288Questioning Paul

Towrahless

…Without Guidance

 

7

Pistis | Faith

 

Without Evidence or Reason…

At long last, the Galatians epistle has moved beyond glorifying Paul and demeaning Peter. So let the Great Debate begin. Should we believe Sha’uwl’s “Gospel of Grace” or should we trust Yahowah’s Towrah?

Since the last thing Sha’uwl scribed was a sentence fragment, and since his next sentence has an unspecified subject, let’s transition into the debate by restating the previous verse. “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)

Then, in the order of their appearance, and rendered as correctly and completely as his words allow, this is what comes next...

“[And now (de – but then by contrast, not extant in the oldest manuscripts)] having come to realize without investigation or evidence (oida – having intuitively appreciated without doing any research, having perceived and become acquainted, having acknowledged without observation (deployed as the weakest form of knowing)) that (hoti – because) by no means whatsoever (ou – not at all and never) is made right, is vindicated, or made righteous (dikaioo – is justified, acquitted, put right, or 289shown to be in compliance, is judged innocent, removed from guilt, or set free, is in the right relationship) man (anthropos – a human being) out of (ek – by means of) tasks and activities associated with (ergon – works someone undertakes, engages in, or acts upon, anything that is done, including actions or accomplishments associated with) the Towrah (nomou – being nourished by that which is bestowed to become heirs, precepts which were apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper and approved, and prescriptions for an inheritance; from nemo – that which is provided, assigned, and distributed to heirs to nourish them) if (ean – a marker of a condition with the implication of a reduced probability) not (me) by (dia – through) belief and faith in (pistis – originally meant trust but evolved to faith or belief as a result of Sha’uwl’s usage in these letters) Iesou (ΙΗΝ – a placeholder for Yahowsha’) Christou (ΧΡΝ – a placeholder for Ma’aseyah),....” (Galatians 2:16)

The realization that we cannot work for our salvation, and that no one can earn a trip to heaven, is firmly established throughout the Towrah. Salvation is the byproduct of the Covenant and is God’s merciful gift to His children. But also explicit in the Towrah is the realization that salvation only comes to those who, having closely and carefully observed Yahowah’s “Towrah – Guidance,” have come to know, understand, and accept the terms and conditions of Covenant, and to those who have answered Yahowah’s Invitations to Meet, thereby walking to God along the path that He has provided. The Towrah alone provides the Divine Instructions required to be adopted into our Heavenly Father’s family and to be saved by Him. Exposing this reality was the entire purpose of Yahowsha’s life.

Said another way, the Towrah, its God, Covenant, and Invitations to Meet saved Yahowah’s children long before Yahowsha’ walked into Yaruwshalaim on Passover to 290fulfill its promises. Yahowah etched this truth in stone. And apart from accepting Yahowah’s Covenant’s terms and answering His Towrah’s Invitations, Yahowsha’s life becomes irrelevant. Believing in him will not do anyone any good if they don’t come to know who he is, what he did, when he did it, and why he did it, then respond appropriately. None of these things can be known or understood apart from Yahowah’s “Towrah – Teaching.”

Yahowsha’ was not only Towrah observant, he was the living embodiment of the Word of Yahowah. If you know the Towrah, you know him. If you do not understand the Towrah, there is no possible way to understand him or benefit from Yahowsha’s role as the Passover Lamb.

Paul is therefore making a distinction where none exists, and thereby attempting to make “belief” in Iesou Christou the solution to his proposition that the Towrah cannot save. But the Towrah not only can save, and is God’s lone means to save, it is only by responding to the Towrah’s Guidance that we benefit from what Yahowsha’ has done.

Since Sha’uwl’s proposition that the Towrah cannot save is untrue, it follows that his remedy, “if not by belief and faith in Iesou Christou,” is without merit. However, even if his preamble were accurate, and it is not, his conditional proposal is invalid on its own. One’s belief in Iesou Christou is beside the point. What matters is that the Towrah is true, reliable, and dependable. Yahowsha’ affirmed this many times. Therefore, Yahowsha’s reliance on the Towrah is important, as was His insistence that it is truthful and dependable, because without this he would not have followed it nor fulfilled it.

Taking this one step further, Yahowsha’, a name which means “Yahowah Saves,” is not an independent being. He received Yahowah’s soul and His Spirit. And since Yahowah authored the Towrah, Yahowsha’ affirmed 291it. It then follows that if Yahowah’s Towrah cannot save, then neither can Yahowsha’. And this brings us back to the realization that Sha’uwl created a distinction where none actually exists. But by doing so, by trying to resolve a problem which does not exist by way of faith in a false assertion, Sha’uwl negated Yahowsha’s life, his example, his testimony, his nature, his purpose, and his sacrifice. It is all for naught.

To be saved, we must walk to Yahowah the way He has provided, along the path Yahowsha’ did, which begins with the life-giving doorway labeled Pesach | Passover, across the cleaning threshold called Matsah | UnYeasted Bread, and into the loving arms of God on Bikuwrym | Firstborn Children, where the Covenant’s children are adopted into the foremost family. This requires us to know, to understand, to act and rely upon the Seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with Yahowah – a path which is presented exclusively in the Towrah. This is not just a way to God; it is the only Way. So therefore, Paul’s proposition that the Towrah cannot save is in direct opposition to Yahowah’s and Yahowsha’s testimony and example.

If what Sha’uwl wrote was true, Adam and Chawah, Noah and His family, Abraham and Sarah, Yitschaq and Ya’aqob, Moseh and ‘Aharown, Yahowsha’ ben Nuwn and King Dowd (David), Enoch and ‘Elyah (Elijah), Shamuw’el (Samuel) and all of the prophets from Yasha’yah (Isaiah) to Yirma’yah (Jeremiah), from Zakaryah (Zechariah) to Mal’aky (Malachi) were all subjected to a cruel hoax by a God who lied about their salvation, thereby dooming all of them to eternal damnation in She’owl. And if He couldn’t be trusted then, why would He be reliable now?

