455Questioning Paul

Towrahless

…Without Guidance

 

11

Epaggelia | The Promise

 

It is Written…

This next Pauline proposition was written to imply that if we were to be so foolish as to do anything God instructed, then we are as good as dead if we do not do everything He said. It includes a citation from the Towrah the writer was demeaning. It represents another truncated misapplication of Yahowah’s Teaching, this time from Qara’ / Leviticus 18:5. However, without referencing it, we would be challenged to make sense of Paul’s malfeasance.

“But (de) the Towrah (nomou – the allotment which is parceled out, the inheritance which is given, the nourishment which is bestowed to be 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) exists (eimi – is) not (ouk) out of (ek) faith or belief (pistis), but to the contrary (alla – making an emphatic contrast with an adversarial implication), ‘The one having done (o poieomai – the one having made and performed as such becoming) them (autos) will live (zao) in (en – with and by) them (autos).’” (Galatians 3:12)

Or if you prefer, the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27^th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear, reads: “But the law not is from trust but the one having done them will live in them.” While both are reasonably accurate renditions of the text, neither approach literate.

456The prevailing verbs are “poieomai – having done” and “zao – will live.” Poieomai, which means “do, make, perform, carry out, cause to be, work, toil, behave, or accomplish an assigned task,” was written in the aorist participle which designates antecedent time. That means a person must perform, doing what the Towrah says, to live, at least according to Paul. Antecedent time addresses that which has gone before, that which precedes another event – in this case, future life. Further, in the active voice, poieomai presents the individual performing the action, which is to say that he is trying to prolong his own life. The nominative case requires us to view the subject, those attempting to perform as the Torah directs, as becoming reclassified, thereby actually becoming defined by the Torah.

Zao was scribed in the future tense, once again reinforcing the process Sha’uwl is rejecting. In the middle voice, we discover that the Towrah observant individual is being affected by his own actions, suggesting that his performance will determine his fate. And finally, in the indicative, the writer is portraying this cause and effect scenario as real, even though he may not actually believe what he’s saying.

Reflecting Paul’s intent without actually translating what he wrote, the fervent Pauline apologists at the New Living Translation published: “This way of faith is very different from the way of law, which says, ‘It is through obeying the law that a person has life.’” Apart from changing “having done” to “obey,” altering all three verb tenses, and adding without justification “this way,” “very different from,” “the way,” “which says,” “it is through,” “the law,” and “that a person has,” while ignoring “but,” “not out of,” “to the contrary,” “the one,” having done,” and “them” twice, what the NLT has proposed appears to convey the spirit of Sha’uwl’s proposition. However, by promoting a loose paraphrase, they have run even farther 457afield of the partial passage Paul cited.

To their credit, it is true that the “way of faith is very different from the way of the Torah.” One is the opposite of the other, telling us that the way of faith actually leads in the opposite direction of the way presented in the Torah, with faith being at cross-purposes with Yahowah’s Guidance.

To satisfy our quest for understanding, the Qara’ 18:5 passage Sha’uwl is misappropriating is set into the context of the following instruction:

“Speak (dabar – communicate using words) to (‘el) the Children of Yisra’el (beny Yisra’el – children who engage and endure with God), and (wa) say (‘amar – affirm) to them (‘el), ‘I am (‘anky) Yahowah ( – a transliteration of YaHoWaH as instructed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), your God (‘elohym). (Qara’ / Leviticus 18:1-2)

With regard to things which could be considered similar to (ka – as with and making a direct comparison to) the practices (ma’aseh – the pattern of behavior, the work, the things done, undertakings, and pursuits) of the realm (‘erets – land) of the Crucibles of Oppression in Egypt (Mitsraym – crucibles of religious, political, military, and economic oppression) where (‘asher) you dwelt (yashab), you should not engage in or act upon (lo’ ‘asah – you should not celebrate or profit from) similar (ka) pursuits (ma’aseh – patterns of behavior, things done, undertakings, and practices) in the land (ba ‘erets) of Kana’any (Kana’any – Zealousness which subdues, bringing people into subjection; commonly transliterated Canaan), which beneficially as a result of the relationship (‘asher), I am (‘anky) bringing and accompanying you (bow’ ‘esh).

There (sham), you should not act upon or engage in (lo’ ‘asah) their decrees or customs (chuqah – their 458prescriptions for living and their traditions and statutes), never walking in or following them (lo’ halak – never patterning your life after them). (Qara’ / Leviticus 18:3)

With (‘eth) My means to exercise good judgment regarding the resolution of disputes (mishpat – My means to decide regarding justice and judgment), you should continually engage and genuinely act (‘asah).

With (‘eth) My prescriptions for living (chuqah – My inscribed recommendations which cut you into the relationship), you should examine and carefully consider (shamar – you should make a habit of consistently and actually observing) for the purpose of approaching by (la) walking in them (halak ba). I am (‘anky), Yahowah (YaHoWaH – an accurate presentation of the name of ‘elowah – God as guided by His towrah – instructions regarding His hayah – existence), your God (‘elohym).” (Qara’ / Called Out / Leviticus 18:4)

This Fatherly advice serves as an open indictment against religion and politics. It is a call to expose and condemn the incorporation or adoption of the rites, rituals, and festivals of pagan religions into a community or culture. It is therefore denouncing the very fabric of Roman Catholicism, where the entire religion is predicated upon incorporating such things.

God is warning us against the integration of religion into government, avoiding the propensity of civilizations to maintain large militaries in addition to their tendency to improperly compensate workers for their labor. The civilizations Yahowah is describing in Egypt and Canaan were famous for creating and worshiping religious imagery. They promoted the concepts of the Trinity, to crosses, to Easter, Christmas, and Sunday worship, to Communion and to the Eucharist, to faith and to bowing, to gods dying and being resurrected, even to viewing a woman as the Mother of God and Queen of Heaven – all of 459which were incorporated into Christianity. They were the first to refer to God as the Lord, and they called God all manner of names, none of which was Yahowah.

Yahowah’s next statement is the verse Sha’uwl misrepresented to promote his agenda – one that adopted the political and religious practices of the Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans. But before I share it with you, take note of the fact that in it “shamar – observe,” which is to “closely examine and carefully consider something by focusing upon it with your eyes,” was scribed in the qal perfect consecutive. Thereby, Yahowah is encouraging us to choose of our own volition to literally examine the totality of His “chuqah – inscribed prescriptions for living” and His “mishpat – means to make good decisions about resolving disputes,” viewing God’s written testimony as a whole while recognizing that it is complete.

But then you will note, with “‘asah – engaging in and acting upon” what we have observed and come to know about His prescriptions for living and His means to resolve disputes, the qal imperfect was deployed. From this we learn that our response does not have to be complete, nor perfect, but simply ongoing. God is not expecting us to do anything flawlessly, nor is He even asking us to behave in complete harmony with His instructions.

This realization has profound implications which exonerate the Towrah and condemn Sha’uwl. God has given us the opportunity to examine and consider His Towrah testimony, but the choice is ours whether we elect to read it, ignore it, or oppose it. All God is asking is that we do not take snippets of what He has said out of context, but rather that we review His Towrah as a whole while recognizing that it is complete. This means that we should consider it from Bare’syth to Dabarym, from creation to Eden, from the flood to the Covenant, from slavery in Egypt to freedom in the Promised Land. We should also 460view Yah’s Towrah as lacking nothing. It provides answers to every question regarding life and relationship. Nothing should be added, nothing should be taken away, and thus nothing should be changed.

