320Questioning Paul

Towrahless

…Without Guidance

 

8

Christo | Drugged

 

Intoxicating…

When Yahowah warned us that Sha’uwl would be “intoxicating” in Chabaquwq / Habakkuk 666 years in advance of his letter to the Galatians, I suspect that He was referring to the inebriation of Christo | Drugged.

“Indeed, this revelation from God is for the Mow’ed | Appointed Meeting Times. It provides a witness and speaks, pouring out evidence in the end which entraps. The extended period required for this question to be resolved shall not prove it false. Expect him in this regard because he will absolutely come and not be delayed. (Chabaquwq / Habakkuk 2:3)

Pay attention, he will be puffed up with false pride. His soul, it is not right nor straightforward in him.

Therefore, through trust and reliance, by being firmly established and upheld by that which is dependable and truthful, those who are correct and thus vindicated, shall live. (Chabaquwq / Habakkuk 2:4)

Moreover, because the intoxicating and inebriating spirit of the man of deceptive infidelity and treacherous betrayal is arrogant and immoral with his meritless presumptions, he will not rest, peace, nor live, whoever is open to the broad path, the duplicitous and improper way, associated with Sha’uwl. He and his soul are considered the plague of death.

321And so those who are brought together by him, accepting him, will never be satisfied. Most every Gentile will gather unto him, all of the people from different races and nations, (2:5) because they do not ask questions, any of them, about him.

Terse references to the Word they lift up as taunts to ridicule, along with allusive sayings, simplistic and contrived equivalencies, and mocking interpretations, controlling through comparison, counterfeit and clichés, along with derisive words condescendingly conveyed.

There are hard and perplexing questions which need to be asked of him, and double-dealings to be known regarding him. And so they should say, “Woe to the one who claims to be great so as to increase his offspring, acting like a rabbi, when neither applies to him.

For how long will they make pledges based upon his significance, becoming burdened by his testimony?” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:6)

As a result of Sha’uwl, Christians have become christo | intoxicated. They are inebriated by his convoluted and disorienting rhetoric depicting a dying and resurrected god.

Moving on with Galatians, there would be no point to Yahowah’s willingness to acquit us on Matsah | UnYeasted Bread if we were not mistaken. Therefore, since that was God’s intended purpose, what are we to make of Sha’uwl’s next statement?

“But (de) if (ei) seeking and finding (zeteo – desiring and looking for, asking or demanding, and trying to obtain) to be made righteous (dikaioo – to be vindicated and innocent, to be right) in (en) Christo (ΧΡΩ – the Ma’aseyah (but without the definite article, the errant Christou used as a name is a better grammatical fit than the 322appropriate title “the Work of Yahowah”)), we were found (heuriskomai – we were discovered and were experiencing), also (kai) ourselves (autos) sinners (hamartolos – social outcasts devoted to sin and estranged by missing the way), should not we be anxious (ara – an interrogative implying impatience, anxiety, and distress over a question with a negative response) Christos becomes (ΧΣ – placeholder for the Ma’aseyah (scribed in the nominative whereby the subject of the noun is renamed, inferring “to be”)) a guilty, errant, and misled sin (hamartia – an evil, mistaken, and estranged) servant (diakonos)? Not (me) may it exist (ginomai – may it be, become, or happen (scribed in the aorist (a snippet in time without respect to a process or a plan), middle (saying that the subject, which is implied to be Christos, is being affected, and thus is becoming misled and mistaken, by his own action), and optative (whereby the writer is portraying this as being possible and desirable)))?” (Galatians 2:17)

The Pauline Christo has now been condemned along with his disciples. At least Paul was consistent. We remain mired in the realm of poor writing and errant notions.

Before discussing this rather odd statement, let’s consider how Christian publications rendered it. The scholastically acclaimed Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27^th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear, the NA for brevity henceforth, attests: “If but seeking to be made right in Christ, we were found also ourselves sinners, then Christ of sin servant. Not may it become.” The KJV proposed: “But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.” LV: “But if, while seeking to be justified in Christo, we ourselves are also found to be sinners, would then Christus be the minister of sin? Let it not be so!” If this was Divinely inspired, why was it necessary for Paul to answer his question?

323While some may applaud the NLT for attempting to make sense of the senseless, the arrogance of independently authoring something they have the audacity to pass off as “Scripture” is appalling and reprehensible. “But suppose we seek to be made right with God through faith in Christ and then we are found guilty because we have abandoned the law. Would that mean Christ has led us into sin? Absolutely not!” A-Paul-ing indeed.

According to Yahowah’s “Towrah – Teaching,” and common courtesy, our first priority should not be our salvation. We should instead seek to know Yahowah first. Second, through careful observation of the Towrah, we should come to understand the terms and benefits of His Covenant so that we can participate in this relationship by embracing all five of Yah’s conditions, thereby becoming children in our Heavenly Father’s family. And then third, during this process, we are invited to walk to God along the path He has provided to make us perfect in addition to immortal, enriched, and empowered. Therefore, seek Yahowah first, inclusion in His Covenant, next, because only then can we be vindicated.

It would be irrational and counterproductive for God to save those who neither know Him nor enjoy His company. Heaven, filled with the same kind of people who populate the Earth would cause it to be no less horrific than the mess we have made for ourselves here – only then the problems would be everlasting, turning heaven into hell. God is smart enough to populate His home with those who find His guidance worthy and His teaching edifying, even enjoyable. This then, as a result of Paul’s letters, excludes all Christians.

Therefore Paul, as is the case with his faithful, has this all wrong. It is as if they are desirous of being saved by a God they do not know and whose plans they do not respect. They are unwilling to consider the fact that a sane God would have no interest in spending eternity with such 324misled and self-centered individuals.

Imagine their horror if allowed in only to discover that there is no Lord, no Jesus, no Christ, no Holy Ghost, no Saint Paul, no Saint Matthew, nor Saint Luke, no New Testament, no church, nor any crosses, no bowing, no prayer, no donations, nor worship, no Sunday services, no Christmas, nor Easter. Imagine their horror to be confronted by Yahowah, the God they replaced, His Towrah, and His Covenant, along with the Jews they sought to replace and demean.

It is the Miqra’ of Matsah which makes us perfect, not Christo. Yahowah promised to remove the fungus of sin from the souls of those who answered His Invitation to be Called Out and Meet on UnYeasted Bread. Yahowah’s soul paid the price to ransom those who avail themselves of this promise.

This is not complicated. Yahowsha’s name means “Yahowah Saves,” revealing to us that Yahowah is our Savior, not Christo.

Especially telling in Galatians 2:17, “heuriskomai – we were found” was written in the aorist indicative which denotes “past tense.” It was also scribed in the passive, suggesting that the condition of being sinners was placed upon us. Reason dictates that this was done to infer that the Torah makes people sinners, when in actuality, it is the Torah which resolves the issue of our sin. Also, based upon the tenses, this cannot be inferred that by continuing to sin after being saved that we are somehow disrespecting Yahowsha’s sacrifice. From Paul’s warped perspective, it is the Torah which causes everyone to be evil and misled.

I am not extrapolating here. As we discovered previously, Paul says that the Torah is the source of sin and death in his letter to the Romans:

“For when we were in the flesh, the passion of 325sinning brought through the Torah were working in our members to bear fruit unto death.

But now that we have been released from the Torah, having died to what we were held by, we should serve in the newness of spirit and not in the oldness of letter.

What shall we say? Is the Torah sin? Not may it be. However, I did not know sin except through the Torah....

For apart from the Torah, sin is dead, and thus nonexistent. And I was alive apart from the Torah once, but when the command came, the sin revived, and I died.

The commandment which was to result in life, this I found resulted in death. For sin, having taken the occasion through the commandment, deceived me, and through it, killed me.” (Romans 7:5-11)

According to Sha’uwl the Torah is the source of sin and the cause of death. The cure was Iesou Christo – a drug so intoxicating, billions would come to prefer his elixir to the truth.

Sha’uwl’s parting comment: “Me ginomai – not may it exist” was scribed in the aorist, which represents a snippet in time without respect to a process or a plan. The process and plan from which the phrase was being disassociated were the Towrah, its Covenant and Invitations. In the middle voice, Paul is saying that the subject, which is implied to be Christos, is being affected, and thus is becoming misled and mistaken, by his own actions. Paul’s god, therefore, needs his help, his correction and preaching, to resolve that problem. This arrogant position was underscored by the interjection of the optative mood, where we discover that Paul is actually portraying this perverted perspective as being possible and even 326desirable. It is shades of Colossians 1:24-26 all over again. Paul is affirming that he is “co-savior” and “co-author” of his plan of salvation.

Based upon the grammatical choices Sha’uwl made as the writer, he was expressing his own personal desires regarding the portrayal of a new prospect he wanted to achieve and promote. He was, therefore, communicating his own personal longings with this statement, and obviously not God’s will or plan. As a snapshot in time, Paul was expressly disassociating Yahowsha’s life from its foundation in the Torah. Further, Paul wanted his audience to view his “Christ” as a new paradigm, and from the perspective of a “New Testament.” Such is the essence of Pauline Doctrine.