Since Sha’uwl’s assertion is irrefutably irreconcilable with Yahowah’s testimony throughout the Towrah and Prophets, let’s not rely on my translation of his letter. Please consider the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 29227^th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear presentation of the first half of Galatians 2:16: “Having known but that not is made right man from works of law except [not applicable] through trust of Jesus Christ...” (In its raw and unedited form there is no confusing this with the Torah or Prophets.)

So now for the housekeeping issues. For those following along using an interlinear, the de, meaning “yet or but” found in modern-Greek manuscripts, and thus in our translations, isn’t found in Papyrus 46, the oldest codex containing this letter, but the rest of the words are accurately attested. So, while I’ve included it, it may be a scribal addition.

Next, you should be aware that of the three Greek words which can be rendered “know,” oida, which was translated “come to realize without investigation or evidence,” is the weakest and least thoughtful. In a culture that valued knowing above all else, oida was the most focused on “perceptions and opinions.” It cannot be used in reference to a conclusion that has been predicated upon a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence.

I suspect Sha’uwl chose it because a close examination of the Towrah consistently undermines Pauline Doctrine. Had Sha’uwl written “ginosko – know relationally,” or even “epiginosko – know for certain based upon a thorough evaluation of the facts,” it would have required his readers to observe the Towrah, closely examining and carefully considering it. Doing so would have turned everyone enriched by God’s teaching against him. And it’s not as if he didn’t understand the relative difference between the words. Elsewhere in Galatians, he will use ginosko. Therefore, Sha’uwl is appealing to ignorance.

Oida was scribed in the perfect plural which suggests that the unspecified subjects, which can be either Paul and his source of inspiration or, presumptuously and 293inconsistently, “we Yahuwdym” from the preceding clause, have previously realized without due consideration which should influence current perceptions. In the active voice, the undisclosed subjects have been responsible for the opinions which follow. As a participle, oida is a verbal adjective, letting us know that in this way the perceptions of Paul’s audience are being modified. Further, the participle can function as an imperative, inferring that this is a command.

And as I have mentioned, oida was scribed in the plural, which is the antithesis of God’s style, because He is one. And finally, oida was scribed in the nominative, which reveals that Paul’s audience is being compelled to accept this unsupported and unidentified opinion.

Ou is a harsh, uncompromising, and unequivocal form of negation, which sits in stark contrast to the fuzzy, opinionated nature of “oida – come to acknowledge without evidence.” But such is the nature of religious positions. While their precepts are based upon faith, which is the antithesis of actually knowing, the evidence and conclusions of those suspected of causing suspicion amongst believers are all too often brushed away by protesting, without evidence or reason, those irrefutable facts and unassailable logic “ou – by no means at all could ever” be true. This is somewhat analogous to not only “being entitled to one’s opinions,” but also demanding that others “respect them.”

Next, we find dikaioo, which was translated “is made right, is vindicated, or made righteous.” In that it has been negated by ou, Sha’uwl is saying that “no one is justified or vindicated, acquitted and shown to be in compliance, that no one is ever determined innocent or set free, that no one is declared righteous, nor is it possible for anyone to participate in a rightly guided relationship” with God, and thus no one can engage in the Covenant based upon the Towrah – the lone place that same Covenant is presented.

294This verb was written in the present tense, which presents an action that is currently in progress with no anticipation of when it will be completed – if ever. This is to say that no person “is currently vindicated and that no person may ever become righteous” based upon the Torah. In the passive voice, the unidentified subjects who have formed this unsupported conclusion receive the action of the verb. That means that they can do nothing that makes them right with God, because they are being acted upon as opposed to engaging themselves. Further shaded by the indicative mood, dikaioo reveals Paul is claiming that his statement, and in actuality, his commandment, is authentic. This is the voice of assertion, where the writer is portraying the inability to be saved as being actual and unequivocal, without any possibility of a contingency or the intervention or intent of another.

Therefore, Sha’uwl is saying that God, Himself, cannot save anyone under the conditions He, Himself, laid out. But with the indicative, depending upon the context, the writer may not actually believe that what he is stating is truthful, but is nonetheless presenting it as genuine. Lastly, dikaioo was suffixed in the third person, singular, which makes the path away from God single file, once again upending Yahowah’s teaching where the path to Him is singular and the paths away from Him crowded.

This brings us to ergon, which was translated “tasks and activities associated with,” but could have been just as accurately rendered “by acting upon or engaging in” that which follows, even “works someone undertakes, engages in, or acts upon, anything that is done, including actions or accomplishments associated with” the Towrah. Ergon, which describes “anything someone does, whatsoever they undertake to do, and whatever activities they choose to participate in,” was scribed in the genitive. This restricts this noun to a specific characterization of the next noun, which is nomou, used here to indicate Yahowah’s Towrah.

295Now to the meat of the issue: how did Sha’uwl intend for his audience to view nomou? Is it “Torah” or “Law,” or both? There is every reason to suspect that he wants uninitiated readers to see these adverse terms as if they were one and the same.

Fortunately, or unfortunately, based upon whose side you may be on in this debate, Yahowah’s or Sha’uwl’s, the context which follows provides the answer. Nomou and nomo, the genitive and dative forms of nomos, are used throughout this section of Galatians to demonstrate that according to Sha’uwl Yahowah’s Towrah is a set of laws which cannot be obeyed and thus condemn rather than save. And Paul, himself, translates the Hebrew word towrah in his Galatians 3:10 citation from the Towrah using nomou, forever rendering this debate moot. And by doing so, anyone cognizant of the fact that towrah means “teaching and guidance” in Hebrew, is being disingenuous when they replace the Greek nomos with “Law” in their bible translations of Paul’s letters.

For those willing to ignore the basis of nomos, which is nemo, they will find lexicons slavishly supporting existing bible translations, willing to state that nomos can be rendered “law,” and even “Law” as the Torah is often misrepresented in these same English bibles. According to Strong’s, nomos is rendered “law” all 197 times that it is used in the King James Version of the so-called “Christian New Testament.” And yet they, themselves, define nomos as: “anything established, anything received by usage, a custom, a law, or a command.” They go on to say that nomos describes “a rule producing a state approved of God by the observance of which is approved of God,” even “an action prescribed by reason.”

