish customs, and unworthy of our attention, the Towrah is not comprised of Jewish law or Jewish traditions. The Towrah is replete with Yahowah’s instructions for living in this world and in addition to guidance to the next. So since Jewish customs and traditions are inconsistent with the truth, at least according to God, Sha’uwl, by inferring that Shim’own as a Jew wanted to force people to submit to Jewish traditions, committed one of the greatest crimes ever perpetrated on humanity.

Regarding this highly charged and nearly incomprehensible statement, the KJV elected to write: “But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”

Trying to make sense of this, more than a thousand years earlier, Jerome crafted the following in his Latin Vulgate for his pope: “But when I had seen that they were not walking correctly, by the truth of the evangelii, I said to Cephas in front of everyone: “If you, while you are a Jew, are living like the Gentiles and not the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to keep the customs of the Iudaizare?”

While the NLT reads more smoothly, it is a flight of fancy: “When I saw that they were not following the truth of the gospel message, I said to Peter in front of all the others, "Since you, a Jew by birth, have discarded the 283Jewish laws and are living like a Gentile, why are you now trying to make these Gentiles follow the Jewish traditions?”

As a result of this statement, and others Sha’uwl will make similar to it, Christians have been beguiled into believing that being Jewish, being Torah observant, and the religion of Judaism are synonymous. That is what Sha’uwl meant to convey with his use of “Ioudaizein – Judaizers.” But while the race and the religion often share a nexus, most Jews are not religious. Further, while there are many Jews who are Torah observant, religious Jews, those practicing Judaism, universally elevate their Talmud over the Towrah, not unlike Christians prioritizing their New Testament over the “Old Testament.” When they differ, which is often, those who are religious believe the human instructions.

The reason this crime has been so catastrophic is that now, as a result of the mythical “Judaizers,” when someone who is actually Torah observant teaches others what God revealed, Yahowah’s instructions and invitations are summarily dismissed by Gentiles because they are perceived to be Jewish. They reject Yahowah’s Invitation to attend Passover for racial and religious reasons, even though it represents the lone doorway to life, even though Yahowsha’ observed it and fulfilled it.

Similarly, they reject Yahowah’s encouragement to make the Shabat a special part of our relationship with Him, discarding it because they wrongly think that it is “Jewish,” preferring instead to embrace the Gentile religious custom of Sunday worship. The “Old Covenant” in the Christian religion was replaced by a “New Covenant” because Paul led them to believe that the former was for the Jews and the latter was for Gentiles. And as a result, Christians have universally rejected Yahowah’s one and only Covenant, precluding them from forming a relationship with God and forestalling any opportunity for 284their reconciliation.

In this regard, Yahowsha’, not Sha’uwl, provided a compelling example of how the Pharisees, the ultra-religious Jews who were devoted to their traditions and Oral Law, tried to impose their ill-conceived rules on Yahowah’s children.

“He said to them (kai lego autos), ‘You have a finely-crafted way to reject and invalidate (kalos atheteo – you have finely tuned the means to nullify and dispute the validity of) the instruction (entole – precept and prescription) of (tou) Yahowah (ΘΥ) in order (hina) to establish (histamai – to propose, maintain, and uphold) your (sy) tradition (paradosis – way and narrative that has been handed down over time, given to one person after another). (9)

For (gar) Moseh (Mouses) revealed (eipon), “Recognize and respect (timao – highly value, honor, and revere) your Father (ton ΠΡΑ sou) and (kai) your Mother (ten MTA sou),” and also (kai), “The one maligning (o kakologeo – the one reviling, cursing, and speaking badly about using unjustified and abusive language so as to denounce and insult) the Heavenly Father (ΠΡΑ) or (e) Spiritual Mother (MTA) is the plague of death (thanatos – in the separation of the soul from the body as a result of this pandemic disease) let him die, terminating his existence (teluuueutao – let this be the end of his life).”’” (Mark 7:9-10)

Yahowsha’ recognized and stated that Rabbinical Law was inconsistent with the Towrah, and thus destructive. Beyond this, the realization that Father and Mother were presented using Divine Placeholders affirms that they represent our Heavenly Father and our Spiritual Mother.

In this regard, kokologeo is especially telling. Comprised of kakos and logos, it speaks of “those whose words convey a bad attitude because they view things from 285the wrong perspective, as their mode of thinking is errant, and thus their speech is troublesome, injurious, pernicious, and destructive.”