And yet, our willingness to observe what God has written is just the input side of this equation. On the output side, we have our reaction, which is essentially our attitude and our words in response to God. Here, scribed now in the imperfect, God is neither expecting nor asking, and most especially not requiring perfection from us. We are only being asked to continually try to do the best we can. As we learn more, our testimony improves. As we understand more, we become more trusting and thus more capable. It is a process, as are all relationships, with us growing with Yah over time.

But you see, Sha’uwl’s point has been that there is no reason to observe the Towrah because unless a person does everything the Torah demands flawlessly, they will be condemned by God. But that is the antithesis of what Yahowah is saying here...

“And so (wa) you should choose of your own volition to actually observe (shamar – under the auspices of freewill, you should consider choosing to carefully examine (qal perfect consecutive)) accordingly (‘eth) My prescriptions for living (chuqah – My inscribed (and thus written) instructions which cut you into a relationship (and thus into the Covenant) with Me) and also (wa) My means to exercise good judgment to resolve disputes (mishpat – My means to decide regarding redemption (thereby directing our attention to His seven Invitations to Meet)).

Whoever (‘asher – relationally and beneficially) acts upon and engages (‘asah – consistently endeavors to genuinely celebrate and continually benefit (qal imperfect)) with them (‘eth), that individual (ha ‘adam – that man and person) indeed (wa – emphasizing this) is 461completely restored to life as a result of his decision, living forever (wa chayah – he is literally revived, perfectly renewed, actually nurtured, completely spared, and kept alive into perpetuity through this exercise of freewill, raised, preserved, and allowed to flourish (qal perfect consecutive)) through them (ba – with and by them).

I am (‘any) Yahowah (Yahowah – the proper pronunciation of YaHoWaH, our ‘elowah – God as directed in His ToWRaH – teaching regarding His HaYaH existence and our ShaLoWM – restoration).” (Qara’ / Called Out / Leviticus 18:5)

If I may add another interesting consideration. Yahowah has promised to “chayah – restore the lives” of those who not only choose to examine and consider His Towrah, but who also respond favorably to His prescriptions for living and His means to resolve disputes. And since the restoration and elongation of His children’s lives are our Heavenly Father’s doing, He had Moseh scribe “chayah – life” in the best way possible. The qal stem is relational, creating a connection between the subject, which would be those of us who listen to Yah, and the action of the verb which is to be restored and live. The qal stem also conveys actions which are simple to understand, straightforward, and real, and thus actual. The perfect conjugation reveals that Yahowah is not only promising to make us whole and complete, entirely perfect, but He is also saying that He will do all of the work to accomplish this on our behalf – with nothing additional added on our part. He is even saying that the restoration of our lives is not a process that could be abated for some reason, but is instead, done, as in leaving nothing to prove, nothing more to accomplish, and nothing more to do.

Then it gets better because here the perfect was prefixed with a wa, making this the consecutive form. This causes the perfect conjugation to reflect the unfolding and 462ongoing nature of the imperfect, telling us that our lives are being restored forever. In addition, the consecutive form reveals that this is volitional, and thus it reflects our choice and God’s will.

However, returning to Galatians, Paul said: “But the Towrah exists not out of faith or belief, but to the contrary, ‘The one having done and performed them will live in them.’” (Sha’uwl / Galatians 3:12)

Comparing that to the Towrah, Yahowah said: “And so you should choose of your own volition to actually observe My prescriptions for living and also My means to exercise good judgment to resolve disputes. Whoever acts upon and engages with them, that individual is actually and completely restored to life as a result of this decision, living forever through them. I am Yahowah.” (Qara’ / Called Out 18:5)

It is hard to miss the horrible pattern that is emerging. This time, however, Sha’uwl’s statement is misleading principally because he removed Yahowah’s statement from the context of the point God was making. And in so doing, Paul created an invalid perception. He did the very thing Yahowah asked us not to do in the passage he abbreviated.

Yahowah is telling us that restoration and life eternal are a direct derivative of observing His means to resolve disputes which serve as prescriptions for living. And Paul is promoting blind faith.

Once again, Sha’uwl has abridged, misquoted, and misapplied a passage which is inconsistent with his own message, perhaps hoping that the use of a common word, this time, “perform or do,” in conjunction with an aspect of the Towrah would be sufficient to convince the impressionable and ignorant that God agrees with his position.

But at least we have another affirmation that it is Yahowah’s Towrah that Sha’uwl is assailing by 463misappropriating citations from it. Under these circumstances, a rational argument cannot be made in favor of the Oral Law or the Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem Talmud being the focus of Sha’uwl’s ire. He consistently refers to the Towrah in order to undermine it, while never once referring to nor citing the Oral Law which was ultimately memorialized in the Babylonian Talmud.

Also, while Yahowah’s message was clear, even straightforward and easy to understand, Sha’uwl’s was not. What on earth does “the law exists not out of faith and belief” mean? What is the connection or contrast between this clause and Yahowah’s statement in Qara’ / Leviticus 18:5? Why did Paul only cite the end of the verse when its meaning is derived from the introduction?

Since Paul’s castrated citation of this passage was as inappropriate as his statement was undecipherable, let’s turn to those hypnotized by his spell for additional insight into the Christian mindset. The King James Version reads: “And the law is not of faith: but, the man that doeth them shall live in them.” At least it’s clear that it was derived from the Latin Vulgate which says: “But the law is not of faith; instead, “he who does these things shall live by them.”

If nothing else, we know that Shim’own Kephas | Peter was right in saying that Paul’s letters would be convoluted, such that they would deceive the ignorant and malleable, robbing them of their salvation. But like so many prophecies, just because it is true doesn’t mean that we should allow ourselves to be destroyed by it.

In that Paul was fanning the flames he was using to burn Yahowah’s Torah, I am convinced that he meant to say: “The Torah is not like the way of faith, but to the contrary, it requires you to do what it says in order to live.” (Galatians 3:12 reflecting Paul’s intended message.)

At this point, we must ask ourselves: can Paul’s faith, 464his religion, be “unlike” “the Torah” and still facilitate a relationship with God? Is it possible that God could have endorsed a plan which is counter to the one He authored?

Irrespective of the answer (which is obviously “no”), at least the battle lines are becoming clearer. According to Paul, it is his testimony against God’s Word. We are now immersed in the Great Galatians Debate: Are we to trust Yahowah’s Torah or believe Paul’s Gospel of Grace?

Before we press on, since the context of the Qara’ / Leviticus passage was particularly germane to Paul’s Galatians epistle, a letter which serves as the foundation of Christendom, I would like to reinforce Yahowah’s advice. God encouraged His people to avoid the religious practices or political traditions of the Egyptians and Cana’anites. That means we should not do the things which were also done in Babylon, Greece, and Rome whose civilizations either inspired or copied them. And that means we should not celebrate New Year’s Day, Saint Valentine’s Day, Lent, Easter, Halloween, or Christmas, nor gather in churches on Sundays.

The key to understanding this next statement is “katara – curse.” As we discovered at the beginning of this discussion when reviewing Galatians 3:10, kata is either being used to communicate “down from,” “according to” or “against,” with the latter serving as a negation of ara, and its root, airo, which is either a “prayer” or “a curse.” Therefore, the “ara – curse” could well be “not having one’s prayer answered, not having one’s “airo – burdens lifted,” or not having one’s soul “carried away” to heaven. Further, katara is especially demeaning. It suggests that Yahowah uses His “supernatural power to invoke harm by promoting evil, doing what is accursed and abhorrent, 465detestable and loathsome, maligning and malicious.”