Unwilling to acknowledge the fact that the Hebrew word towrah does not mean “law” and that Yahowah, not Moseh, was the Towrah’s Author, Strong’s defines nomos as “Mosaic law” – “referring to the context, either to the 296volume of the law or to its contents.” Adding insult to injury, this Christian publication claims that nemos describes “the Christian religion: the law demanding faith, the moral instruction given by Christ, especially the precept concerning love.” Upending this, Strong’s concludes their innovative and convoluted “definition” with: “the name of the more important part (the Pentateuch) is put for the entire collection of the sacred books of the OT.”

While much of what Strong’s provided for our consideration was demonstrably inaccurate, the first thing they wrote, which is missed by most, was actually accurate: “nomos, masculine noun. From a primary word, nemo (to parcel out, especially food or grazing).” Sadly, however, Strong’s does not bother to define nemo further or reference its use elsewhere in the Greek text. Fortunately, there are better lexicons.

The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament reports: “Etymologically, nomos derives from nemo ‘assign.’ Nomos was therefore originally that which has been ‘assigned.’ In Hesiod Philo (Op. 276ff), nomos is ‘the objective order “assigned” to a group of beings.’” In addition, they write: “In translating nomos in the NT one should not resort immediately to the OT understanding of tora. Rather, that a shift in meaning has occurred from tora to nomos should be considered (of the approximately 220 OT occurrences of tora the LXX translates approximately 200 with nomos).” That is to say, while nomos was used ubiquitously in the Septuagint from 200 BCE to 200 CE to represent the Hebrew word, towrah, meaning “teaching, instruction, direction, and guidance,” throughout the Greek translation of the Torah and Prophets, its original meaning was altered. I wonder by whom.

Buried in their analysis, the EDNT recognizes that: “the Torah is, therefore,...the ‘instruction’ of Israel found already in the covenant.” And: “from the very beginning 297the Torah was not understood ‘legally.’ Therefore, the translation ‘law’ (instead of ‘teaching’) does not imply a ‘legal’ understanding.” Those Yahowah initially shared His “Towrah – Teaching,” realized that it represented, not a list of laws, but instead: “guidance, instructions, and directions” from their Heavenly Father.

Of the subsequent misinterpretation, one initiated by infighting amongst rabbis vying for power, the EDNT wrote: “It is open to question whether in the course of the postexilic era [after the return from Babylonian captivity when a compilation of oral traditions was established as a rival to the Towrah] the first traces of a legal understanding of the Torah are evident.”

The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament goes on to share the findings of Monsegwo Pasinya, who wrote: “nomos does not signify ‘Law’ in the legal and juridical sense of classical Greek, but rather ‘Instruction, Teaching, Doctrine,’ in accordance with the original sense of the corresponding Hebrew term tora.”

Taking a step backward, the Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament published: “nomos has a basic meaning law, i.e., what is assigned or proper. Generally, any law in the judicial sphere, as a rule governing one’s conduct, a principle, or more specifically in the NT of the Mosaic system of legislation as revealing the divine will (the Torah) or (Law of Moses).” While errantly representing Yahowah’s Towrah as “law,” at least these folks seem to know that nomos conveyed “what is assigned and proper,” that it communicated “rules governing conduct,” and that in the “NT,” nomos describes “the Mosaic system of legislation as revealing the divine will (the Torah) or (Law of Moses).” So since Paul’s letter to the Galatians is found in the NT, nomos was intended to read “Torah.” But since this concept conveys “the divine will,” it follows then, that according to Paul, it must be God’s will to condemn everyone.

298The Complete Word Study Dictionary, at least in the case of nomos, is especially helpful. It begins by telling us that “nomos, genitive nomou, masculine noun from nemo (see aponemo [6320]) to divide among, to parcel out, to allot. Etymologically something parceled out, allotted, what one has in use and in possession; hence, usage.” Then doing as they suggest, and turning to 6320, aponemo, we find: “from apo, meaning from, and nemo, meaning to give, to attribute, to allot, to apportion, to assign, and to bestow, a derivative of dianemo: to distribute throughout and kleronomos: to become an heir, distributing an inheritance, something parceled out to restore.”

Enriched by this precisely accurate appraisal, let’s consider the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, where we find: “The concept that nomos means law is religious in origin and plays a central role in these cultures.” They go on to state that Rabbinic Judaism and Roman Catholicism were to blame for this corruption of nomos.

In the TDNT, the original meaning of nomos is defined. It isn’t “law,” but instead, its implications “were derived from nemo,” a word which speaks of “being nourished by that which is bestowed to become heirs, of precepts which were apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper and approved, and of prescriptions for an inheritance, that which is provided, assigned, and distributed to heirs to nourish them.” Our Heavenly Father is therefore nourishing His children’s minds with His instructions and teaching us how to live as members of His Covenant family, all while inheriting all that He is offering.

And yet, it is apparent that while Paul was referring to Yahowah’s Towrah, the original meaning of towrah and nomos was not what he intended to convey, because someone who benefitted from nourishment, becoming an heir and receiving His inheritance, would be right with God, growing, healthy, vindicated, and acquitted. Sha’uwl 299instead wanted his audience to read nomos as “Law,” something both oppressive and restraining, restricting one’s liberty while, at the same time, associating these things with the Torah. Nomo and nomou are almost always deployed in the singular and directed at the one and only Torah.

Therefore, while Paul meant his audience to read nomou as “Law,” and think “Torah,” this requires those who believe him to be ignorant of the fact that Towrah is derived from the verb yarah and actually means: “the source from which teaching, direction, instruction, and guidance flow.” It even requires ignorance of the etymology of nomou because, properly translated, Yahowah’s Towrah is actually a source of “nourishment that has been bestowed so that we can become heirs, inheriting and receiving prescriptions which cause us to be proper and approved.” It requires readers to be unaware that ninety percent of the time Towrah appeared in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, nomos was deployed in the Septuagint’s Greek translation of God’s Hebrew terminology.

These things considered, the remainder of this epistle will serve to affirm that the “nomos / nomou / nomo” Paul is attempting to mischaracterize as law, to demean as inept, and to annul as antiquated is Yahowah’s Towrah. And that means that this debate is between Yahowah’s Towrah and Sha’uwl’s Epistles. It is the word of God versus the letters of a man.