With this in mind, if the fifteenth through twenty-first verses are evaluated as one cohesive thought, then the seventeenth verse transitions from nearly incomprehensible to utterly unconscionable. According to Paul, the source of sin, the very definition of sin, is the Torah. Just as sin is wrong, Paul believes that doing what the Torah says is wrong.

And yet the moment that the Passover and UnYeasted Bread sacrifices are disassociated from their Torah’s promises of Firstborn Children and the Promise of the Shabat, Yahowsha’s ordeal and life no longer have any purpose or benefit. Apart from the Towrah, Yahowsha’s life was a lie and he endured it all for nothing.

What follows is so awkwardly worded, it was not until I came to understand Sha’uwl, that I was prepared to decipher his arrogant and obnoxious claim. According to the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear, he wrote and the NAMI published: “If for what I unloosed these again I build transgressor myself I commend.” This rendering is based upon the following Greek words, this time more completely and correctly translated...

327“Because (gar – for) if (ei – upon the condition real or imagined) that which (os) I have actually torn down, dissolved, and dismantled (kataluo – I have put down, invalidated, abolished, disunited, overthrew, negated, rendered vain, deprived of benefit, brought to naught, subverted, abrogated, discarded, put an end to, and completely destroyed), this (houtos) on the other hand (palin – making a contrast) I restore or reconstruct (oikodomeo – I repair or rebuild this household (i.e., the Towrah’s Covenant), strengthening and promoting this edifice) transgression and disobedience (parabates – negligence, violation of the Towrah and an abandonment of trust, passing over and leaving the previously established path untouched), I myself (emautou – of myself, by myself, and on my own accord) stand with, bring into existence, and recommend (synistao – commend, demonstrate, arrange, establish, set into place, and approve).” (Galatians 2:18)

Kataluo was written katelusa, which is first-person, singular, aorist, active, indicative. First-person singular active means that Sha’uwl is personally taking credit for this, while the aorist indicative reveals that Sha’uwl has already accomplished this feat – as in past tense. Cognizant of these grammatical nuances, katelusa says: “I have already torn down” “this home and household.” It means “I have really put [the Towrah and its Covenant Family] down in the sense of demeaning it.” He would have us believe, “I have actually dismantled, dissolved, and destroyed” Yahowah’s Towrah, taking His Covenant down with it. And the fact that Paul’s next statement says that he actually died as a result of the Towrah, it is certain this demonic individual is claiming to have “invalidated, subverted, and discarded” the Word of God.

Kataluo is a compound of kata, meaning “down with, according to, or against,” and luo is “to undo that which connects.” It is used to speak of “breaking up a marriage,” 328to “deprive an authority of influence,” and to “render something unlawful.” The Covenant is often presented as a marriage and the Torah was written under the authority of God.

More telling still, katalusa also means: “I have actually loosened that which was previously bound and have removed a burden.” It often refers to “travelers loosening the yokes and burdens of their animals when they arrive home at the end of a journey.” Therefore, Sha’uwl not only believes that “he has personally dissolved” the Torah and “dismantled it,” he believes that “he has personally and actually untied the yoke” of the Torah and “removed this burden” from his believers. In so doing, Sha’uwl has affirmed that he is the bane of Shim’own | Peter, and of whom Yahowsha’ warned.

Now that Sha’uwl has taken credit for having “kataluo – belittled and dissolved, dismantled and invalidated, then discarded and abrogated” the Torah, the last thing he wants is to restore or resurrect it anew. So, in an ironic twist, he says that to observe the Torah is to be “parabates – Torahless.” How is that for circular reasoning?

In that Paul’s rhetoric is clever, this bears repeating. The reason he stated in the sixteenth verse that “no one is saved by acting upon the Torah,” not once but twice, is that he wants to dissolve the Torah, dismantling and destroying the Word of God. So now that he has established his “New Testament” in the seventeenth verse, in the eighteenth, he is saying that he doesn’t want God’s “Old Testament” to be reestablished.

The depths of Sha’uwl’s depravity knows no bounds. He is fully aware that the Hebrew word, beryth, meaning “Covenant Relationship,” is based upon beyth, the Hebrew word for “family and home.” And that is where oikodomeo comes in. It is usually translated as “built or rebuilt,” but that obfuscates Sha’uwl’s intent and the verb’s actual 329meaning. You see, oikodomeo is a compound of oikos, “house, home, household, and familial dwelling place,” and doma, “building a home.” Therefore, the “house, home, and familial dwelling place” Sha’uwl claims to have “torn down, destroyed, discarded” is Yahowah’s “beryth – Familial Covenant Relationship.” He will affirm this horrid suggestion later in this same letter, saying that the Covenant presented in the Towrah had to be replaced because it was of the flesh and enslaved.

The one thing Paul got right, however, is his conclusion: “I myself (emautou – of myself, by myself, and on my own accord) stand with, bring into existence, and recommend (synistao – commend, demonstrate, arrange, establish, set into place, and approve) transgression and disobedience (parabates – negligence, violation of the Towrah and an abandonment of trust, passing over and leaving the previously established path untouched).”

And even with this confession, Sha’uwl was mocking God and playing his audience for fools. Parabates is from parabaino, which means “to turn away from, to depart from, to overstep, and neglect the path, to go a different way without passing through or touching the previously established route.” It is a compound of para, “with and beside,” and baino, “walking.” Therefore, Sha’uwl wants believers to follow him on a new path which not only bypasses the established route of the Torah, but also walks away from God.

The message Paul should have conveyed is that there are two reasons that it is not appropriate for us to habitually sin after we have been saved. First, when we accept our Heavenly Father’s Torah advice on how to live, our lives are more joyous and productive. And our relationship with God is enhanced. Second, while our sin does not lead to our expulsion from Yahowah’s family and home, it can influence the choices others make with regard to 330associating with God. If it is obvious that we do not respect what Yahowah has told us when we disregard His Torah, then why would anyone trust what we have to say regarding Yahowah’s Word?

While we have to smile at the use of “prevaricator,” it would be unfair to criticize these translations based upon what they had to work with. LV: “For if I rebuild the things that I have destroyed, I establish myself as a prevaricator.” KJV: “For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.” Since neither Bacon nor Jerome valued the Towrah and its Covenant, they were comfortable sharing Paul’s claim of having dissolved it.

Here we can blame the New Living Translation’s anti-Torah and Covenant rhetoric on Paul. This is very close to what he intended to convey. “Rather, I am a sinner if I rebuild the old system of law I already tore down.” This was written in Paul’s voice, so it reveals that Paul believes that he would be a sinner, not based upon rejecting Yahowah’s Torah, but instead if he affirmed it. If this does not make you angry, then you do not know God.

Dissolving Yahowah’s Torah and replacing it with Paul’s “Gospel of Grace” is in Christendom’s DNA. Since Christians have no conception of how the Torah and Rabbinical traditions differ, it is seen as Christians replacing Jews. While both concepts are wrong, those Paul has beguiled view the Torah as both “the Law” and Judaism. So, if the church, a pastor, or a professor continue to make this claim, attribute it to ignorance and confusion.

In the 19^th verse, two derivations of the Greek word nomos are repeated side by side, even in the oldest extant copies of Paul’s letter. So, the pieces which comprise Sha’uwl’s next puzzle, in the order of their appearance in the Greek text, reveal that, according to Sha’uwl, the Torah is deadly and estranging: “I for through law in law died that to God I might live. In Christ I have been crucified 331together.” (Nestle-Aland Interlinear)

A closer examination further reveals:

“I (ego) then (gar – by reason of and because) by (dia – through and on account of) the Towrah’s (nomou – the Apportionment’s (the genitive case restricts the noun to a specific characterization, marking it as the source of)) allotment and law (nomo – share which is parceled out, inheritance which is given, nourishment which is bestowed to be possessed and used, precept which was established and is received as a means to be proper and approved, prescription to become an heir; from nemo – that which is provided, assigned, and distributed to heirs to nourish them (the dative denotes an indirect object and refers to the person or thing to which something is given or done)) I actually died and was separated (apothnesko – I endured physical and spiritual death (aorist (without regard for process, plan, or precedent), active (which says that the subject, which is Paul, killed himself) indicative (inferring that the reader is to believe that this actually happened in the past, that his death was real, not symbolic, even though Paul, himself, doesn’t believe it) first person singular)) in order that to (hina – so as a result for the purpose of) God (ΘΩ) I might currently live (zao – I am probably alive as a result of my personal actions (in the aorist tense this reference to life is a snapshot of the condition without any connection to any plan or process, in the active voice, Paul is responsible for restoring his own life, and in the subjunctive mood, this condition is a possibility, not a probability nor a certainty)).