According to the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear, Paul wrote: “Christ us brought out from the curse of the law having become on behalf of us curse because it has been written curse on all the one having hung on wood.” And now, literally...

“Christos (ΧΡΣ Divine Placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement to usurp the Septuagint’s credibility and infer Divinity) us (ego) bought back (exagorazomai – worked to redeem and purchase, making good use of the opportunity, taking advantage to buy and deliver; from ek, out of, and agarazo, doing business in the marketplace where (agora) people assemble for a public debate, to buy, sell, and vote) from (ek) the curse (katara – from the evil, hateful, abhorrent, loathsome, maligning, and malicious influence) of the (tov) Towrah (nomou – Torah, which Christians have misconstrued as “Law,” with nomou actually presenting the means to being nourished by that which is bestowed to become heirs, precepts which were apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper and to be approved through prescriptions for an inheritance; from nemo – that which is provided, assigned, and distributed to heirs to nourish them (singular genitive, and thus a specific characterization)), having become (ginomai – having existed as) for our sake (hyper ego) a curse (katara – a repugnant prayer, invoking the power to harm others by wishing evil upon them, maligning and malicious), because (hoti) it has been written (grapho – inscribed): ‘A curse on (epikataratos – being exposed to divine slander and vengeance) all (pas) the one (o) having hung (kremamai – suspended) on (epi) wood (xylon).’” (Galatians 3:13)

Paul is reaffirming his diagnosis. He would have those he has sickened believe that Yahowah’s “Torah is an abhorrent and deadly curse which promotes evil.” God’s 466Word, according to Sha’uwl’s assessment, is “malicious and repugnant.” The cure is to believe the “Healing Messenger” and place one’s faith in his “Beneficial Message.” This viper wants you to believe that the God who conceived life and authored the DNA code which enables it, is a sadist, not unlike Josef Mengele, torturing His victims before killing them. Then somehow bored by His tragically failed experiment, the malicious deity suddenly gives up and hands His cosmic stethoscope to Sha’uwl and sulks away – allowing an inarticulate and irrational man to fix the mess He had made.

All one has to do is reject everything that “mean old God” said and believe that the Serpent’s paralyzing neurotoxin is the elixir of life – ‘Scripture.’ A few mesmerizing props, such as a dead god on a stick, a spellbinding tale cleverly placed, some really amazing claims, and poof – the Apostle Paul and his Gospel of Grace!

“It happened on one of them zip-a-dee-doo-dah days. Now that’s the kind of day where you can’t open your mouth without a song jumping right out of it. My, oh my, what a wonderful day. Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay, my oh my, what a wonderful day. Plenty of sunshine headin’ my way. Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay. Mr. Bluebird’s on my shoulder. It’s the ‘truth.’ It’s ‘act-ch’ll.’ Everything is ‘satisfact-ch’il.’ Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay. Wonderful feelin’, wonderful day.”

I know, I know, it isn’t fair to compare Bible verses with the lyrics of a children’s song. Ray Gilbert was a much better writer than that and does not deserve being compared to such nonsense.

Returning to Paul’s proposition, rather than Yahowsha’ affirming, observing, and fulfilling the Towrah as he attests, according to Sha’uwl, Christos has cut a deal and engaged in a business transaction whereby he has 467redeemed us, not from sin, but instead from the malignant toxicity of the Torah itself. It wasn’t Passover, but instead “Pass Away.” The “old God” had passed His prescription pad and pen to Paul.

Call it cynicism, but if so, wouldn’t that make this nincompoop greater than God?

Since this hideous proposition is the antithesis of what Yahowah has said and done, we now know with absolute certainty that Paulos was a psychotic psychopath – a schizophrenic narcissist devoid of empathy. Calling the man who contradicted God while claiming to speak for Him “delusional” has become wholly inadequate. Paul’s animosity toward God, and his uncontrollable arrogance, made him especially susceptible to being demon-possessed, goaded and controlled, by one of Satan’s envoys. But even then, this is hard to swallow.

This insane admission from the Devil’s Advocate, does, however, confirm that Paul was deliberately maligning the Towrah in his opening statement, because what he wrote in Galatians 3:13 echoes the same sentiment found in Galatians 1:4. Remember:

“Iesou Christou, the one having produced and given himself on account of the sins and errors of us, so that somehow, he might possibly gouge and tear out, uprooting and taking us away from the past inflexible and unrelenting circumstances of the Old System; unrelenting and unaccommodating, it had been disadvantageous and harmful, worthless and wicked, annoying and malicious, malevolent and malignant, according to the will of the Theos and Pater of us all…” (Galatians 1:4)

The “poneros – worthless and malevolent” “aionos – inflexible and unrelenting old system” which is being called “katara – a repugnant curse” is, according to Sha’uwl | Paul, the nomou | Towrah” – the Teaching and 468Guidance of Yahowah. Therefore, according to the new Sheriff in town, everything Yahowah said and did was untrue and unreliable, indeed tortuous and tormenting. Even his Christou is now a curse.

Only one tiny, itty bitty, problem – even for the fellow who chose the moniker Paulos | Lowly and Little. Yahowah did not hand His prescription pad or pen to anyone. He did not cease being God. Nothing has changed. Oops.

But alas, it was always the Impossible Delusion. It is an untenable flight of fanaticism to claim to be God’s exclusive authorized agent to the world and then not only write such incomprehensible drivel, not only contradict and misquote said God, but deliberately mischaracterize and malign the Creator of the universe.

Frankly, I am embarrassed and ashamed that I was once counted among his victims. Therefore, I am thankful that Yahowah is ever ready to forgive such stupidity. All I had to do was disavow any association with Christianity and then engage in His Covenant as He instructed.

By calling Yahowah’s Towrah a curse, and by saying that Christos was cursed because of it, Paul has proposed the preposterous. The proposition is so asinine it serves to prove that religion renders its victims incapable of rational thought.

His claim on behalf of Christianity is so absurd it strains credulity. To believe that Yahowah would curse us with His Word and then turn to this blathering idiot to break that spell is among the dumbest notions ever told.

Lest we forget, the statement Sha’uwl misquoted, and then misappropriated, also comes from the Towrah he was maligning. He is once again quoting Moseh, this time from Dabarym / Words 21:23. The insight reads…

“Indeed, when (wa ky) it comes to pass (hayah – it 469transpired that (qal imperfect – literally happens with ongoing implications)) an individual man is associated with (ba ‘ysh) missing the way and bearing the acquired guilt (chata’ – making a sin offering to purify) which is judged appropriate to resolve disputes as a result of thoughtful consideration and thus necessitating (mishpat – is assessed upon the exercise of good judgment to warrant; from my – to consider every aspect of shaphat – making good decisions) death (maweth – dying as a result of the pandemic and plague), and his physical body dies (wa maweth – is deprived of life as a penalty to be just (hofal perfect – he is compelled and forced to die at that specific time)) with you putting him to death fastened and suspended (talah ‘eth huw’ – you attach his arms and legs such that he hangs while dying (qal perfect – actually at that moment)) upon a wooden timber (‘al ‘ets – on a tree or plank of wood), (21:22) do not leave his dead body overnight (lo’ lyn nebelah huw’ – do not allow the carcass to remain during the night) on the wooden pillar (‘al ha ‘ets – upon a tree or the plank of wood).

Rather instead (ky – emphasizing this point, there is a reason), you should without equivocation, prepare and entomb his body (qabar qabar huw’ – it is essential that you place his body in a sepulcher (qal infinitive absolute imperfect energic nun)) during this same day (ba ha yowm ha huw’).