Realizing this, the conditional conjunction in Galatians 2:16, “if not by,” from ean me dia, means that, according to Sha’uwl, the remedy for the Towrah’s inability to save those who act upon it “ean me dia pistis ΙΗΝ ΧΡΝ – could be, but probably isn’t, faith in Iesou Christou.” I say “could be” because ean is a “marker of a condition with the implication of a reduced probability,” and thus is not a certainty – faith never is.

300As we make our way through Sha’uwl’s jarring announcement, we must determine how to render pistis – a word which originally conveyed “trust and reliance.” Written here in the genitive feminine form, I translated it “belief and faith,” because Paul’s letters leave no other informed or rational option. Sha’uwl never provides sufficient information to know Yahowsha’, to trust Yahowah, or to rely on His Torah, precluding these connotations. Moreover, Paul consistently positions “faith” as being preferred to knowing and understanding, which are required for trust. In fact, sharing the Torah, and thus learning what it says, is strongly discouraged in favor of simply believing Paul. This is the intended goal of his letters.

While pistis is almost always, and correctly, rendered “faith” or “belief” in English bibles when penned by Sha’uwl, when spoken by Yahowsha’ and His Disciples, we should remain cognizant of the fact that the Greek word originally conveyed “confidence and assurance in what is known.” It spoke of “reliability and proof,” as well as “persuasion based upon a thoughtful evaluation of the evidence.” In Yahowsha’s voice, pistis is a translation of ‘aman – to trust and rely.

Therefore, at the time this epistle was written, pistis, like the Hebrew ‘aman, was about “conviction in the veracity of the truth.” Pistis was “that which evoked trust and that which could be relied upon as being dependable.” And as such, pistis was once the opposite of “faith and belief” because, when evidence is sufficient to know and understand, faith becomes irrelevant—even counterproductive because it tends to stall inquiry.

However, languages evolve. Influential individuals shape the meanings of words. And pistis is the lever upon which Pauline Doctrine pivots. It is his epistles, especially in Christian parlance, which changed the religious lexicon and caused pistis to transition from “trust” to “belief” and 301from “reliance” to “faith.” Paul and his lies have influenced more people than anyone in human history. And twisting words and their meanings was the means to his madness.

Moreover, it bears repeating: Paul never provides the kind of evidence which would be required for someone to know Yahowah or understand His Towrah sufficiently to trust God or rely upon His plan. The same is also true of Yahowsha’. Paul wallows in his name, but in a swamp of his own words.

In the context of Galatians, “trust” is a fish out of water, while “faith” survives swimmingly in this cesspool. Likewise, the founder of the world’s most popular religion transformed the concept of “faith” such that it became synonymous with his religion. Believers are now equated with Christians. Paul and his pals were very good at being bad.

In this particular context, it is actually impossible to credibly translate pistis “trust in or reliance upon” because those who know enough about Yahowsha’ to trust and rely upon what he represents understand that there can be no condition that differentiates between Yahowsha’ and the Towrah. Said another way, since Yahowsha’ was Torah observant, if the Torah cannot save, then neither can he.

A person cannot rely upon and thus benefit from Yahowsha’s contribution to Pesach | Passover – God’s method of offering eternal life – without accepting His Towrah invitation to attend the Miqra’ | Invitation to be Called Out and Meet with God. Moreover, Yahowah precludes participation by uncircumcised men – which is Sha’uwl’s | Paul’s primary point of contention.

God established the condition of circumcision regarding Passover for our benefit because Pesach (extended life) without Matsah (being perfected) is exceedingly counterproductive. The worst possible outcome is to become immortal while remaining corrupt 302because this condition requires incarceration in She’owl | Hell as opposed to having one’s soul cease to exist. Without the sign of the Covenant, without accepting the conditions of the Covenant, there is no way to become part of Yahowah’s family or enter heaven – making eternal life highly undesirable.

Someone who is willing to reject Yahowah’s very simple and straightforward instructions regarding the Beryth is not going to understand, much less appreciate or accept, God’s Miqra’ey to the extent that they are prepared to capitalize upon the benefits they provide. And thereby, Yahowsha’ sacrifice is nullified and Yahowah’s guidance is muted, leaving the faithful estranged from both.

Paul never explains the purpose of the Mow’ed Miqra’ey, and worse, he demeans them. Therefore, his audience is prejudiced against them and bereft of the information required to trust in or rely upon them. To forego the Towrah is to forego living with God. To believe that Yahowah’s Towrah cannot save is to not be saved.

Paul chose oida as his opening verb, hoping that no one would do the research necessary to question the dichotomy he foolishly purports to exist between the Towrah, Yahowsha’, the Covenant, and our salvation through responding to Yahowah’s seven Invitations to Meet with Him. This leaves us with God’s consistent, unwavering, and dependable guidance and example on one hand and Paul’s faith-based religion on the other.

The integration of “if not by belief in Iesou Christou” is completely misdirected. Even if the Towrah had been properly presented and even if Yahowsha’s name had been accurately conveyed, it is Paul’s perceptions of the Towrah that are of concern. So to have any hope of being right, rather than us placing our “faith in him,” we should be celebrating the fact that Yahowsha’s reliance was upon the Towrah and that he trusted it, observed it, affirmed it, lived 303it, and fulfilled it.

Speaking of Yahowsha’, it is highly unlikely that Paul deployed the placeholders we now find in subsequent copies of his letters. He would have had no reason for using them. His audience was not familiar with his Hebrew name or with the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms – so they would not have known what the placeholders represented nor have any way to look them up. They would not have recognized the name, Yahowsha’, nor realized that it meant “Yahowah Frees and Saves.”

Using placeholders would have been counterproductive to Sha’uwl’s mission, which was to present his caricature of “Iesou Christou” as the Savior, not Yahowah. And the name Yahowsha’ would not have allowed that because it not only includes Yahowah’s name, but also because based upon Greek grammar rules, Yahowsha’ was a girl’s name. However, Iesous was sufficiently similar to Zeus’ and Dionysus’ names – the Father and Son of God in Greek mythology, to facilitate attributing the popular gods’ attributes to the one Paul was creating. Therefore, considering these factors, it is all but certain that Paul wrote and said “Iesou, Iesous, and Iesoun” in his appeal to Greeks.