In Christo (ΧΡΩ – Divine Placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement) I have actually been crucified together with (Ω suneotrai – I was affixed to an upright pole accompanying and beside; from sun – with, beside, and accompanying, together and in union with, and stauroo – to be staked, from stauros – upon an upright pole; 332(perfect tense describes a complete action in the past which carries forward into the writer’s presence, the passive voice and indicative mood signifies that this was actually done to Sha’uwl, first-person singular)).” (Galatians 2:19)

Before we consider this iteration of Sha’uwl’s theology, and try to make sense of this man’s claim to have been killed by Yahowah’s Torah only to have been crucified alongside Yahowsha’, let’s reexamine the keywords under an etymological microscope. As we discovered a moment ago, nomou and nomo are derived from nemo, the Greek word meaning: “to provide, to assign, and to distribute an inheritance to nourish heirs.” Based upon nemo, nomos, nomo, and nomou reflect “an allotment which is bestowed and parceled out for the purpose of feeding God’s hungry sheep.” Metaphorically, then, nemo, nomos, and nomou describe “a prescription for living which is given to us by God so that we might thrive with Him as His children, so that we might be fed and grow, inheriting all of the property and possessions that are His to give.” In this regard, and properly defined, nomos, nomo, and nomou actually provide a fitting depiction of Yahowah’s “Towrah – teaching, guidance, direction, and instruction” on the benefits of choosing to engage in His Covenant Family.

In that the world is part of our inheritance from God, and because it nourishes us, nomos was used to depict “the natural systems which undergird the universe” and to convey the “order assigned to nourish and support life.” These concepts are also consistent with the Towrah and its Covenant.

Digging ever deeper, but not going in the right direction, Greek Sophists, known as philosophers (men of rhetoric), often wrote of the nomos being “a collection of false opinions formed by the majority.” By this definition, the Oral Law of the Rabbis and Church Canon Law are examples. The Greek Stoics (who held that men should be 333free from passion, unmoved by grief or joy, and submissive to natural systems) saw the nomos as “universal truth,” something they, themselves, knew very little about.

Also germane to this discussion, while Rabbis were skilled in Hebrew and Aramaic, to the extent that they communicated in Greek, they associated nomos with their Talmud, or Jewish Law. Sha’uwl, as a rabbinical student, appears to have seized upon this misappropriation of the term in his attack on Yahowah’s Towrah. Likewise, religious Christian scribes, immersed in and corrupted by Pauline Doctrine, advanced the myth, leaving us with a nearly universal rendering of nomos as “law” in virtually every English bible translation. And the intended implication is then to apply this derogatory mischaracterization to the Towrah, even though there is no actual association between law and Towrah.

So, while there was once, at a time long past, a dichotomy of opinion regarding the meaning of nomos, that is no longer the case today. The word which originally spoke of how the nurturing nature of Yahowah’s Word enabled us to become heirs to the Covenant has become a disparaging and dishonest portrayal of the most important document ever written.

As a result, lexicons, which are universally the products of religious publishers, say that nomos describes societal laws in general and the Torah specifically. And yet jettisoned of this religious baggage, most Greek dictionaries simply say that, in addition to representing “an inheritance or allocation of something which is nourishing,” nomos addresses “the rules related to civil rights and human conduct within a system of justice.”

As we discussed previously, Strong’s initially and accurately conveys that nomos is derived from nemo, which it says spoke of “parceling something out, and especially providing food to grazing animals” – which 334would have been sheep in the day, but they get many things wrong from that point on. And in concert with the primary revelation, The Complete Word Study Dictionary reveals that “nomos and nomou are from nemo, meaning: to divide among, to parcel out, to allot, to use and possess.” As we have learned, they then point to aponemo, the variation of the word used in Shim’own / 1 Peter 3:7 to convey “heir,” for a more complete understanding. The apo prefix of aponemo means “from” and addresses the ideas “of going forth, proceeding from one object to another, and of separation in the sense of being set apart from an entity that it was originally part.”

This known, the definition then of aponemo is: “to give, to attribute, to allot, to apportion, to assign, and to bestow, distributing an inheritance to an heir.” It is related to “kleronomos – to hold, and to have it in one’s power to distribute an inheritance to an heir,” with klero denoting “an allotment which is divided.” This form of nemo is found in Matthew and “James” to suggest that Yahowsha’ is the heir of all things. Nemo is also akin to dianemo, which is used in Acts to “denote divulging the means to disperse something over a wide area, spreading it throughout the world and throughout time.” And in this case, the prefix dia simply means “through.”

While Strong’s, unwilling to consider its own etymological research, or even Paul’s own translation of towrah using nomos in Galatians 3:10, defines nomos as “anything established, anything received by usage, a custom, a law, a command; representing any law whatsoever,” it was not until the tenth definitional clause that they associated nomos with “the Mosaic law.” The “Torah” was not mentioned by Strong’s. It is one of many reasons that a single lexicon is wholly insufficient. To cut through the clutter of religion, a diligent individual on a quest for the truth has to thoughtfully consider many resources, consistently going over the same material in 335recognition that repetition and understanding serve as the catalysts which enable retention.

In this light, and as I’ve stated previously, in the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, we find: “Etymologically, nomos is derived from nemo, “assign.” They reveal that “in the 5^th century BCE nomos became the written law of the population in the developing Greek democracy as an expression of the will of the deity.” Further, this Exegetical Dictionary writes: “of the approximately 220 OT occurrences of tora, the Septuagint translates approximately 200 with nomos, and altogether nomos is found 430 times in the LXX.” (“LXX,” representing the Roman number 70, is the scholarly notation for the Septuagint, the early Greek (circa 200 BCE) translation of the Hebrew Torah, because as its name implies there was a myth that seventy translators were deployed on the project.) So this is the basis for and validation of Sha’uwl’s use of nomos to say “Torah.” Considering the influence of the Septuagint on early Christendom, especially on scribes, based upon this realization, the conclusion that Paul deployed nomos to convey “Torah as Law” is essentially irrefutable.

Interestingly, and I am augmenting some of this to underscore an essential insight, the Exegetical Dictionary also acknowledges: Congo Archbishop “Monsengwo Pasinya [who was awarded a doctorate in Biblical Studies from the Biblical Institute in Jerusalem] strongly contests the view that nomos conveys the idea that the Torah is a set of laws. He wrote ‘nomos does not signify “Law” in the legal and juridical sense of classical Greek, but rather ‘Instruction and Teaching’ in accordance with the original sense of the corresponding Hebrew term Torah.’ He stretches the interpretation of nomos in Dabarym 17:10 with the help of the Psalms to mean ‘instruct and teach.’ According to Dr. Pasinya, nomos in the LXX should be translated as ‘instruction and teaching.’”

336But then, recognizing how incongruous this conclusion is from modern religious indoctrination, the Exegetical Dictionary dismisses this scholar’s accurate rendering of nomos as “teaching and instruction” with: “If such were the case, however, the LXX translator would have been detaching himself completely from the contemporary meaning of nomos. Nomos in the LXX should for the most part, therefore, be translated as ‘law.’” So even when a scholar stumbles upon the truth, theologians dismiss it. After all, if nomos actually means “teaching and instruction” then everything Paul wrote falls apart, including his own translations of the Torah. Christians can’t have that, now can they?

This reality was reinforced by the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament where, if you recall, they reported: “The concept that nomos means law is religious in origin and plays a central role in these cultures.” And in this same vein, referring to Yahowah’s “Towrah – Teaching” as if it were “Mosaic Law” is also the product of religious deception.

Throughout his letters, based upon his citations, translations, and commentary, there can be no doubt that Sha’uwl used nomo, nomos, and nomou to present Yahowah’s “Torah as Law.” He never quotes from any Talmudic source, negating the possibility of nomo, nomos, or nomou representing the Oral Law of the Rabbis. Moreover, it would be another 450 years before most of these Rabbinical arguments were codified in the Babylonian Talmud. Therefore, Paul is deliberately mischaracterizing Yahowah’s “towrah – source of teaching, instructions, directions, and guidance.” While God wants us to observe His Towrah in the sense of closely examining and carefully considering His Teaching, Sha’uwl has corrupted and mischaracterized God’s Guidance as a “set of Laws” which could not possibly be obeyed, and which therefore condemn. And it is this 337perspective, this position, this pivot point, where the religion Sha’uwl conceived separated itself from God’s Instructions.

And let’s be clear, Paul is fixated on Yahowah’s “nomos – Towrah.” Of the 195 times nomos is used in the so-called “Christian New Testament,” 136 are found in Paul’s letters and 27 more are scribed in Luke’s writings, a man who was Paul’s associate. Two-thirds of these are in Acts which presents a historical portrait of Paul’s life. Collectively this means that 84% of the time nomos was used to designate the Towrah, Paul inspired the criticism. The remaining 16% are comprised of either positive references or directed specifically toward the Talmud.

Even though it should be obvious, Yahowsha’ did not speak English – a language derived from Anglo Saxon in the 15^th century CE. He did not speak Greek either. He would have delivered His Instruction on the Mount in Hebrew. So Yahowsha’ would have spoken “Towrah” in his native tongue, iterating a concept as familiar to his audience as were Yisra’el and Yahuwdah.