Yahowsha’s teaching in opposition to Rabbinical traditions continued with:

“‘But (de – by contrast), you, yourselves, say (umeis lego – you attest and imply), “If (ean – conditionally) a man (anthropos – an individual) may tell, speaking (eiphe – may say) to the father or to the mother (to patri e te metri), ‘Korban (korban – a Hebrew word designating a gift offering used to approach and come near God),’ which (o) is (estin) a gift (doron – an offering) that (o) conditionally (ean) you might receive as a provision and assistance (opheleo – you may benefit) from me (ek ego), (11) therefore, you no longer permit (ouketi aphiemi – accordingly, then, you negate any additional credit or opportunity) for him (auton) to perform or provide (poieo) for the father or for the mother (to patri e te metri), (12) invalidating the authority of (akyroo – nullifying and voiding) the Word (Logos) of Yahowah (tou ΘΥ) through your traditions (te paradosis umon – by your teachings and instructions) which you have handed down as if it were an authorized (e paradidomi – that you have granted, bestowed, supplied, and controlled in an act of betrayal). And (kai) many (polys) very similar (paromoios) such things (toioutos) you do (poieomai).’” (Mark 7:11-13)

The Rabbis had devised a “wealth preservation” scheme which, according to their oral law, allowed religious Jews to shirk their responsibilities, in direct defiance of the Spirit of the Towrah teaching. Corrupting and perverting the Towrah has become a game to religious Jews, as it had become to Sha’uwl. And that is why Yahowah said through the prophet, Howsha’ | Hosea: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from 286being ministers for Me; because you have forgotten the Towrah of your God, I also will forget your children.” (Howsha’ / He Saves / Hosea 4:6) Rather than nailing Martin Luther’s thesis against indulgences on the doors of a Catholic cathedral, affixing Yahowah’s testimony to the door of every Christian church might actually open some eyes.

At this point, Sha’uwl contradicts himself. The “Jewish activities” and religion he has been condemning, he says make Jews superior to heathen Gentile outcasts, in spite of the fact that he has catered to their sensibilities. While it proves that Paul cannot be trusted, there was a reason for his duplicity. Within the context of an irrational argument like this one, a disingenuous individual can feign allegiance and sympathy toward Jews, for example, thereby forestalling the charge of being an anti-Semite, while not risking the loss of his devotees because it would never dawn on them to question him.

“We (emeis) Yahuwdym (Ioudaios – Judeans) by nature (physis – in origin and character) and (kai) not (ou) from (ek) sinful (hamartolos – social outcasts avoiding the way and thus heathen) races (ethnos – ethnicities).” (Galatians 2:15)

Hamartolos was commonly used by the Pharisees to describe and demean a “Jew who was not religious and who did not adhere to rabbinical rules and traditions.” From the perspective of a rabbi, it is akin to using the “N” word.

This “verse” was comprised of a pronoun (ego), two nouns (physis and ethnos), two adjectives (Ioudaios and amartolos), a conjunction (kai), a negative particle (ou), and a preposition (ek), all manner of speech except a verb. It was therefore rendered as follows by the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear: “We in nature Judeans and not from nations sinners...”

287Yahowah does not want His children to emulate the pagan ways of the Gentile nations and says so regularly in the Torah and Prophets. But He is equally condemning when it comes to the religious and political conduct of Yisra’elites. Therefore, being “Yahuwdym by nature” does not exclude them from being sinful. In other words, Paul’s comments continue to conflict with God’s testimony.

Also, by stating this in conjunction with his concocted “Ioudaizein – acting Jewish / Judaizer” commentary, Sha’uwl seems to be suggesting that it is appropriate to follow Jewish traditions. However, that is not the case, at least according to Yahowah and Yahowsha’. Even worse, in the next chapter, we find Sha’uwl awkwardly and immediately transitioning to a denunciation of the Towrah, claiming that it cannot save, putting his preamble in conflict with his conclusion.

While the Greek text was grammatically inadequate, 17^th century English bible translators stood ready to make the founder of their religion appear literate. The KJV published: “We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,” Jerome in his LV tried: “By nature, we are Iudæi, and not of the Gentibus, sinners.” Even the NLT played along: “‘You and I are Jews by birth, not “sinners” like the Gentiles.’”

Paul just used a dreadful pejorative to demean those he was asking to believe him and yet it did not faze them. But why should we be surprised? He told them that he was insane and demon-possessed, and that did not cause them to question him either.