Indeed, because (ky) the One being put to death by being fastened and suspended (talah – the one being hanged with his arms and legs attached while dying (qal passive participle)) is being vilified and diminished (qalalah – is being maligned and slighted; from qalal – snubbed, scorned, and abated) by God (‘elohym).

So you should not defile (wa lo’ tame’ – you should not cause to be unclean and desecrate), accordingly (‘eth), your soil (‘adamah ‘atah – your ground, earth, and land; from ‘adam – mankind and thus your human nature), 470which for the benefit of the relationship (‘asher) Yahowah ( – a transliteration of YaHoWaH as instructed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), your God (‘elohym), gave (nathan – produced, offered, and bestowed) to you (la ‘atah – for you to approach) to become heirs (nachalah – as a means to an inheritance).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 21:22-23)

This is a prophetic portrait of the fulfillment of Passover. It confirms that the Passover Lamb would be fastened to a wooden pillar, hanging from it until his physical body died under the strain. It confirms that his carcass would be removed from these wood planks prior to sundown and then placed in a sepulcher. Therein, Yahowsha’s body would be incinerated in harmony with the Towrah’s instructions.

This prophecy also infers what Yasha’yah would later affirm: The Passover Lamb would be laden with our guilt, bearing the consequence of us having missed the way. He would serve as a sin offering to resolve our culpability. Bearing our iniquity, the soul of the Passover Lamb would be judged, vilified, and maligned, then diminished and abated by God in She’owl.

God did not want the body of the Lamb buried, not only because by so doing there would be no proof of its incineration, but also because, symbolically, the Lamb was defiled with our sin. So now as an inheritance, we are able to live perfected in Yahowah’s home.

Therefore, Yahowah’s prophetic testimony reveals that Yahowsha’ would be considered to be guilty of sin worthy of death. He would be suspended from a wooden timber. His body would be removed from the upright pole before the sun set that same day. His corpse would be prepared and placed in a tomb, as opposed to being buried in the ground. As a result, even though our sins were 471associated with him, our future home was not defiled.

God’s soul would become the slighted and diminished aspect of the Almighty – separated and abated in She’owl. Also, by using ‘adamah, it is “‘adam – human nature” which is no longer contaminated as a result.

While the passage is powerful in the sweeping nature of its predictions, it was not even remotely supportive of Paul’s argument. If anything, this precise prediction demonstrates that the Towrah and its Author can be trusted to do what He has promised. This prophetic announcement represents the means to something Paul has called impossible: our salvation.

Recognizing that Sha’uwl misrepresented a truncated portion of the Dabarym reference to Yahowsha’, and realizing that his was a woefully inaccurate rendering of it, we are compelled once again to question the veracity of everything Sha’uwl wrote and said, even question his intentions.

There is a very significant difference between: “A curse on all the one having hung on wood,” and…

“Indeed, when (wa ky) it comes to pass (hayah) an individual man is associated with (ba ‘ysh) missing the way and bearing the acquired guilt (chata’) which is judged appropriate to resolve disputes as a result of thoughtful consideration and thus necessitating (mishpat) death as a result of the plague (maweth), and his physical body dies (wa maweth) with you putting him to death fastened and suspended (talah ‘eth huw’) upon a wooden timber (‘al ‘ets), (21:22) do not leave his dead body overnight (lo’ lyn nebelah huw’) on the wooden pillar (‘al ha ‘ets). Rather instead (ky), you should without equivocation, prepare and entomb his body (qabar qabar huw’) during this same day (ba ha yowm ha huw’).

This is because (ky) the One being put to death by 472being fastened and suspended (talah) is being vilified and diminished, maligned and abated (qalalah) by God (‘elohym). So, you should not defile (wa lo’ tame’), accordingly (‘eth), your soil (‘adamah ‘atah), which for the benefit of the relationship (‘asher) Yahowah (), your God (‘elohym), gave (nathan) to you (la ‘atah) to become heirs (nachalah).” (Dabarym 21:22-23)

Without the context provided by Yahowah, the reference to “being vilified and diminished by God” is senseless. Therefore, a profound and precise eyewitness account, serving as both prediction and explanation of Passover and UnYeasted Bread which would transpire fifteen centuries hence, becomes incomprehensible, and thus worthless, apart from God’s explanation.

And yet Sha’uwl has now plucked three statements Yahowah has made from the context that makes them valuable, miscasting his redacted variations such that each truncated citation now infers the antithesis of what God actually revealed. Each time he revised God’s Word to suit his thesis.

Are we to suppose that Sha’uwl was misinformed? He cannot claim ignorance because finding these related word patterns back in the day would have required considerable knowledge. Moreover, these could not have been careless mistakes because they were used to convey the opposite of God’s intent. So this was deliberate, making Sha’uwl a disingenuous deceiver. The only other possibility – that his letters were changed after he wrote them – requires us to view most every Greek manuscript of the “Christian New Testament” as being unreliable, including the Papyrus 46 codex dated to the vicinity of the 2^nd century CE, in which Paul’s letters are extant. It is as close to the original autograph as anything written in the New Testament.

But scribes are not the crux of this problem. Paul is stuck in a rut. Each Towrah quotation has been chosen, not 473because it affirmed his position, but because of word patterns. In all four couplets, he has abridged God’s statement and then twisted it to make it appear as if his preaching was consistent with God’s position. To excuse this pattern of malfeasance as “being an honest mistake,” “being God’s will,” “being inspired by the Spirit,” or “being a product of scribal error” is to be played for a fool.

Paul is a false witness. He is purposefully misquoting and perverting Yahowah’s testimony in order to establish his doctrine. This is evil in the worst sense of the word. And the consequence has been catastrophic. Billions of souls have been ensnared in his hideous trap and cursed by these letters.

Unwilling to consider the Greek or Hebrew text, and relying instead on the Latin Vulgate, the Christian theologians who created the revision known as the King James Version missed the fact that the Torah predicted what Yahowsha’ fulfilled: “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, ‘Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.’” If the King James has accurately reflected Paul’s thought, then, at least according to Paul, the Torah is actually a curse. Rather than fulfilling the Torah, Yahowsha’ ransomed us from it. And rather than being the perfect Lamb of God, Yahowsha’ embodied all the negativity a “curse” implies.

Had Jerome created his Latin Vulgate from Greek manuscripts, as opposed to blending his preferred readings from Old Latin variations, he would have seen the light as well. But alas, he didn’t. “Christus has redeemed us from the curse of the law, since he became a curse for us. For it is scriptum / written: ‘Cursed is anyone who hangs from a tree.’”

The only curse pronounced by the Torah is upon those who disregard it, and Christians are wont to do just that. NLT: “But Christ has rescued us from the curse 474pronounced by the law. When he was hung on the cross, he took upon himself the curse for our wrongdoing. For it is written in the Scriptures, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.’” When they added “he was hung on the cross,” it became obvious that they noted the very same pattern I have been concerned about. The NLT translation team members, like their patriarch, are not oblivious, they are mischievous.

Moving on to the next statement, Paul remains consistent. This is also untrue. Abraham’s words do not comprise the “healing and beneficial message,” Yahowah’s do. Further, there is no connection between Abraham’s statements and Yahowsha’, much less Christo Iesou.