Further, the original autograph of the eyewitness account of Yahowsha’s initial and most substantial public address was written in Hebrew, actually citing the words he spoke. But unfortunately, rabbis and early Christians burned every copy, so all we are left with is a Greek translation of his speech. And in it, we find nomos used as favorably as words allow to depict the Towrah.

For evidence of this assertion, that Hebrew copies of Yahowsha’s words and deeds, replete with Yahowah’s and Yahowsha’s actual name were burned by rabbis, in particular, consider the Babylonian Talmud: Tosef., Shabbath xiii. 5; Tractate Shabbath, Folio 116a, Yer. Shabbath 15c, 52; and Sifre Number 16. There you will find: “The Gilyonim [a Hebrew corruption of euangelion] and the books of the Minim [Yisra’elite followers of 338Yahowsha’] were not saved from fire, but one lets them burn together with the names of God written upon them.” “On the week-days the names of God are cut out and hidden while the rest is burned.” “I swear by the life of my children that if they fall into my hands I shall burn them together with the names of God upon them.” “The Book of the Minim [Yisra’elite followers of Yahowsha’] may not be saved from a fire, but they must be burnt in their place, they and the Divine Names occurring in them.” “The blank spaces above and below on account of those writings [a reference to where Yahowah’s name had been written and removed prior to burning] and the Books of the Minim, we may not save them from a fire. One must cut out the Divine Names which they contain, hiding them, and then burn the rest.”

Research affirms that Rabbi Meir, in 135 CE, corrupted the Greek euangelion to gilyonim and then used minim, in Hebrew, to convey “worthlessness of a scroll.” The eyewitness accounts scribed by the disciples were called “sin-scrolls” in Shabbath 116a. And should you be wondering, it was considered a sin in Judaism to burn a scroll with Yahowah or Yahowsha’ written upon it, so these names were to be cut out before being consumed in the flames.

Although it is a translation, finding nomos associated with something Yahowsha’ said appeared problematic prior to coming to appreciate the etymology of nomos, because Christian publishers are wont to render it “Law” – a definition the Author of the Towrah would never have ascribed to His Teaching. But, now that we know the whole truth, while nomos is not accurate, it is not totally inappropriate either – at least so long as it is translated in a way which is consistent with its root. The Towrah is Yahowah’s means to nourish us and to provide us with an allocation of His power and possessions, which is an inheritance in the familial sense of the Covenant.

339For the purpose of full disclosure, there are times where nomos was used in correlation with the Pharisees, and thus as a reference to their Oral Law. One such example is found in Luke 5:17. Also in Yahowchanan / John 8:17, Yahowsha’ spoke of “your nomos” in a discussion with the Pharisees, men whose very existence revolved around the allocation of traditions they inherited from their forefathers. Therefore, at least apart from Paul, when we are considering Greek references to “nomos,” we have to let the context dictate whether the Torah or Judaism’s Oral Law is represented by the Greek term.

In Sha’uwl’s letter to the Galatians, the first occurrence of nomos was written in the genitive singular as nomou. The genitive is a restrictive usage of a noun which denotes a very specific characterization – making nomou “the Towrah” because there were many versions and variations of the rabbinic traditions. The genitive also serves to “mark a noun as the possessor of something,” much like adding an apostrophe s (’s) after a noun, making it possessive. So nomou is “the Towrah’s....” The second application of nomos was in the dative form (nomo) denoting that it was a less specific indirect object. And that means that nomou nomo is “the Torah’s allotment and inheritance,” literally, or “the Torah’s laws” in Pauline parlance. Proving this beyond any doubt, as we have already discovered, Paul, himself, translated towrah from the Hebrew text of the Torah in his Galatians 3:10 rendering of Dabarym / Deuteronomy 27:26 using nomou.

In Hebrew there are a plethora of words which provide different shadings on the related concepts of terms and conditions, requirements and ordinances, guidance and direction, teaching and instruction, even prescriptions for living. For example, Towrah is a proper noun, as well as a word which conveys many of these things, albeit a relatively small portion of the Torah is dedicated to establishing regulations, and even then, they all serve as 340symbols to educate us.

In that few insights are more vital to our understanding, please consider the etymological definition of Towrah based upon the words which comprise this title. The numbers presented within the parenthetical are from Strong’s Concordance and were included to facilitate your own investigation.

“Towrah (H 8451) – from tow (H 8420) – signed, written, and enduring, towrah (H 8452) – way of treating people, tuwr (H 8446) – providing the means to explore, to seek, to find, and to choose, yarah (H 3384) – the source from which instruction, teaching, guidance, and direction flow, which tuwb (H 8421) – offer answers which facilitate restoration and return, a response and reply to that which is towb (H 2895) – good, pleasing, joyful, beneficial, healing, and right, and that which engenders love, making acceptable, so as to endure, tohorah (H 2893) – purifying and cleansing, towr (H 8447) – providing the opportunity to change one’s thinking, attitude, and direction.”

By turning to Ancient Hebrew, the original language of revelation, where each alphabetic character was designed to graphically display its meaning, we can learn even more about this Towrah – תורה. Remembering that Hebrew reads right to left, what we discover is that the first letter, a Taw (ת), was conveyed by a pictographic representation of an upright pole replete with a horizontal support beam:  which became t. It signified the upright pillar used to support and enlarge a tent, which was a home in its day, and also the Tabernacle, where God met with His children.

Inclusive of the support beam, the original Taw depicted a doorway, and thus continues to be symbolic of Passover, the Doorway to Life. The name of the character itself, Taw, is a rabbinic corruption of the letter’s original designation, tow, which means “signature, sign, and mark 341of authority.” So, by taking all of these insights into consideration, in the first letter of Towrah, we find the Doorway to Life, Yahowah’s Tabernacle, and His signature.

The second letter in Towrah is Wah (ו). It was drawn in the form of a tent peg, , and is thus symbolic of enlarging and securing a tent home and shelter. The Wah speaks of making connections and adding to something, as is characterized by the conjunction “wa – and” in Hebrew today. The Wah therefore addresses the Spirit’s role in enlarging and enriching, even empowering, Yahowah’s Covenant family. Yasha’yah / Isaiah 54 provides a wonderful affirmation of this, tying this tent peg reference to enlarging and securing God’s home.

The third letter, Rosh (ר), was depicted by drawing an individual’s head . Without the preposition “ba – in,” Rosh has the honor of serving as the first letter of the first word of the Towrah. Re’shyth describes “new beginnings in time, the first and foremost priority, and the best choice.” The Hebrew word, re’sh, which was also the letter’s original name, conveys all of these ideas. Therefore, Towrah’s third letter speaks of the new beginnings which are now possible for humankind as a result of the Towrah, at least for those who prioritize God’s teaching, make the right choice, and thereby reach the highest possible place and status, as the firstborn children of the head of the eternal household. Recognizing the Rosh was depicted by drawing a human head , this suggests that we should use our eyes to observe Yah’s teaching, our ears to listen to God’s guidance, our brains to contemplate His instructions, and our mouths to respond to Him once we understand what He is offering.

The fourth and final character in Towrah is Hey (ה). This letter was originally depicted by drawing a person looking up, reaching up, and pointing to the heavens: . As such, it means to observe. And as a living legacy of this 342connotation, we find that the Hebrew word hey still means “behold, look and see, take notice, and consider what is revealed.” For those seeking God, for those reaching up to Him for help, all they need do is reach for His Towrah and observe what it reveals.

Yahowah’s “Towrah – Teaching, Instruction, Guidance, and Direction,” therefore, written  to graphicly convey: this doorway to life in the tabernacle bearing Yah’s signature adds to, enriching, empowering, and securing those who are observant, who listen and think, and who reach up to God and walk with Him.

So that we are clear, in Hebrew, dath is actually the word for “law,” in the sense of a “decree, edict, regulation, or rule.” A choq is an “inscribed prescription for living which cuts us into the covenant relationship.” Similarly, a chaqaq is a “clearly communicated written instruction.” A tsawah is an “authorized direction or teaching.” The mitswah speak of “the terms and conditions pursuant to a covenant.” A mishpat is the “means to exercise good judgment regarding the process of judiciously resolving disputes.”

With Paul’s latest statement regarding the Torah, there can no longer be a dispute as to which nomos he was claiming to have “tore down, dissolved, dismantled, invalidated, abolished, subverted, abrogated, discarded, and destroyed.” He is at war against Yahowah’s Towrah. That realization alone is sufficient to see Paul as a false prophet and fraudulent apostle.

In spite of the anguish they have caused God, here again for your consideration are the words Sha’uwl scribed in his letter to the Galatians...

“I (ego) then (gar) by (dia) the Towrah’s (nomou) allotment and law (nomo) actually died and was separated, even plagued (apothnesko) in order that to (hina) God (ΘΩ) I might currently live (zao). In Christo 343(ΧΡΩ) I have actually been crucified together with (Ω suneotrai).” (Galatians 2:19)

Moving on to the next interesting term in this, the 19^th verse of the 2^nd chapter of Galatians, we find that apothnesko, which is a compound of apo and thnesko. Thnesko denotes “mortality,” and thus “the separation of the soul from the body. It also speaks of pandemic diseases or plagues” Apo, which is the principal Greek word for “separation,” when used with thnesko conveys the idea that there is yet another separation, and that could only be the separation of the soul from the Spirit of God. As such, it denotes spiritual death. Further apothnesko was written as apeoanon, in the first-person singular aorist active indicative. That means that Paul is saying, “I actually died and was really separated.” From whom is the question?