So while Papyrus 46, the oldest extant manuscript of these epistles, uses Divine Placeholders, reason dictates that a scribe in Alexandria, Egypt added them in an effort to harmonize Paul’s letters with the Septuagint to give them an air of authenticity.

As further evidence for this, had Sha’uwl intended to write Yahowsha’s name, he would have been contradicting his mantra since Yahowsha’ means “Yahowah Frees and Saves.” Since Yahowah is our Savior, not Iesou Christou, then salvation is derived from His Towrah. When the name and title are properly communicated, Yahowsha’ cannot be separated from Yahowah, a realization which negates 304Pauline Doctrine.

Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the Divine Placeholders were added by scribes one or more generations after Paul penned his epistles so that they would correspond to the same standard found throughout the Septuagint. Or at the very least, Sha’uwl deployed them realizing that his animosity toward the Torah would conceal their actual meaning.

Lastly in this regard, even if the placeholders were correctly replaced by Yahowsha’s name, there is still an issue with the title. Yahowsha’ was never anointed as a Mashyach and thus cannot be the Messiah. This title was attributed instead by Yahowah to Dowd | David and then stolen by Sha’uwl to create an errant impression. And he was wrong. Yahowsha’ never referred to himself as the Messiah because he was not the Messiah. He was the Passover Lamb.

How is it that the world’s most popular religion grew out of the misappropriation and errant translation of a title afforded to another individual? Are we so foolish, so ignorant and irrational, that it is possible to fool most all of the people most all of the time? Are we so stupid that billions believe this man over the word of God? Evidently so.

The moment we acquiesce to the inevitable, and adjust our rendering of pistis in Sha’uwl’s epistles to “faith,” which is what he obviously intended, and then convey “Iesou Christou,” as Paul most likely said it and wrote it, the few things Paul conveyed which could be construed positively become as deceptive as the rest of his agenda. Consider this proclamation as a prime example: “We Yahuwdym by nature and not from the social outcasts of sinful and heathen races (2:15) having come to realize without investigation or evidence that by no means whatsoever is made right, is vindicated, or made 305righteous man by means of tasks and activities associated with the Towrah if not by belief and faith in Iesou Christou,....” (Galatians 2:15-16)

This changes the paradigm from being an affirmation that we cannot save ourselves to a referendum on religion. And it is a devastating one for Christians because Iesou Christou is a mythical moniker for a savior who is unrelated to Yahowah, one made in the image of a man, one who was killed by men and then resurrected like the pagan gods of the heathen races.

The sum and substance of most religious systems are embodied in the means its members deploy to earn salvation. Depending upon the religion, the faithful either obey religious edicts, make significant monetary contributions, lead a good life, advance the common good, deny themselves, or engage in jihad. In Judaism, for example, one achieves righteousness by complying with Rabbinical Law. Becoming liberated from this works-based salvation scheme would have been cathartic for Sha’uwl, literally turning the world of this former rabbi upside down. Right would be wrong. Wrong would be right. Good would be bad and bad would be good. To develop a relationship with Yahowah, everything he had been told, everything he had experienced, everything he had believed, and everything his family and friends held dear had to be rejected. And sadly, based upon what Paul told his detractors in Acts, he was never able to take this step.

This internal turmoil may have led to Paul’s crusade against legalism. And while he would have been right to expose and condemn the religious myth of works-based salvation, he was wrong in not overtly stating that the set of laws he was impugning were conceived by rabbis. But in all likelihood, that was by design. It wasn’t Rabbinical Law that he was speaking about. Unlike the Towrah, Sha’uwl never cites the Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem Talmud. 306He does, however, misquote the Towrah and even translates the word and title “Towrah” using nomou.

During the time Galatians was written around 50 CE, Yahuwdym represented the overwhelming majority of the followers of The Way. As a result, most of them understood the relationship between Yahowsha’ and the Towrah. And yet, some may have been unable to remove religious traditions from their lives as they were ingrained in their culture. For example, even though I know that Christmas is based on pagan myths, it is such a pervasive part of our society, that it’s difficult to ignore its influence.

Sha’uwl was equally conflicted. As a student of Gamaliel, he had a working knowledge of the Torah and Prophets, but he would have been far more devoted to Jewish Oral Law. As a Pharisee in training, he would have known it better than he knew the Word of God.

And therein lies one of the biggest challenges with Sha’uwl’s epistles. For him, and for the preponderance of religious Jews, then and today, “the Law” was not the “Torah,” but instead Rabbinical Law derived from Oral Traditions known as “Halakhah.” Meaning “the path that one walks,” Halakhah is a set of rules and practices that Orthodox Jews are compelled to follow, including commandments instituted by rabbis and other binding customs. While the Torah is credited as being one of many sources of “Jewish Law,” the overwhelming preponderance of the rules which comprise Halakhah were either conceived or modified by men. Paul’s ubiquitous “But I say” statements are remarkably similar in style and format to what we find throughout the Talmud.

Rabbi Maimonides referenced the Towrah to usurp its credibility for his religion (as did Paul, Muhammad, and Joseph Smith). Corrupted and truncated paraphrases of God’s testimony served as the launching point from which he conceived the list of 613 Mitzvot he compiled in his 307Mishneh. The Talmud is similar in that it consisted of rabbinical arguments on how to interpret the Torah. And in that way, the Talmud reads like Paul’s epistles. It is also similar to the Qur’an, which Talmud readings also inspired. Likewise, Rabbinical Law referenced the Torah to give Rabbis the pretense of authenticity. It is being used the same way by Paul. Akiba’s rantings, like Paul’s, and like Muhammad’s after them, claimed that the Torah was inspired by God and yet they had no compunction against misrepresenting it to make it appear as if it were the source of their twisted religious ideas.

The reason I have brought this to your attention is to let you know that one of the many failings of Paul’s letters is that they purposefully blur the enormous distinction between the Oral Law of the Jews and the Towrah Teaching of Yahowah. The result is that the Torah is deliberately and deceitfully miscast as being both Jewish and as being comprised of a set of Laws. Therefore, when a Christian steeped in Pauline mythology hears that someone is Torah observant, rather than correctly concluding that such individuals are interested in knowing what God had to say, they falsely assume that they are either Jewish or have converted to Judaism. For this alone, Paul’s letters are an abomination.