“As a result (hina – in order that), to (eis – in, among, or in reference to) the people from different races (ta ethnos – the cultures and ethnicities) the beneficial word (e eulogia – the praise, flattery, or polished language, the laudation, benefit, or favorable terms; from eu – to be well off, to fare well, and to prosper and logos – speech or word) of (toe) Abram (Abraam – a truncated pre-Covenant transliteration of ‘Abraham – the Merciful, Forgiving, and Compassionate Father) might become (ginomai – may happen (the aorist tense denotes a snapshot event without respect to any process, the middle voice signifies that Abraham was being affected by his own actions, and the subjunctive mood presents this as being probable)) in (en) Christo Iesou (ΧΩ ΙΗΥ – divine placeholders used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement and Iesou – a corruption of Yahowsha’, however it’s misleading to connect that which Paul has severed) that (hina – in order to) the promise (ten epaggelia – the announcement or claim to do something (singular)) of the (tou) spirit (ΠΝΣ) we might take hold (lambano – we may grab and grasp, obtain possession, being carried away) through (dia – by) faith (pistos).” 475(Galatians 3:14)

By way of full disclosure, Papyrus 46, scribed within a century of Paul’s original letter, includes a second eulogia, meaning “beneficial word” or “polished language” before the placeholder for Spirit. If this had been written in Hebrew, and had it been a verb, it would have intensified the action. However, in Greek, it is nonsensical, and as a result, I have omitted it from this translation.

The story of Abraham, and his relationship with Yahowah, is presented in Bare’syth | Genesis, the opening book of the Towrah. With the possible exception of the exodus from slavery in Egypt, God’s depiction of His Covenant is His most highly prioritized. His account is detailed, chronological and historical. The narrative is candid and real, with Abraham’s numerous indiscretions and serious character flaws duly noted to keep us from crediting Israel’s patriarch for the resulting relationship as Sha’uwl is now doing. The story is grounded in a specific geographical and geopolitical context so that we might come to more fully appreciate the merits of the Covenant’s conditions and benefits in a tangible way.

This Covenant relationship is the very reason God created the universe and conceived life. Yahowah reveals in no uncertain terms what He is offering and expects in return so that we are able to respond appropriately. We are given the same opportunity to engage in the Covenant as was Abraham, enjoying the same benefits that Abraham was afforded. As a result, few things are as important as knowing and understanding the Covenant’s conditions and benefits.

There are five specific requirements. First, we must walk away from Babylon, which denotes the confusing and corrupting nature of politics and religion – especially when they are mingled together.

Second, instead of being dependent upon one’s 476country, or being engrained in its culture, we are asked to trust and rely on Yahowah. This can only be achieved by those who have come to know Him by observing His Towrah and listening to Him.

Third, we are asked to walk to Yahowah and become perfected. This is achieved by answering Yahowah’s annual Miqra’ey | Invitations to be Called Out and Meet. Our path to God begins at the Doorway to Life, which is Pesach | Passover. Now immortal, our souls are unleavened, and thus cleansed of the pervasive fungus of religion and politics, on Matsah | UnYeasted Bread as we cross the threshold and enter Yahowah’s home. We are adopted into our Heavenly Father’s Covenant Family on Bikuwrym | Firstborn Children as a result.

Yahowah’s Set-Apart Spirit then enriches, empowers, and enlightens Her children on Shabuw’ah | the Promise of the Shabat. This enables us to become effective troubadours during Taruw’ah | Trumpets, sharing Yahowah’s Towrah | Teaching with all who will listen. This leads to Yahowah’s crowning achievement, Yowm Kipurym | the Day of Reconciliations, when God restores His Covenant relationship with His People – Yisra’el and Yahuwdah – upon His return with the Messiah Dowd | David, the returning king. Then after ridding the world of the stigma of religion and politics, Yahowah will restore the Earth to the perfect conditions enjoyed in the Garden of Eden, Sukah | Camping Out with His creation for one thousand years.

Fourth, since we must walk to God along the specific path He has articulated and facilitated, we are encouraged to observe the terms and conditions comprising the Covenant. This is achieved by closely examining and carefully considering Yahowah’s Towrah | Guidance.

And fifth, as a sign of our acceptance, and as a commitment to raise our children so that they also choose 477to embrace the Covenant, God has asked parents to circumcise their sons.

Those who accept these conditions are rewarded. The five benefits of the Covenant include: eternal life, being perfected by God, being adopted into His family, being enriched with the Towrah’s teaching, and being empowered by the Spirit. And this makes the Towrah – the only place where the story of Abraham and the presentation of the Covenant are known – essential, thereby negating everything Sha’uwl has written.

It is absolutely and unequivocally not “the beneficial word of Abram that became in Christo Iesou.” Apart from his ultimate acceptance of the Covenant’s conditions, Abraham’s words are immaterial. It is Yahowah’s words which matter – the very words Paul is disrespecting. Moreover, there is no connection of any kind between Abraham and Yahowsha’. One did not become the other.

There are only two viable connections, one between Abraham and the Beryth and the other between Abraham and Yisra’el. However, since what Abraham actually represents negates Paul’s premise, the Father of Lies ignored the meaningful connections and superimposed a myth of his own.

Further, as any informed person ought to know, Abraham, in spite of his glaring deficiencies and faults, was the beneficiary of the Covenant and not the instigator. Abraham profited from Yahowah’s words not his own. Paul’s testimony is, therefore, wrong from beginning to end.

It is also worth restating: it is irrational to discredit and misrepresent the testimony one is using for validation. Apart from the Towrah, Abraham and the Covenant are unknown and unknowable. So, to suggest that a person can believe in a promise expressed by an individual known exclusively through the Towrah, while discrediting the 478Towrah, is absurd. And since this conclusion is obvious, even irrefutable, how is it that this letter launched a religion?

It is Yahowah’s Covenant. Abraham did not conceive it, present it, modify it, codify its terms, or enable its benefits. Abraham cannot influence our lives in any way. He does not have the ability or authority to grant life, to perfect us, to adopt us, to enrich us, or to empower anyone. The Covenant is based exclusively upon Yahowah’s testimony, Yahowah’s plan, Yahowah’s promises, and Yahowah’s ability to deliver the desired result.

And yet Sha’uwl would have us believe that our attention should be on his mischaracterization of Abram, because that way he could sidestep Yahowah while bypassing His Towrah, thereby separating Yahowsha’ and Christians from both. The result is Christianity. But this is like saying that the person in seat 14A (after Adam and Chawah, their sons, then Noah and his family), rather than just a passenger, is the sum of all things, having designed, built, paid for, and then flown the airplane to its final destination.

While the promises made by Yahowah to Abraham were showcased to reveal the conditions and rewards of the Covenant relationship, this portion of the story is not the Towrah’s most adroit connection between the Passover Lamb and the Covenant’s promises. Had Paul wanted to make a case from which his audience could build a solid foundation, he would have referenced what happened on Mount Mowryah, where Yahowah promised Abraham and Yitschaq that He would provide the Lamb – foreshadowing Passover. But he didn’t because Paul’s intent is to deceive, not teach.

Surveying Sha’uwl’s faulty premise from the other translations, we find this in the NA: “That in the nations the good word of the Abraham might become in Christ 479Jesus that the promise of the spirit we might receive through the trust.” KJV: “That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” LV: “This was so that the blessing of Abraham might reach the Gentibus through Christo Iesu, in order that we might receive the promise of the Spiritus/Spirit through faith.”

Most every word presented in the NLT is wrong, either errantly transliterated, mistranslated, or simply not represented in the Greek text: “Through Christ Jesus, God has blessed the Gentiles with the same blessing he promised to Abraham, so that we who are believers might receive the promised Holy Spirit through faith.” In total, 26 of the 30 words found in the New Living Translation were not translated or transliterated, but instead authored. It is little wonder Christians are deceived.