By using the aorist, Sha’uwl is taking yet another swipe at the purpose, process, and precedent of the Towrah, as it is independent of any plan or process. In the active voice, he is taking credit for his own death. And by using the indicative, Paul wants readers to believe that this incredulous event actually occurred.

Then by saying that he was actually crucified alongside and together with Christo, Sha’uwl is inferring that Yahowsha’, like Sha’uwl, himself, was killed by the Towrah. Equally delusional, he is claiming to have been crucified. This lie is so bold, so blatantly false, Christians are unable to process the scope of the deception.

Sha’uwl wants everyone to believe that he is the co-savior. But for that to have any value, Sha’uwl would have had to have been perfect, resolutely Torah observant, and divine. I do not suppose that there is any argument now that he was delusional.

Sha’uwl | Paul elevates his preposterous “co-savior” notion to the extreme of religious mythology in Colossians 1:24-25, by writing:

344“Now (nyn – at the same time) I rejoice (chairo – I embrace and hail, I thrive and benefit (present tense, active voice, indicative mood)) in (en – by and in association with) the sufferings and afflictions (tois pathema – the evil calamities and adverse emotional passions) for your sake (hyper sy – for the benefit of you, beyond you and over you), as (kai – in addition) I actually complete (antanapleroo – I fill up and fulfill, I make up for that which would otherwise be deficient (in the present tense the writer is portraying his contribution as being in process, in the active voice, he is signifying that subject, which would be either Sha’uwl or the afflictions is performing this, and with the indicative mood, the writer is portraying his fulfillment of the sufferings as being actual, and thus real, even though he may not believe it himself)) that which is deficient and lacking (hysterema – that which is needed, missing, wanted, and absent from, addressing the deficiencies associated with that which is left to be done due to prior failures and inferior performances) of the (ton) persecutions and anguish (thlipsis – pressing troubles and distress, burdensome tribulations, and oppressive pressures) of the (tou) Christou (ΧΡΥ) in (en) the (te) flesh (sarx – corporeally) of me (mou) for the benefit of (hyper – for the sake of, on behalf of, beyond and over) the (tou) body of (soma – the human and animal nature of) him (autou) who (os) is (eimi – He presently, and by His own accord, exist as (present active indicative)) the (e) called out (ekklesia – called-out assembly, congregation, meeting), of which (hos – that means), I (ego), myself, exist as (ginomai – myself conceive and bring into existence, become, cause, belong to, appear as, and possess similar characteristics to) a servant (diakonos – one who serves without necessarily having the office) extended down from (kata – in accordance with or against, with regard to or in opposition to) the administration of the household (oikonomia – the management, task, arrangement, oversight, dispensation, or plan regarding the 345heirs in a household) of this (tou – the) god (ΘΩ), the (ten) appointment having been produced and granted (didomi – one caused, assigned, entrusted, committed, and given for his advantage (in the aorist participle this one time appointment was in antecedent time, in the passive this god was influenced and acted upon, and in the accusative singular this appointment was solely granted)) to me (moi – to and for myself (in the dative, Sha’uwl is saying that this belongs to him)) to (eis – for and into) you all (umas) to complete and fulfill (pleroo – to fully provide, completely enable, and finish, bringing an end to) the (ton) word (logon – statement, speech, and account) of the (tou) god (ΘΩ).” (Colossians 1:24-25)

Trimmed for readability, Sha’uwl just reported: “Now I rejoice in and embrace the suffering and affliction for your sake, as I actually complete, making up for that which would otherwise be deficient and that which is lacking the persecution and anguish of the Christou in my flesh for the benefit of the body of him who is the called out, of which, I, myself, conceive and bring into existence as a servant extended down from the administration of the household of this god, the appointment having been produced and granted to me for you, all to complete and fulfill the word of the god.”

And should you not trust my rendition of Sha’uwl’s words, consider the NA: “Now I rejoice in the sufferings on behalf of you and I fill up the lacks of the afflictions of the Christ in the flesh of me on behalf of the body of him who is the assembly of which became I servant by the management of the God, the one having been given to me in you to fill the word of the God.” LV: “For now I rejoice in my passion on your behalf, and I complete in my flesh the things that are lacking in the Passion of Christ, for the sake of his body, which is the Church.” KJV: “Who now rejoice in my suffering for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s 346sake, which is the church.” NASB: “Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church.” NLT: “I am glad when I suffer for you in my body, for I am participating in the sufferings of Christ that continue for his body, the church.”

Therefore, just as the juxtaposition of the 18^th and 19^th verses of Galatians 2 resolved any question regarding which nomos Paul claimed to be annulling and destroying, by comparing the Galatians 2:19 with Colossians 1:24, it becomes obvious that Paul wanted Christians to see him as a “co-messiah” and “co-savior.” He wants to be perceived as completing the deficiencies that he claims were inherent in Yahowsha’s sacrifice as well as in Yahowah’s testimony. But that is like saying: without some bird droppings spattered on the roof and some dirt blown onto the steps, Yahowah’s Temple is not complete.

We should also note that in Galatians 2:19, zao, rendered “I might currently live,” was written zeso, in the first person singular, aorist, active, subjunctive. This means that Sha’uwl “believed that it was probable, but not certain,” that the subject (in this case God) at “some undisclosed time” caused him “to live, breathe, and behave in a particular manner.”

Finally, sustauroo, translated “was crucified with,” but literally meaning “to be affixed to the upright pillar,” was not actually written in the oldest Greek witness of this letter. A placeholder, using the capitalized letter Omega with a horizontal line over it designating an association with Divinity, was deployed instead, but this time with the addition of suneotrai. And that means that there is something about the word which Christian scribes wanted to deify. And therein we find the birth of the cross as a religious symbol.

If the placeholder and word had been written out, it 347would have read sunestauromai. Sun means “with” in Greek. And estauromai is the first person singular perfect passive indicative form of stauroo, which is the verb form of stauros, meaning “to affix to an upright pole.” As we have learned, the indicative tense tells us that Paul wants us to believe that this really happened – that, in his words: “I was literally crucified with Christo.”

The passive tense tells us that Paul is claiming that his wannabe god did this to him – that he was acted upon as opposed to choosing this for himself. The perfect tense reveals that Paul would have us believe that his crucifixion was endured right along with Christo’s, and that it was perfectly completed in the past rendering the present state of affairs.

The Greek verb is derived from stauroo (to affix to a stake which is placed upright) and stauros (upright pole or pillar), which are both derived from the root, histemi, meaning “to stand upright so as to enable others to stand.” Stauros’ Hebrew equivalent is ‘edon, meaning “Upright Pillar,” a Divine title which is applied to Yahowah throughout the Towrah. The Hebrew equivalent of histemi is quwm, meaning “to stand up and to establish.”

These things known, let’s see if we can decode Sha’uwl’s riddle. Reduced to its essentials, over the past five “verses,” Paul wrote:

“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 or vindicated man by means of tasks and activities associated with the Towrah if not by belief and faith in Iesou Christou, and we on Christon Iesoun, ourselves believed in order for us to have become righteous, to have been acquitted and vindicated out of faith in Christou, and not by means of acting upon or engaging in the Towrah, because by 348means of engaging in and acting upon the Towrah not any flesh will be acquitted, vindicated, nor made righteous. (Galatians 2:16)

But if seeking to be made righteous and innocent in Christo, we were found also ourselves social outcasts and sinners, shouldn’t we be anxious that Christos becomes a guilty, errant, and misled, servant of sin? Not may it exist, (2:17) because if that which I have actually torn down and dismantled, invalidated and abolished, subverted and discarded, this on the other hand I restore and reconstruct, promoting this edifice, I myself bring into existence and recommend transgression and disobedience. (Galatians 2:18)

I then, because of by the Towrah’s allotment and law, actually died and was separated, even plagued, in order that to God I might currently live. In Christo I have actually been crucified together with.” (Galatians 2:19)

While it is possible to “die and be separated from” Yahowah, this is the fate of those who dismantle and demean the Towrah, and not of those who observe it. And speaking of dying, Paul was not even a witness to the fulfillment of Passover, much less a beneficiary. For had he observed Passover, he would not have died. And if he had benefited from UnYeasted Bread, he would not have been separated. That is the purpose of the first two Miqra’ey.

Instead of availing himself of Yahowsha’s fulfillment of Yahowah’s promises and plan, Sha’uwl presented himself as a god. So he imagined that his work was even more important than Yahowsha’s had been, because he completed what was lacking in his sacrifice. Rather than accepting Yahowah’s gift, Sha’uwl wanted believers to see him as the one who provided it.