When trying to make a distinction between these things, Yahowsha’ removed all potential confusion by adding “Naby’ | Prophets” and/or “Mizmowr | Psalms” to his Towrah references, thereby making it obvious that he was speaking of Yahowah’s testimony which begins with the Towrah followed by the Psalms and Writings, and then Prophets. But unfortunately, Sha’uwl did not follow God’s example – in this or any other way.

When Yahowsha’ criticized the inappropriateness of Jewish Law, he always did so in the context of its authors, the rabbis. But Sha’uwl only makes this distinction once, leaving those unwilling to consider his declaration in 308Galatians 3:10, where he actually translates towrah using nomou, guessing which set of instructions he was talking about: Jewish Law or Yahowah’s Torah.

However, the answer screams out of Paul’s letters. If Galatians 2:16 through 5:15 is viewed as a cohesive argument, then every reference to nomos / nomo / nomou must be translated: “Torah.” There is not a single verse referencing Rabbinical Law, and there are many which explicitly reference the Towrah. Moreover, as Paul builds to the climax of his argument in the fourth chapter of Galatians (4:21-25), any doubt that he was assailing Yahowah’s Towrah vanishes. He references the site where the Towrah was revealed to demean its Covenant.

In this light, I would like you to consider the opening statement of Galatians 2:16 once again now that you are aware that its message is hopelessly twisted. “Having come to realize without investigation or evidence that by no means whatsoever is made right, is vindicated, or made righteous man by means of tasks and activities associated with the Towrah if not by belief and faith in Iesou Christou,....”

Therefore, “faith in “Iesou Christou – Jesus Christ” is Paul’s solution to his preposterous notion that Yahowah’s Towrah, His Covenant, and His Seven Invitations are incapable of performing as promised. But if that were true, why did Yahowsha’ observe them and fulfill them?

So it is now Yahowah’s Torah versus Paul’s Gospel. It is trust in Yahowah versus belief in Paul. So tell me, since this is such an obvious choice, why have as few as one in a million chosen God over this deranged individual?

Paul is committed to negating the Towrah’s purpose, to severing the connection between the Towrah and Yahowsha’, and to pitting his Iesou Christou against Yahowah. But when any of these things are done, Yahowsha’s life becomes immaterial, his words lose their 309meaning, and his sacrifice is nullified. There is no salvation, and life under these circumstances is for naught. God becomes unknowable and heaven unobtainable.

Considering this background, we should not be surprised when Paul repeats himself, creating a darkened mirror image of this diabolical message in the second half of Galatians 2:16. Here it is as he intended (that is to say, translated consistently with the rest of this epistle)...

“...and (kai) we (ego) to (eis – into and on) Christon Iesoun (ΧΝ ΙΝ – Divine Placeholders used by early Christian scribes for the misnomer Iesou Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement to create a Godly veneer), ourselves believed (pisteuo – we have had faith (scribed in the aorist tense to portray a snapshot in time without any consideration of the process which may have brought it about, in the active voice revealing that whoever “we” represents was providing the faith, and in the indicative mood indicating that belief is being presented as valid even though the writer may not, himself, concur)) in order for (hina) us to have become righteous, to have been acquitted and set free (dikaioo – for us to be put right or to be vindicated, to be justified and to be shown to be in compliance, to be judged innocent and declared righteous, and to be right in the relationship (scribed in the aorist, passive, subjunctive collectively conveying a current condition without prescient or promise of being acted upon which is probable)) out of (ek) faith in (pisteuo – belief in) Christou (ΧY – Divine Placeholders used by early Christian scribes for Iesou Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement (without the definite article)), and (kai) not (ou) out of (ek – by means of) acting upon or engaging in (ergon – works someone undertakes and which are done, including actions, tasks, accomplishments, or activities associated with) the Towrah (nomou – used to say Torah, the books ascribed to Moses, with the word actually conveying an allotment which is parceled out, the 310inheritance which is given, the nourishment which is bestowed to be possessed and which is used to grow, the precepts which are apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper and approved, and the prescription to become an heir (singular genitive, and thus restricted to a singular specific and unique characterization)), because (hoti) out of (ek) acting upon or engaging in (ergon – things someone undertakes, doing that which is associated with) the Towrah (nomou – used to say Torah, the books ascribed to Moses, with the word actually conveying nourishment which is bestowed to be possessed and used by heirs to be proper and approved) not will be acquitted, vindicated, nor made righteous (ou dikaioo – not will be justified nor set free, not be declared innocent nor be in compliance, not will be in a proper relationship) any (pas – all) flesh (sarx – corporeal mass of humans and animals).” (Galatians 2:16)

It’s a significantly more sinister version of the same errant and lifeless message, this time in reverse order. The reason that the inverse is worse is that this time Sha’uwl eliminates any possibility of absolving him of the crime of denouncing Yahowah’s Towrah. He goes beyond erroneously and unequivocally stating that salvation is entirely the result of “Christon Iesoun believing,” but also that it is absolutely impossible for anyone to be saved by responding to Yahowah’s Towrah | Teaching and Guidance. This is why Yahowah refers to Sha’uwl | Paul as the Son of Evil, the Father of Lies, and the Plague of Death.

While the difference may appear subtle, it is an enormous and deadly step from “having come to realize without evidence that by no means whatsoever is vindicated or made righteous man by means of acting upon the Towrah if not by belief in Iesou Christou,” to “we on Christon Iesoun, ourselves believed in order for us to have become righteous and to have been acquitted and vindicated out of faith in Christou, and not by 311means of acting upon or engaging in the Towrah, because by means of engaging in and acting upon the Towrah, not any flesh will be acquitted nor made righteous.” If you are not careful, the initial statement may seem remotely plausible, especially if Yahowsha’ and the Towrah are combined to render salvation through the Passover Lamb, but that cannot be done with the inverse iteration because belief in Iesoun and acting upon the Towrah are distinct, with one prevailing and the other failing.