With an eye to the benefit of context, let’s reconsider Paul’s preposterous proposition as he first presented it…

“I have come to realize (albeit without investigation or evidence) that by no means whatsoever is any manmade right or vindicated by means of acting upon or engaging in the Towrah if not by belief and faith in Iesou Christou.

And we of Christon Iesoun, ourselves believed in order for us to have become righteous, we have 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 or vindicated, nor be made righteous. (Galatians 2:16)

But if by seeking to be made righteous and innocent in Christo, we were found ourselves also to be social outcasts and sinners, shouldn’t we be anxious that Christos becomes a guilty, errant, and misled, servant of sin?

480Not may it exist, (2:17) because if that which I have torn down and dissolved, dismantled and invalidated, abolishing and discarding, this on the other hand I restore or reconstruct, promoting this edifice, I myself bring into existence and recommend transgression and disobedience. (Galatians 2:18)

I then, because of the Towrah’s allotment and law, myself, genuinely died and was separated in order that to Theos 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 Theos and Christou, the one having loved me and surrendered for me, entrusting authority to me, yielding and handing over to me the power to control, influence, and instruct exclusively of himself because of me. (2:20)

I do not reject the Charis | Grace of the Theos because if by the Torah we achieve righteousness then, as a result, Christos for no reason or cause, without benefit and in vain, he died. (Galatians 2:21)

O ignorant and irrational, unintelligent and unreasonable, Galatians. Who bewitched and deceived you, and who are you slandering, bringing this evil upon you, seducing yourselves? (Galatians 3:1)

This alone I want to learn from you: out of accomplishments of the Towrah was the spirit received by you or alternatively out of hearing and belief? (3:2) In this way you are ignorant and irrational, lacking in knowledge and unable to think logically. Having begun with the spirit, now in flesh are you completing? (Galatians 3:3)

So much and for so long you have suffered these things, vexed and annoyed without reason or result, chaotically without a plan. If indeed this really 481happened and you were so thoughtless, achieving nothing, being without reason or result. (Galatians 3:4)

The one therefore then supplying you with the spirit and causing it to function, was this operation of powers in you by acting upon and engaging in the tasks delineated in the Torah or out of hearing faith? (Galatians 3:5)

Just as and to the degree that Abram believed and had faith in the Theos so it was reasoned and accounted to him as righteousness. (3:6) You know as a result that the ones out of faith, these are the sons of Abram. (Galatians 3:7)

Having seen beforehand by contrast in the writing that out of faith makes right the people from different races and places, the Theos, He before beneficial messenger acted on behalf of Abram so that they would in time be spoken of sympathetically in you to all the races. (3:8) As a result, the ones out of faith, we are spoken of favorably, even praised together with the faithful Abram. (Galatians 3:9)

For as long as they exist by means of doing the assigned tasks of the Torah, they are under a curse, because it is written that: ‘All are accursed who do not remain alive and persevere with all that is written in the scroll of the Torah, doing it.’ (Galatians 3:10)

So with that Torah, absolutely no one is vindicated or saved alongside God. It becomes evident: ‘Those who are justified and righteous, out of faith will live.’ (Galatians 3:11)

But the Towrah exists not out of faith. Instead to the contrary, ‘The one having done and performed them must live by them.’ (Galatians 3:12)

Christos bought us back from the evil and hateful curse and malicious influence of the Towrah, having 482become for our sake a repugnant and maligning curse, because it has been written: ‘A vengeful curse based upon divine slander on all those having hung on wood.’ (Galatians 3:13)

As a result, to the people from different races, the beneficial word of Abram might become in Christo Iesou that the promise of the spirit we might take hold, being possessed through faith.” (Galatians 3:14)

This is so twisted and perverse, so completely invalid, and so utterly ignorant and irrational, it speaks poorly of the human race, because so many people have placed their faith in this charlatan. What is wrong with us? It is as if there is no longer any desire to think, any merit to evidence or reason, not even when the evidence comes from God, Himself, and is unassailable.

A rational case cannot be made in Paul’s defense. His message comes full circle in the manner of all great spellbinders. From his perspective, the “good word” came from Abram, not Yahowah, making a man responsible for Christo Iesou, and his annulling of the Towrah and advent of the New Testament, even our salvation. Knowing the truth no longer matters because righteousness comes through faith.

As a result of these words, humanity is faced with a choice. We can decide to believe Paul or listen to God. Both have never been an option. They are adversaries, not allies. Therefore, it is long past time that we acknowledge that Paul’s words demonstrate that Yahowah was right about him. Sha’uwl is a false prophet, the Father of Lies, the Son of Evil, and the Plague of Death.

As we press on, making our way through this insidious 483web, some foresight might be helpful. In addition to Paul’s present course, that of denouncing and attempting to nullify Yahowah’s Towrah, replacing it with his faith-based “Gospel of Grace,” Sha’uwl will soon attack the centerpiece of the Towrah, its Covenant. By miscasting and misrepresenting the parties who initially participated in the Covenant established between Yahowah and Abraham, Paul will seek to invalidate it, calling the Towrah’s Covenant “enslaving.” This sleight of hand will then set the stage for a new, entirely different covenant, the one conceived by Paul, the one which became Christianity’s “New Testament.”

I have shared this glimpse into the next chapter of Galatians because it helps highlight the hypocrisy of Sha’uwl’s next ploy, which is to say: once an agreement is established, it cannot be invalidated or augmented. Beyond the fact that this conclusion is untrue, Paul will use this strategy to further try to invalidate the Towrah, suggesting that since the Towrah came after Abraham, it has no bearing on the Covenant established prior to its existence. While this assumption is also untrue, for reasons we considered in the previous chapter, and which we will confront once again, the truth has become irrelevant in Paul’s fictitious realm of faith. The self-proclaimed apostle is counting on his audience remaining as he sees them, ignorant and irrational, so that they will believe him when he says that Abram was considered righteous simply because he believed.

And yet, every nuance of this is opposed to the Towrah’s presentation of this relationship. In the Towrah, God reveals that it was Abraham’s actions, his response to the terms and conditions of the Covenant, which facilitated the benefits associated with it. This is why Paul needs his audience to completely overlook, even reject and discard, the Towrah.

But how is it plausible that the only witness to this 484relationship, and ensuing conversations between Abraham and Yahowah, is not germane to its formation and result? If God’s testimony regarding what He requested of and offered to Abraham isn’t reliable, how can Paul’s suppositions regarding a Covenant that he was not a party to, one that was formed two thousand years before he was born, have merit?

Sha’uwl’s argument is akin to discounting the Towrah’s creation account, its revelations regarding Eden, its presentation of the flood, and the story of the Exodus, since these things all occurred before God’s explanation of them was recorded in writing. But worse, he is then offering a contrarian view of the Towrah’s Covenant while using the Towrah as his only reference.

And lest I forget, never once does Yahowah state that He “saved” Abraham as a result of his participation in the Covenant. That is not the Covenant’s purpose nor one of its benefits. Further, it is the Covenant’s aspirants who must be right regarding their response to what Yahowah is expecting. God does wonderful things for us, but being correct, and thus “righteous,” is something we must discern for ourselves by being Towrah observant. Fortunately, it is an open book test, so the answers are readily available.

In his next statement, Sha’uwl writes that men realize how to honor covenants, and that they neither invalidate nor disregard them. Therefore, he is either oblivious to what he, himself, is now doing, or he no longer thinks he is human.