This is so egregious, so outrageous, to pretend that 349Paul’s words are “Scripture,” Christians must be unable to process the scope of his malfeasance. Otherwise, they would have to put two dead gods on their crosses.

But based upon his god’s credibility problem, even Sha’uwl was uncertain of his destiny. To which I have good and bad news. Based upon his own admission of his spiritual affiliation, Sha’uwl lives and will never die. He is separated from God, spending his eternity with Satan in She’owl. With his ego, Sha’uwl is probably claiming that She’owl was named in his honor.

According to Yahowah, He fulfilled His Torah’s promises so that we could live with Him. While the Towrah delineates the Way, that Way had to be facilitated for us to be acquitted. Yahowah provided the path and Yahowsha’ paid the toll. Therefore, these are not separate things, one which kills and the other which provides life, but instead God’s depiction of the path to life which He, Himself, enabled.

Recognizing what the Greek actually reveals, let’s consider whether the King James and Vulgate are, in the strict sense, translations. The KJV reads: “For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.” Now for the Latin Vulgate (at least as it has been revised): “For through the legem/law, I have become dead to the legi/law, so that I may live for God. I have been confixus/nailed to the cruci/cross with Christo.” The NLT was similar, but then its authors couldn’t restrain themselves and conspired to create a point of their own with: “For when I tried to keep the law, it condemned me. So I died to the law—I stopped trying to meet all its requirements—so that I might live for God.” But to be fair, if one excludes what we can learn from the tenses, voices, and moods ascribed to these verbs, these are all reasonably close to: “I then by and because of the Towrah’s allotment and law actually died and was separated, I actually endured physical death, killing myself, in order that to God I might 350currently live. In Christo I alone in unison with him was actually crucified.”

As you may know, there were no numerical verse designations in manuscripts prior to the Geneva Bible, which was published in the late 16^th century. However, the spacing on Papyrus 46 suggests that the sentence “I was crucified with the Christo” belongs with the placeholder for God, ΘΩ, and thus exists as part of the previous statement. However, most modern revisions remove the ΧΡ and Ω placeholders from the previous sentence and attach them to the next one. Also, while the Textus Receptus, the Novum Testamentum Graece, and the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, as well as most all English translations read “the Son of God,” the oldest witness to Sha’uwl’s letter does not. With this in mind, the preceding vain and vile rant was followed by...

“I live (zao – I am alive (present tense, active voice, indicative mood, first person singular)), but (de) no longer (ouketi – not any more) I (ego). He lives (zao – he is alive (present, active, indicative, third person singular)) then (de – but) in (en – within) me (ego) Christos (ΧΣ).

This (os – which) because (de – but) now (nym – at the present) I live (zao – I am alive (present, active, indicative, first person)) in (en) flesh (sarx – physical body, corporeally), in (en) faith (pistis – believing (originally meant trusting and relying but migrated in concert with Sha’uwl’s usage)) I live (zao – I am alive (present, active, indicative, first person singular)), the of the (te tov – perhaps he meant to say “that the”) God (ΘΥ – Divine Placeholder for Theos | God) and (kai) Christou (ΧΡΥ – Divine Placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement) the one (tov) having loved (agapao – having tangibly demonstrated devotion for (aorist, active, participle, singular, and genitive which collectively convey that this condition once existed in the past as a snapshot in time 351without any consideration for the process which made it possible and it was done especially and exclusively for)) me (ego), and (kai) surrendered and entrusted authority (paradidomi – handed over the power to control, influence and instruct, to teach and to betray exclusively and especially of (aorist, active, participle (happened in the past but was not part of a process), singular, genitive (restricting this characterization to a single individual))) Himself (heautou – of Him (reflexive pronouns denote mutual participation in the act)) for the sake of (hyper – on behalf of and because of) me (ego).” (Galatians 2:20)

I recognize that this passage does not read intelligently in English, but I double-checked the oldest manuscript, and this is an accurate rendition. Also, on the pages of codex known as Papyrus 46, we find “ΘΥ kai ΧΡΥ – God and Christou,” so that is why it was conveyed this way instead of “the Son of the God” as reported in the Nestle-Aland, whose Interlinear published: “Live, but no longer I lives but in me Christ what but now I live in flesh in trust I live the of the son of the God the one having loved me and having given over himself on behalf of me.”

Sha’uwl’s line, “I am alive, but not I, he lives in me, Christos,” affirms what I’ve long suspected. Sha’uwl wanted his audience to view him as Christos incarnate. Frankly, there is no other rational way to interpret these words. Paul was alive, which means that he could not have been dead.

By way of clarification, it is the Set-Apart Spirit who lives within those of us who are adopted into Yahowah’s Covenant family, not the Passover Lamb. In this way, Yahowah enriches and empowers His Covenant children with some of His Spiritual energy, but it would be senseless to place a corporeal manifestation inside of a physical body. This means that Sha’uwl wants people to believe that he has become the embodiment of Christou – which, incidentally, he continues to deploy as a name rather than 352a title.

The problem with this for Paul, besides being wrong, is that he consistently condemns the flesh, which he claims is bad, because he wants to infer that his spirit is good. But now that he is touting his flesh as the embodiment of Christou, he spins the result, telling his audience to accept this hypocritical conflict by faith.

Furthermore, this arrogant perspective, in the midst of a deplorable boast to have not only negated the Torah but to have made up for Yahowsha’s deficiencies, is further underscored by the grammatical tenses, voices, and cases Sha’uwl ascribed to the verbs agapao and paradidomi, in addition to the meaning of the concluding verb.

By using the aorist “snapshot” tense with both verbs, “love and surrender,” Sha’uwl is deliberately isolating Yahowsha’s actions, disassociating them from Yahowah’s promise and purpose. Without consideration for the process which made these things possible, there is no longer an association between Yahowsha’s sacrifice and the Towrah in the minds of those beguiled by this myth. This negates everything Yahowah accomplished through Yahowsha’.

To believe Sha’uwl, Yahowsha’ decided to allow mortal men to kill immortal God, nailing Him to a pagan cross. The fact that it happened on Pesach, the doorway to life was irrelevant. Yahowsha’ would have to have squandered the Shabat too, accomplishing nothing of value on the Miqra’ of Matsah. And in the isolated madness of Pauline myths, especially with regard to his religion’s Easter Sunday, rather than observing the Torah, the god the Romans killed would have to be physically resurrected. Too bad for Sha’uwl’s devotees the eyewitness accounts all say that no one recognized the most important individual in their lives upon the fulfillment of Bikuwrym.

In reality, Yahowah established the doorway to life, 353the means to be perfected, and the adoption process into His Covenant family to honor the promise of Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym, presenting and explaining these Invitations to Meet with Him for a reason. He wants us to respond to these Invitations, to observe the Guidance He has provided, and to capitalize upon what He has done so that we might accept His merciful offer. But that is seldom done when people are fooled into disassociating these promises from their fulfillments.

And it gets worse. Rather than presenting God’s love and sacrifice as something done for all of us, Paul scribed both verbs as singular and then in the genitive suggesting that his Christou exclusively and especially loved him and therefore decided to surrender and entrust his authority to Sha’uwl alone.

This concern is highlighted by the realization that up to this point Paul has been conveying his message using the royal we, as was the case with Muhammad, thereby inferring that he and his god were speaking with the same voice. In the Qur’an, this is because Allah is Muhammad’s alter ego, making the man and his god one and the same. But here, we have now transitioned from “we,” used similarly, suggesting that Sha’uwl wanted to be perceived as the voice of God, to “ego – me, myself, and I” when Paul is positioning himself as the exclusive object of his god’s adoration and as the sole recipient of his authority. (Should you be curious, the transition from “we” to “I” occurred when we left the 15^th, 16^th and 17^th verses and transitioned into the world of make-believe in verses 18, 19, and 20 of Galatians 2.)

Regarding the personalization of these arrogant claims, we find the use of “paradidomi – surrendered and entrusted authority individually, especially, and exclusively, himself mutually participating in the act with me for my sake and because of me.” Paradidomi speaks of “handing over authority, turning it over and delivering it up 354to another, entrusting them with it, yielding to them.” Secondarily, it means “to be betrayed.” And its tertiary meaning speaks of “granting the authority to instruct and to teach.” It is from para, which conveys “from, of, by, or with,” and “didomi – to give, granting, bestowing, and entrusting something for mutual advantage.” Therefore, written in the singular genitive, Paul wants us to believe that his Christou surrendered, handing over his authority exclusively to him. Once again: a-Paul-ing.

Rather than Yahowsha’ being in charge, it was Paul who was lord and master – man’s savior and the voice of god. Rather than the Towrah being the authorized source of teaching and instruction, its authority was surrendered, yielded to Sha’uwl. For those who know Yahowah, it is more than enough to make one want to scream.

If Paul had wanted to say that Yahowsha’ “offered himself sacrificially for our benefit,” he would have written zabach (Strong’s H2076) or dabach (Strong’s H1685) in the first-person plural. But deliberately, egotistically, and deceptively, he selected paradidomi, and then he scribed it in the singular genitive.