While it is not the biggest problem in this pile of rubbish, it bears mentioning, our “sarx – flesh” is irrelevant. Yahowsha’, as does Yahowah, constantly encourages us to value our “nepesh – soul” sufficiently to observe the Towrah and capitalize upon the Covenant. There will be no physical bodies in heaven. Paul’s animosity toward and fixation upon the flesh is a derivative of his Gnostic leanings.

As a master communicator, Yahowah presents His story from every imaginable perspective, using a wide array of characters, word pictures, and symbols. Throughout it all, regardless of the viewpoint or occasion, God is always consistent and consistently correct. But more often than not, man simply repeats his mistakes. That is what Sha’uwl has done in Galatians 2:16.

Since close and careful observation requires effort, since relationships require both parties to engage, since an invitation must be answered, since a path necessitates walking along it to get to wherever it leads, it is a mistake to refrain from “acting upon the Towrah.” By doing so, an individual forestalls all of Yahowah’s guidance and they wander aimlessly.

Knowing that there is no such thing as the “faith of Jesus Christ,” why do you suppose the authors of the King James Version said that there was? “Knowing that a man is 312not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” The notion that God would have “faith” is absurd in the extreme.

And it appears as if we have Jerome and his Latin Vulgate to blame for the anomaly of reason: “And we know that man is not justified by the works of the legis/law, but only by the fidem/faith of Iesu Christi. And so we believe in Christo Iesu, in order that we may be justified by the fide/faith of Christi, and not by the works of the legis/law. For no flesh will be justified by the works of the law.”

Not that it is difficult, Galatians must be twisted for Christianity to survive, so the always entertaining New Living Translation makes their faithful contribution with: “Yet we know that a person is made right with God by faith in Jesus Christ, not by obeying the law. And we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be made right with God because of our faith in Christ, not because we have obeyed the law. For no one will ever be made right with God by obeying the law.”

In their novel enterprise, each of the following words were added without textual justification – all to satisfy the whims of the religious: “yet, we know, a person, is made right, with God, faith, Jesus Christ, obeying, the, law, we have, believed, Christ Jesus, so that, we might, be made, with God, because, our faith, in Christ, we have obeyed, the, for, no one, will ever, be made right, with God, by obeying, the, law, law.” But they were on solid footing with “that, by, in, not, by, and, in, right, because.” Yet in fairness, the NLT can be credited with accurately conveying Paul’s intended message. Too bad what he wrote was not true.

This is the essence of the Christian religion as it was 313conceived and promoted by Paul. The Torah, although positioned as the Word of God, was rejected, considered inept and passé. The fact that Yahowsha’ observed it, affirmed it, and lived it has been ignored. Inexplicably then, faith in him was established as the means to salvation, even though Yahowsha’s testimony and example undermined that premise. The proposition remains as insane as the mind of the man who devised it. This reflects poorly on the ability of men and women to think.

In Yahowsha’s attack on the Scribes and Rabbis in Matthew 23, he clearly identifies his foes. He explains what they have done to earn his condemnation. And then he reveals why it would be inappropriate for any of us to be similarly religious. Therefore, while this is a translation two times over, from Hebrew to Greek and then to English, to the degree that the tenses, voices, and moods capture Yahowsha’s attitude toward political and religious leaders, there is much we can learn from his testimony...

“Then, at that time (tote), Yahowsha’ spoke to (laleo) large crowds of common people (tois ochlos – many, excluding political or religious leaders) and also (kai) to his disciples (tois mathetes autos – followers, those in a close personal relationship, and students who were learning), (23:1) saying (lego): ‘The Scribes (oi Grammateus – the political leaders, experts, scholars, government officials, public servants, clerks, teachers, and the media) and the Pharisees (oi Pharisaios – the rabbis devoted to the Oral Law and Talmud, fundamentalist clerics engaged in the public acceptance and expression of perfunctory religious rites, those who claimed God’s authority for themselves) have appointed themselves, trying to seat themselves with the influence and authority to interpret (kathizo kathedra – have attempted to put themselves in an exalted seat as judges and teachers along with (aorist active indicative)) Moseh. (23:2)

Therefore consequently (oun – accordingly, these 314things being so), individually (pas – or collectively) if (ean – when if ever, and in the unlikely case, presented as a condition which has a low probability of occurring) and to the degree that (hosos – so long as, as much as, and as far as) they might of their own initiative convey (lego – they acting on their own initiative perhaps say, maintain, or intentionally imply at some point in time (aorist active subjunctive)) to you (sy), that you may choose to engage (poieomai – you have the option to act, or even carry out or perform the assigned task (aorist (irrespective of time) active imperative (possibly acting of your own volition))) or (kai – also on the other hand) you can choose to be observant (tereo – you may presently elect to be on your guard, eyes open and focused, beholding and contemplating to learn by looking; from theoreo – attentively viewing, closely surveying, and carefully considering everything that can be perceived and discerned with your eyes, scrutinizing everything within your view (the present tense indicates action which is current and ongoing, the active voice denotes the fact that the observant are themselves acting and engaging in this way, and the imperative mood suggests that this was a polite request which as an expression of freewill, may or may not be accepted)) accordingly (kata).

But (de) the (ta) assigned tasks (ergon – works, acts, pursuits, and undertakings, business, actions, deeds, and things acted upon or engaged in) associated with them, you should refrain from, choosing not to do them ever again (autos me poieomai – these things you should question and be averse to doing them, regarding them you should want to be hesitant, aware of the negative purpose and consequences of these assigned tasks, choosing of your own volition to no longer or ever again, act this way, in denial of the ideas behind these behaviors, negating their assumptions (third-person personal plural masculine pronoun, negative particle, present active imperative verb)).

315For indeed (gar – because), they choose to speak (lego – they try to attribute and imply), but (kai) they never actually act (ou poieomai – they do not desire to genuinely engage nor elect to really perform the assigned tasks on an ongoing basis (present active indicative)).” (Matthew 23:3)

Yahowsha’ was warning people to be wary, even to suspect and to be critical, of Yahuwdah’s leadership – questioning those in positions of political, academic, and religious authority – to the point of disassociating from them. He called those with the most influence “hypocrites.” Unlike Yahowsha’, who follows his own advice, doing what he says, political and religious leaders say one thing while doing another. In opposition to them, Yahowsha’ revealed the means to their madness, saying that they had appointed themselves, claiming the authority to influence the nation by usurping the Towrah’s authority. But contrary to their claims, as was the case with Sha’uwl, neither their authority, their interpretations, nor their instructions came from God – something we would be wise to consider today.