The tactic which Sha’uwl is deploying is to distinguish between the conversational promises God made to Abraham and the terms of the Covenant as they were inscribed in the Torah. The fact that they are inseparable is a realization that was lost on him. A case cannot be made that the discussion differs from the lone record of it. Paul’s duplicity in this regard was fabricated to get Christians to 485believe that they can bypass the Torah and still have a relationship with God. But that is not possible according to God.

Sha’uwl perpetrates his scheme in part by suggesting that “adding to” the Covenant’s conditions or benefits, which is something Yahowah does as the relationship develops, somehow invalidates the preexisting oral agreement. Therefore, his argument is: to capitalize upon the promises made to Abram, Christians ought not consider Yahowah’s stipulations, but instead ignore them. That is because, as a man, Moseh was not in a position to delineate conditions for participation.

The fact that Sha’uwl does this very thing is something he wants Christians to overlook. Just because Paul is deceitful does not mean that he is not clever. After all, Yahowah warned us way back in Eden that the Serpent, Sha’uwl’s guiding spirit, would be cunning.

To position the second plank in his thesis, Sha’uwl had to ignore these words which were spoken to Yitschaq, Abraham’s son:

“I will grow and thrive with your offspring in connection with the highest and most illuminated heaven. Therefore, I will give to your offspring everything associated with this realm of God.

In addition, all people from every race and place on the earth can be blessed with this favorable outcome through your offspring.

This is because, to receive the benefits of the relationship, Abraham listened to the sound of My voice and he continuously observed and closely examined My instructive conditions which comprise the Covenant, My inscribed prescriptions for living which cut you into the relationship, and My Towrah (Towrah – My teaching, guidance, direction, and instruction).” (Bare’syth / Genesis 26:4-5)

486Disregarding the Divine affirmation that Yahowah shared His “Towrah – Teaching and Guidance” with Abraham concurrent with His presentation of the Covenant, Sha’uwl would like his devotees to believe:

“Brothers (adelphos), according to (kata – among, down from, against, and in opposition to) man (anthropos – human beings), I say (lego – I speak and provide meaning) nevertheless as a concession (homos – similarly, likewise, and all the same, even so and yet) a man (anthropos – a human being) having been validated with (kyroo – having shown something to be real, having been ratified and reassured, even authenticated by (in the perfect tense the ratification occurred in the past and is producing validation presently, the passive voice reveals that said man is being acted upon as opposed to choosing to engage himself in the process, where the participle form serves as a verbal adjective and the accusative case marks the direct object of the verb)) an agreement (diatheke – a covenant or promise, a testament or will designed to dispose of assets after death), no one (oudeis – nobody ever) rejects (atheteo – sets aside, does away with, disregards, invalidates, thwarts, voids, nullifies, abrogates, or refuses to recognize) or (e) actually accepts added provisions (epidiatassomai – actually or currently accepts something additional (present tense (currently), middle/passive voice (accepts), indicative mood (actually))).” (Galatians 3:15)

As is the case with so many of Paul’s statements, this paradigm appears reasonable until you actually think about it. Then it becomes laughably absurd. Man has elevated the violation of agreements to an art form. Legions of attorneys attest to this sorry state of affairs. Not to mention that Paul is, himself, in the process of rejecting and invalidating the Torah and its Covenant. He is rejecting all of the original provisions, then adding new ones. Moreover, in business and in life, as relationships grow, provisions are added to 487accommodate the parties engaged in the agreement, delineating what is being sought by each and offered in return.

For example, when our sons and daughters were infants, we fed and coddled them, and expected nothing in return. When our sons and daughters were children, we provided a loving home and sent them to school, providing an education. But at this point in their lives, there were expectations, conditions if you will, regarding the kind of behavior that was considered permissible within our family. When our sons and daughters became adults, we, like so many parents, helped them buy their first cars and homes, hoping that they would show some appreciation in return. And now they are self-sufficient, building their own families. Our relationship with our sons and daughters evolved as they grew and matured. The same is true with almost every business relationship in which I have developed. It is the nature of things.

With the Covenant, Yahowah initially asked Abram to walk away from his country, which was Babylon, and his family, which was pagan. After they had come to know one another, Yahowah asked Abram to trust Him. Then Yahowah encouraged this man to walk to Him and become perfected, but not before He provided the path and explained it to him, guiding Abram through the process by sharing His “towrah – teaching.”

All along the way, God presented the conditions and benefits of His Covenant to Abraham. He even asked him to pay especially close attention to what He had offered as well as to what He expected in return. Then, many years into this relationship, Yahowah asked Abraham to demonstrate his acceptance through circumcision. Therefore, the conditions of the Covenant were presented and explained over time as were the benefits. The relationship grew and it matured; it was not invalidated.

488Another example is presented in Yirma’yah / Jeremiah 31, where Yahowah prophetically reveals that He will restore His Beryth with Yisra’el and Yahuwdah, albeit with an amazing addendum. He will be writing His Towrah | Guidance inside of us such that it becomes part of the fabric of our lives. This not only affirms that the Towrah remains vital to our existence, but that God is at liberty to augment His provision.

It should also be noted that, during the Instruction on the Mount, Yahowsha’ said “the Heavenly Father’s gift is the Torah and Prophets,” and that “the Torah represents the narrow gate to life.” This occurs in the same discussion where Yahowsha’ obliterated the Christian theological position that the “Law was annulled by Grace” when he affirmed that he “came to fulfill the Towrah, not discard it,” saying that every “jot and tittle” of every Hebrew letter comprising every word “in the Torah would remain in effect as long as the universe existed, and until its every promise was fulfilled.”

Therefore, the only way Christians can be right is for Yahowsha’ to be wrong. And if Yahowsha’ was wrong, Christians can’t be right. And therein lies the conundrum the religious are unwilling to confront.

Properly evaluated, Paul’s position is Christianity’s death knell. After all, their “New Testament” is not just a monumental addition to the Towrah and its Covenant, it alters everything, invalidating the entirety of Yahowah’s testimony regarding life, relationships, and salvation.

The Christian interpretations of this passage are as errant as Paul’s suppositions. The NA proposed: “Brothers, by man I speak likewise of man having been authenticated agreement no one sets aside or adds.” The KJV published: “Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.” Jerome in his LV 489promoted: “Brothers (I speak according to man), if a man’s testament has been confirmed (confirmatum testamentum), no one would reject it or add to it.” Men and women have disavowed vastly more “covenants” than they have upheld. And this Covenant is God’s, not man’s.

Politically correct and charming, the NLT presents: “Dear brothers and sisters, here’s an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or amend an irrevocable agreement, so it is in this case.”

The inspiration for Sha’uwl’s “zera’ – seed” ploy appears in Bare’syth / Genesis 17:8. But so as not to err in the way of Sha’uwl, let’s consider the statement in context. Yahowah was speaking to Abraham…

“I will stand up, establish, and restore (quwm), with (‘eth) My Familial Covenant Relationship (beryth). It serves as a means to recognize Me and as the source of understanding with regard to an association between Me (byn) and (wa) between you, to help you think and respond (byn), and between your offspring, so that they might be observant and responsive (wa byn zera’) after you (‘achar) in (la), their dwelling places and generations (dowr) for an eternal and everlasting (‘owlam) Family Covenant Relationship (beryth).