Yahowsha’ is translated using this same word in the context of “on the way to court with an adversary, settle differences expeditiously so that your accuser doesn’t hand you over (paradidomi) to the judge, who will throw you into prison.” (Matthew 5:25)

It is used again in Mark’s account, to say in 15:1: “The leading priests and the rabbis of the religious law bound Yahowsha’, and handed him over (paradidomi) to Pilate, the Roman governor.”

In Luke 20:20, by searching for the meaning of paradidomai, we find a dissertation on Sha’uwl’s duplicitous nature and intent: “And having observed him closely (paratereo), they prepared and dispatched (apostello) spies (egkathetos – people who secretly lie in 355wait, and who cleverly bribe and entrap), themselves pretending (hypokrinomai – themselves duplicitous insincere hypocrites, using the statements of another to feign and separate under false pretenses) to be upright and justified (dikaios – Torah observant) in order to seize control of (epilambanomai – to take him into their custody against his will along with) his word (logos – [Torah pronouncements]) so that they could betray him, cause him to surrender, and hand him over to the control of (paradidomi) the supreme ruling authority (arche): the governor (exousia).”

Substitute Sha’uwl for “the duplicitous men separating people from God under false pretenses,” and Satan for “the supreme ruling authority,” and you will understand the hideous intent of Galatians 2:20. And while I realize that this would be a stretch if reliant only on this isolated passage, this is the only reasonable interpretation of his use of paradidomi in this context.

Paradidomi, written in the aorist active participle masculine singular genitive, as paradontos, becomes a verbal adjective which is restricted to a singular individual. It thus conveys that Yahowsha’ was betrayed, that he surrendered, yielding himself and his authority to Sha’uwl. And therefore, Sha’uwl no longer lived. Paul was now “Christou” in the flesh.

Telling you that I am the man in the moon, would be more credible.

There is an interesting “catch 22” evident here in our diagnosis of Pauline Doctrine. It is obvious that this letter was poorly written, perhaps making the specificity and frequency of these criticisms seem a bit unfair. And if Paul were an average fellow, unskilled in the art of written communication as opposed to bragging about his prowess, and if he openly stated that these letters contained his opinions as opposed to God’s message, then the strident 356nature of this evaluation might be insufferable for Pauline aficionados. But that is not the case. Paul has repeatedly protested that he is Christo’s appointed apostle, God’s sole authorized messenger, if not the living embodiment of his god. He not only claims that his message was from God, but that his god yielded his authority to him. So from that perspective, considering the consequence, every misstatement and every errant nuance must be exposed and condemned.

All of this brings us face to face with something else Paul got wrong, and which has subsequently influenced Christianity. In this verse, and in many others like it, Yahowsha’ and his alleged understudy have become the focus, when our eyes should be on the Father. Yahowsha’ is Yahowah’s implement, a tool. At the very most, the Passover Lamb is a substantially diminished manifestation, or corporeal representation, of God, set apart from Yahowah. The Christian perspective is like being captivated by a toenail clipping while ignoring the person from whom it was attached. Yahowsha’ is important, but immeasurably less so than Yahowah.

Additionally, this verse says: “God (ΘΥ) and (kai) Cristou (ΧΡΥ).” The conjunction separates them as if they were different individuals, which is a problem if they are both supposed to be God.

Had Sha’uwl written: “the moment we come to trust and rely upon Yahowah and His Towrah, and act upon the terms and conditions of the Covenant, we cease to be mortal, our souls are restored, and we become God’s children, eternal and perfect,” he would have had a valid point. This condition is possible because Yahowah tangibly demonstrated His love for us, fulfilling His Passover, UnYeasted Bread, Firstborn Children, and Seven Shabat promises, thereby enabling all five of the Covenant’s benefits. But Sha’uwl did not convey any of these things.

357Instead, he lied: “I live, but no longer I. He lives then in me, Christos. This because now I live in flesh in faith I live the of the God and Christou, the one having loved me and surrendered, entrusting authority, yielding and handing over the power to control, influence and instruct, and to betray exclusively and especially of Himself for the sake of and because of me.”

The KJV’s rendering has become so familiar to us, it’s a shame that it isn’t accurate: “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” Jerome’s Latin Vulgate reads: “I live; yet now, it is not I, but truly Christus, who lives in me. And though I live now in the flesh, I live in the faith of the Son of God (in fide vivo Filii Dei), who loved me and who delivered himself for me.” In the NLT we find: “My old self has been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So I live in this earthly body by trusting in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” While much of this is wrong, to their credit, at least on this occasion, team Tyndale actually translated pistis correctly.

The first portion of what follows would have been sage advice if not for the name of the Greek and Roman goddesses of licentiousness. Apart from the invalid association, and violation of the First, Second, and Third Statements Yah etched on the First Tablet, and the Sixth Instruction He wrote on the Second Tablet, it would otherwise underscore the life and death decision we are all given the opportunity to evaluate. But alas, since Sha’uwl has rejected Yahowah’s source of mercy by denouncing His Towrah, this is just another lie...

“I do not reject or disregard (ou atheteo – I do not regard as invalid, I do not refuse nor set aside, or literally: not, I do not actually at present rely on (present tense, active voice, indicative mood, first-person singular)) the 358(o) Charity / Grace (charis – attractiveness, charm, and frivolity; the name of the Greek goddesses of Charity, known to the Romans as the Gratia, which was transliterated “Grace”) of the (tov) God (ΘΥ)....”

The reason that this is so sinister is that Paul is claiming that, by rejecting the Torah, he did not reject God’s mercy. Yahowah’s position, however, is the antithesis of this, and we know that because, after denouncing religion, and most especially religious corruptions like this at the conclusion of the Second of Three Statements on the First of Two Tablets, He wrote:

“My mercy is for the thousands who approach Me in love and who closely examine and carefully observe the terms of the relationship agreement.” (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 20:6)

The conditions associated with our participation in the Covenant are found in the first book of the Towrah and nowhere else on earth. The same is true of the lone path which has been provided to save us – although it is described in the Towrah’s third book.

According to Yahowah, the God who in the first of those statements introduces Himself as our Savior, the relatively few individuals (thousands represent one in a million people) who receive His mercy do so by studying the Towrah’s Guidance so that they can walk to Him along the path He has provided to His Covenant family. So by claiming that the Torah can be discarded without invalidating its benefits, Paul has contradicted God while confusing Christians. As a result, the billions who have been beguiled by Paul’s rhetoric, by disregarding the Towrah, have nullified God’s mercy. That is what makes Paul so deadly.

The second half of Sha’uwl’s statement is more challenging to interpret, because of its hypothetical nature, and because of the lack of specificity regarding the identity 359of the nomou Sha’uwl was addressing because it is only distinguished by the genitive nature of the Greek noun. And yet in this particular context, there can be little doubt to Sha’uwl’s intent. He appears to be saying: “If the Torah could save, then there was no reason for Christos to die.” Listen and see if you do not agree (with that explanation, not with that message).

“...if because (ei – presenting a real or hypothetical condition) then (gar – as a transition suggesting a continuation, translation, reason, or cause and effect) by or through (dia – on account of) the Torah (nomou – the allotment which is parceled out for the purpose of nurturing those with an inheritance (restricted to a singular and specific characterization in the genitive)) righteousness (dikaiosyne – becoming acceptable and upright, being virtuous and correct) was a consequence or a result (ara – then, therefore, and accordingly, based upon the prior thought the conclusion is drawn) Christos (ΧΡΣ – Divine Placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement (but without the definite article)) undeservedly, for no reason (dorean – for no purpose or cause, without benefit, for naught, and in vain) he died (apothnesko – he suffered death in the past; from apo – separation and thnesko – to die).” (Galatians 2:21)

By comparison, the NA published: “if for through law rightness, then Christ as a gift died.” Setting aside their errant translation of nomou and unjustified transliteration of Christos, the message is similar with the exception of dorean, an adverb which the Nestle-Aland’s Interlinear rendered as “gift” instead of “undeservedly, for no reason.” But to be fair, had dorean been scribed as a noun, its root does speak of a gift, albeit one given without reason or benefit.

Focusing on the words themselves, this assertion inverts Yahowah’s Towrah teaching, upending the 360relationship between the Towrah and the Passover Lamb. According to God, it is because of the Towrah’s promises that Yahowsha’ endured Passover so that he and we could enjoy Firstborn Children. Had there been no Towrah, there would have been nothing to observe on these days and no benefits associated with them – therefore, no reason to fulfill them. So Paul’s statement isn’t just misleading, it is a bald-faced lie, totally deceptive, destructive, deadly, and damning.

These four days – Pesach, Matsah, Bikuwrym, Shabuw’ah – provide those who answer God’s Invitations with all five of the Covenant’s blessings: eternal life, perfection (acceptability), adoption, enrichment, and empowerment. So according to God, we become right and thus vindicated as a result of responding to His willingness to honor the promises He made regarding His Covenant in His Towrah.