But what is especially relevant here is that Yahowsha’ is as equivocal as words allow relative to the chance possibility that a nation’s leaders might actually say something useful relative to the Towrah. He is translated using “oun – these things being so,” “pas – individually or collectively,” “ean – in the unlikely event with a low probability of occurring,” and “hosos – as far as or to the degree,” that “lego (in the aorist subjunctive) – they might possibly at some time convey something” “sy – to us,” we then can take it under advisement. He said “poieomai (in the aorist imperative) – we could choose the proper response, which might be to engage and act, or not,” in recognition of the fact that the most influential deceivers make their lies appear credible through counterfeit, where some of the strokes are genuine.” Consistent with 316Yahowah’s guidance in the Towrah, Yahowsha’ is “tereo (in the present active imperative) – encouraging us to be observant, to keep our eyes open and be on our guard, so that we can survey and assess the situation, gathering information, and then contemplate what we have learned so that we can make an informed and rational decision.”

In complete discord with most English bibles, Yahowsha’ did not ask us to observe, in the religious sense of “keeping or obeying,” what they say. He was instead asking us to be wary of clerics, so as to scrutinize their words, and thereby determine whether they are in concert with the Towrah or out of tune with it.

The best part of all, however, is God’s conclusion. He is no longer even remotely unequivocal. Yahowsha’ did a great deal more than simply encourage us not to participate in the pursuits of political and religious leaders. The phrase “autos me poieomai,” when scribed in the present imperative, tells us that we should not only refrain from religious and political behavior, but that we should attempt to thwart the political and religious agenda, bringing it to an end – stopping it here, now, and always. Yahowsha’ said: “Don’t do it,” recognizing that, while this was his desire for us, refraining from engaging in religion or politics is our decision.

This particular variation of negation expressly encourages us not to get into the habit of participating in national customs, societal traditions, political parties, or religious rites. In other words, don’t follow the example or the behavior, and do not act upon the stipulations, of government employees, the media, scholars, one’s political leadership, or clerics, especially fundamentalist religious leaders who attempt to assert their authority and who claim to speak for God. Yahowsha’ wants us to question them, to be averse to them, to be hesitant to follow them. He wants us to consider the negative consequences of their agenda. Recognizing the fact that Yahowah’s Guidance is the 317antidote for the plague of religion, Yahowah repeatedly encourages His children to listen to Him while closely and carefully observing His Towrah. Yahowah is anti-religious and anti-political.

In that Yahowsha’ had more to tell us about the hypocrisy and negative influence of societal leaders, both religious and political, let’s listen in a moment longer. It is as if he sees people in positions of authority as parasites, burdening their citizens so that they are compelled to serve them.

“So they tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they, themselves, are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. They do all their deeds to be noticed by men, to be watched and to be seen; for they broaden their phylacteries (read: religious quotes, pontifications, and outward appearances) and lengthen the tassels of their garments (read: decorated uniforms, clerical robes, and distinguished suits and trappings). They love the place of honor at banquets, the most valued seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi (meaning “exalted”) by men.’” (Matthew 23:4-7)

Yahowsha’ was blunt when he exposed and condemned the Scribes and Pharisees. He was not only rebuking their hypocrisy, he demonstrated how we, ourselves, should respond to all religious and political proclamations. We ought to be wary of Rabbinical Law, of the Talmud, and of religious and political parties. His advice was clear: scrutinize everything they say and don’t do anything they do. And in this context, it is worth noting that Sha’uwl has told us that he was trained to be a Rabbi. He was and remains one of them. He acts and sounds remarkably similar to those Yahowsha’ scorned and warned us about.

318But there was more to Yahowsha’s instruction. Under the surface, he was contrasting man’s legalistic religious schemes with his perspective on the Covenant relationship. Men place burdens on people, oppressing them. Religions are works based, and thus one’s salvation is predicated upon what they do. By contrast, while God wants us to engage in a relationship with Him, He gives infinitely more than we provide. And when it comes to our salvation, God requires nothing of us, except that we accept the conditions of His Covenant, answer His Invitations, and walk along the path He has provided, reaching up and grasping His hand. Said another way, God lifted the burden of sin from us, taking it upon Himself.

These insights, one superficial, the other lingering right beneath the surface, are what is missing in Paul’s writings. On the surface, his communication skills are deplorable. And the deeper one looks, the more obvious it becomes that he was weaving a web to ensnare his victims.

There is no more devilish or diabolical act than misrepresenting Yahowah’s testimony, and yet this is what Sha’uwl has done by denouncing His ability to save His children. It renders everything Yahowsha’ said and did invalid.

And don’t be confused by the notion that Sha’uwl repetitively claims to be authorized by God. Muhammad did the same thing, and in his religion, Allah is Satan. Both did it to satiate their lust for unchallenged power and to neuter their critics.

Sha’uwl neither met, spoke with, nor knows Yahowah. He never once explains the meaning behind Yahowsha’s name or his title, both of which are essential to knowing who he is and what he has sacrificed for us. Paul never once explains the terms and conditions of the Covenant, which is the only way to engage in a relationship with God. He never speaks of Yahowah’s seven annual Meetings or 319mentions that they represent the narrow path to God and thus to our redemption. There isn’t a single reference in his letters to Yahowsha’s Instruction on the Mount, where Yahowsha’ conveyed the enduring nature of the Towrah to all who would listen. Not once does Sha’uwl present Yahowsha’ as the Passover Lamb, and twice he lies, promoting the preposterous myth that “the completeness of the godhead resided on him bodily.”

Everything Paul has written is untrue. And while we have not yet seen an example, should one arise, the occasional accurate statement will only serve to distract those who are easily confused. He was an extraordinarily evil man. And with his last statement, he has removed the veil hiding his hideous nature.