It is only by negating this association between Yahowah’s Word and Yahowah’s fulfillment of Passover that either would be in vain. But that only happens under the specific scenario Sha’uwl has laid before us – which is what makes his letters so devastating.

There are three inexplicably absurd aspects to Paul’s, and thus the Christian, position on the “death” of God. It is impossible. God, by His own definition, is immortal. It is irrational. Death is the absence of life, neither a remedy nor a solution to our mortality. And it is inconsistent with God’s testimony as well as with the eyewitness accounts.

Therefore, the big picture is devastating to Christianity. God cannot die. Man cannot kill God. And God’s death, should it even be possible, would not make us righteous or acceptable.

On Pesach, Yahowsha’s physical body, representing the Passover Lamb, was sacrificed, but only after Yahowah’s presence, by way of the Set-Apart Spirit, 361departed. By fulfilling this specific aspect of His promise, in harmony with the Towrah’s explanation in Qara’ / Leviticus, the lives of the Covenant’s children are spared, making us immortal. In Yah’s parlance, “we avoid the plague of death and destruction.”

The next day, which began at sundown, Yahowah’s soul went to She’owl, fulfilling Matsah, known as UnYeasted Bread, on a Shabat. His soul, thereby, paid the price to ransom us, making us acceptable by removing our corruption, represented by the yeast which had now been removed from the bread. Further, the previous evening, the remains of Yahowsha’s body were incinerated following Passover in keeping with the Towrah’s instructions. (Shemowth / Exodus 12:10 reads: “Do not leave of it (the lamb) until morning, and what remains of it you are to burn with fire.”)

So then on Bikuwrym, meaning “firstborn children and foremost child,” God’s soul, now released from She’owl, was reunited with the Set-Apart Spirit. In this way, we too are adopted into the Covenant by being reborn Spiritually.

Next, just as He had done when He initially revealed His Towrah | Teaching to us, God enriched His children with His Guidance on Seven Shabats, empowering us through the Set-Apart Spirit on Shabuw’ah. Therefore, Yahowsha’s observation of the Towrah mattered because the promises of the Towrah matter.

Yahowah, in concert with Yahowsha’ and the Set-Apart Spirit, honored and enabled all four of these Towrah promises in 33 CE (Year 4000 Yah). They are essential and necessary individually but also collectively. One without the others can be counterproductive. For example, if a person were to observe Passover but not UnYeasted Bread, they become immortal, but still unacceptable to God. The resulting soul would be eternally separated from Yahowah 362in She’owl. So by overemphasizing one aspect of Yahowsha’s life, and by mischaracterizing it, the result can be worse than severing the overall connection between Yahowsha’ and the Towrah.

Therefore, it bears repeating: the opposite of what Sha’uwl has just written is true. If Christians believe him and focus on God’s alleged “death,” they will die. And should they make the connection between Yahowsha’ and the Passover Lamb, but nothing more, their soul is destined for She’owl. That is why Yahowah warned us about this particular man in the second chapter of Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk.

If Sha’uwl had wanted to say that Orthodox Jews who adhere to the Oral Law cannot save themselves because rabbinic teaching is in conflict with the Towrah, then he should have said so – and provided examples, just as Yahowsha’ had done. And if Sha’uwl had wanted to say that we need a savior because we are not perfect, he could easily have phrased this in a way that everyone would have understood. But he did not. Instead he postured what could best be spun as an ill-defined and beguiling hypothetical, one which pits the “Torah” against Yahowsha’s fulfillment of it.

Because they do not know or understand the Towrah’s presentation of Passover, UnYeasted Bread, FirstFruits, and Seven Sabbaths, most Christians now believe that Paul was authorized to undermine the value of the Torah and thereby replace it with the “death” of “Christ” on a “cross.” In their mind, it is as if these things provided a solution that was afforded by faith. But unless Yahowah had a plan to reconcile sinful man, one which Yahowsha’ enabled, then “the cross” was nothing more than a gruesome spectacle.

Since this is literally life and death, let’s be as clear as possible. Yahowsha’s existence, his words, his deeds, and his sacrifice, are irrelevant without the Towrah. Apart from 363the Towrah, Yahowsha’s life was a lie and his sacrifice was a complete waste of time. If not for the Towrah, no one would have been saved by Yahowsha’s actions. Therefore, as a standalone concept, “believing in Jesus Christ” is as meaningless as the name and title are erroneous.

Yahowsha’s life matters expressly because he was Torah observant, providing us with the path we should follow to live in harmony with God’s Word. And, by honoring the Torah’s promises, Yahowsha’ paid the penalty for our non-compliance, making it possible for a just God to accept otherwise flawed children into His presence. It is by viewing Yahowsha’s life from the perspective of Yahowah’s Word, from the viewpoint of the Towrah, that we can come to appreciate who he is and understand what he did. Then, based upon this understanding, we have the opportunity to trust and rely upon Yahowah’s provision as it is written in the Towrah and lived by Yahowsha’, or we can reject it as Sha’uwl has done. But be aware, Paul lied, so by rejecting the Towrah, you forego Yahowah’s mercy.

Yahowah has conceived, articulated, and facilitated a seven-step path for us to follow to achieve His ultimate objective, the Covenant, which enables us to camp out with our Heavenly Father as His children. Yahowah calls His Way the Miqra’ey – Invitations to be Called Out and Meet. Yahowsha’, Yahowah, and the Set-Apart Spirit fulfilled the first four, Passover, UnYeasted Bread, Firstborn Children, and Seven Shabbats, which is the reason he and She were sent.

Worse even than the senseless carnage which would otherwise be the legacy of Yahowsha’s sacrifice, by devaluing the Towrah relative to its fulfillment, this line of reasoning pits Sha’uwl against the Word of God. Yahowsha’ explained his sacrifices from the perspective of the Torah, and Paul is attempting to sever that association. As such, there is no way for Sha’uwl to be right or to be 364trustworthy.

While it is now a gnat on a camel, those who rely on the King James Version should know that it is impossible for anyone to “frustrate the mercy of God.” So why does the KJV say: “I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness comes by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” The source of the King James translation is obvious. The Latin Vulgate reads: “I do not reject the grace of God (gratiam Dei). For if justice is through the legem/law, then Christus died in vain.”

If the NLT’s rendering is accurate, then Paul’s intent was as I have stated: to devalue the Torah and to sever the connection between the path to salvation delineated in God’s Word from the toll Yahowsha’ paid along the Way. “I do not treat the grace of God as meaningless. For if keeping the law could make us right with God, then there was no need for Christ to die.” The exact opposite is true. The Torah is the reason behind the Passover Lamb’s sacrifice.

Gathering this portion of Paul’s thesis together, and adjusting the text to more accurately reflect his intended message based upon the whole cloth of this epistle, the ultimate abomination of desolation reads:

“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 or vindicated man by means of tasks and activities associated with the Towrah if not by belief and faith in Iesou Christou, and we on Christon Iesoun, ourselves believed in order for us to have become righteous, to have been acquitted and vindicated out of faith in Christou, and not by means 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, vindicated, nor made 365righteous. (Galatians 2:16)

But if seeking to be made righteous and innocent in Christo, we were found also ourselves social outcasts and sinners, shouldn’t we be anxious that Christos becomes a guilty, errant, and misled, servant of sin? Not may it exist, (2:17) because if that which I have actually torn down and dismantled, invalidated and abolished, subverted and discarded, this on the other hand I restore and reconstruct, promoting this edifice, I myself bring into existence and recommend transgression and disobedience. (Galatians 2:18)

I then, because of by the Towrah’s allotment and law, actually died and was separated, even plagued, in order that to God I might currently live. In Christo I have actually been crucified together with.” (Galatians 2:19)

I live, but no longer I. He lives then in me, Christos. This because now I live in the flesh, in faith I live of the God and Christou, the one having loved me and surrendered, entrusting authority, yielding and handing over the power to control and influence exclusively and especially of Himself for the sake of and because of me. (Galatians 2:20)

I do not reject or disregard the Charity / Grace of the God if because then by or through the Torah righteousness consequently as a result, Christos undeservedly, for no reason or cause, without benefit and in vain, died.” (Galatians 2:21)

After enduring this toxic display of Sha’uwl’s error and arrogance in dismissing Yahowah’s Torah, here is a breath of fresh air from Yahowsha’s Rock, Shim’own Kephas. Speaking of Paulos, it’s now apparent that “Peter” was right:

“Paulos, through the human wisdom that had been 366given to him, wrote to you. And even as in all his epistles, inside they use circular reasoning to speak around and about this. Within them, that is to say, there are some things which are detrimental to understanding and hard to comprehend, which the uneducated and ignorant, as well as those who are malleable, misinterpret and distort.

Also like the remaining inferior writings, the consequence is one’s own individual destruction. You, therefore, beloved, knowing this in advance, be on your guard, keep away from this and be especially observant, in order that you are not led astray, associating with the deception and delusion of Torahlessness, forsaking and falling away from one’s individual guarantee of salvation.” (Shim’own / He Listens / 2 Peter 3:15-17)