I will genuinely remain (la hayah) as your (la) God (‘elohym), approaching (wa la) your offspring (zera’) after you (‘acharown). (17:7)

Therefore (wa), I will give (nathan) to you (la), and to (wa la) your offspring (zera’) after you (‘achar), this (‘eth) land (‘erets) where (‘eth) you are living as an alien (magowr), the entire (kol) land (‘erets) of Kan’aow | Canaan (Kan’aow) to (la) eternally (‘owlam) possess and settle within (‘achuzah). And (wa) I will exist (hayah) unto them as their (la hem la) God (‘elohym). (17:8)

Then (wa) God Almighty (‘elohym) said (‘amar) to (‘el) Abraham (‘Abraham), ‘And (wa) as for you (‘eth 490‘atah), you should actually and continuously observe, closely examining and carefully considering (shamar) My Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth-y), you (‘atah) and (wa) your offspring (zera’) after you (‘achar) throughout (la) their generations, dwelling places, and eras of time (dowr).’” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:9)

Observation, which leads to knowledge and understanding, is overtly opposed to Paul’s pretext of a faith-based relationship. And so is the realization that Yahowah’s words govern His Covenant, not Abraham’s. But playing off a minor nuance in the Torah’s Bare’syth / Genesis 17:8 and 26:4 presentation, Sha’uwl nurtured a seed into a full-grown theory.

“But (de – then) to (to – the) Abram (Abraam – the abridged pre-Covenant name of Abraham, which is based upon the Hebrew ‘ab and racham, meaning Merciful, Compassionate, and Forgiving Father), these (ai) promises (epaggelia – announced agreements (this time plural rather than singular)), from epaggello, meaning to announce and promise to do something voluntarily while professing the ability and authority to do as sworn, from epi, to be in position, and aggelos, to be a messenger) were said (erreoesan – were spoken and verbally communicated (aorist, passive, indicative, third person, plural)): ‘And (kai) to the (to) offspring (sperma – seed (singular)) of him (autos).’ Not (ou) it says (lego): ‘And (kai) to the (tois) seeds (spermasin – offsprings (plural)),’ like (hos – as) upon (epi) many (polys – a great number), but to the contrary (alla – by contrast) as (hos – like) upon (epi) one (heis), and (kai) ‘to the (to) seed (sperma – offspring (singular)) of you (sou)’ which (hos – who) is (eimi) Christos (ΧΡΣ – Divine Placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement to usurp the Septuagint’s credibility and infer Divinity).” (Galatians 3:16)

491That is so stupid, it is a wonder this fooled anyone. Not only is “zera’ – seed” a pluralistic concept in Hebrew, as it is in English (with a bag of seed containing many seeds), the terminology and the context of this discussion preclude it from pertaining to a single individual, much less exclusively to the imaginary “Christos.”

In that it is revealing, it should be noted that Yahowah promised to supply five specific benefits to those who embraced His Covenant. These include: immortality, perfection, adoption, enrichment, and empowerment – as well as ancillary others, including inheriting the Promised Land. Therefore, while it would be accurate to speak of these as “promises,” plural, up to this point Sha’uwl has said that there was only a singular “epaggelia – promise,” “which is Christos.” Having written four books on the Covenant, I can assure you that Yahowah made many promises, and Christos was not among them. Therefore, this new twist reveals a troubling inconsistency – one which lies at the very heart of his thesis.

And since God made more than one promise, articulating each of them in His Towrah, why hasn’t Paulos noted any of them? Why, instead, has he replaced them with two of his own, “righteousness” and “Christos?”

Somewhere during the process of changing from the Hebrew Sha’uwl to the Roman Paulos, this schizophrenic narcissist and psychopath turned on his own people and became anti-Semitic. What he is attempting to accomplish here is to sidestep the lineage of the Covenant through Yitschaq and Ya’aqob, who became Yisra’el. By writing them out of the story, he can jump directly from Abraham to his Christos and bypass the preponderance of the Towrah, the Covenant, the Invitations, the Promised Land, and the Chosen People. Christianity, which disassociates itself from all of these things, is the residue of this ploy. It is called “Replacement Theology.” It is every bit as invalid as are Paul’s epistles.

492As already mentioned, not only is Sha’uwl’s reasoning flawed, his specificity with regard to zera’ being “seed” singular, not plural, suggests that I was right. It is unlikely that Paul accidentally misappropriated and misquoted Yahowah’s testimony to convince his readers that his message was supported by the God he was offending. How is it that this man could have misconstrued the intent of everything Yahowah has said, and yet isolate one aspect of zera’?

In reality, this is pure madness. Even today, both “seed” and “offspring” have plural connotations and implications. If you asked someone to bring you a bag of seed, what would you say if they brought a bag with a single seed inside? Likewise, we say “offspring” when depicting our children, not “offsprings.” Proving this point, zera’ does not have a differentiated singular and plural form when addressing seed. When a person is depicted sowing an entire field, zera’ is used, as it is when the descendants number in the thousands or even millions. This argument, thereby, preys on ignorance.

Further demonstrating this point, in context, the statement Sha’uwl | Paul misappropriated cannot be used to infer a single beneficiary, much less Yahowsha’. The plural of the pronoun “you” and then “they” were ascribed to the verb “byn – making connections to understand” on both occasions when addressing ‘Abraham’s “zera’ – offspring.” All “dowr – generations and dwelling places” were specified, not just the one pertaining to Yahowsha’. And this was so that every generation might better appreciate the Covenant and our God, not just one individual. Yahowsha’ was not given the land of Canaan either.

As proof, please reconsider…

“I will stand up, establish, and restore (quwm), with (‘eth) My Familial Covenant Relationship (beryth). It 493serves as a means to recognize Me and as the source of understanding with regard to an association between Me (byn) and (wa) between you, to help you think and respond (byn), and between your offspring, so that they might be observant and responsive (wa byn zera’) after you (‘achar) in (la), their dwelling places and generations (dowr) for an eternal and everlasting (‘owlam) Family Covenant Relationship (beryth). I will genuinely remain (la hayah) as your (la) God (‘elohym), approaching (wa la) your offspring (zera’) after you (‘acharown). (17:7) Therefore (wa), I will give (nathan) to you (la), and to (wa la) your offspring (zera’) after you (‘achar), this (‘eth) land (‘erets) where (‘eth) you are living as an alien (magowr), the entire (kol) land (‘erets) of Kan’aow | Canaan (Kan’aow) to (la) eternally (‘owlam) possess and settle within (‘achuzah). And (wa) I will exist (hayah) unto them as their (la hem la) God (‘elohym). (17:8) Then (wa) God Almighty (‘elohym) said (‘amar) to (‘el) Abraham (‘Abraham), ‘And (wa) as for you (‘eth ‘atah), you should actually and continuously observe, closely examining and carefully considering (shamar) My Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth-y), you (‘atah) and (wa) your offspring (zera’) after you (‘achar) throughout (la) their generations, dwelling places, and eras of time (dowr).’” (Bare’syth / Genesis 17:9)

Simply stated, Paul’s seed proposition is preposterous. And yet without it, his entire edifice crumbles.

Demonstrating that one requires faith to believe that God inspired these words, the Nestle-Aland has Paul saying: “To the but Abraham were said the promises and to the seed of him. Not it says and to the seeds as on many but as on one and to the seed of you who is Christ.”

Missing the magnificence of the word which served to unify the Torah’s promises with their fulfillments, the inadequate KJV writes: “Now to Abraham and his seed 494were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.”

The Catholic Church’s Latin Vulgate reads: “The promises were made to Abrahæ and to his offspring. He did not say, “and to descendents,” as if to many, but instead, as if to one, he said, “and to your offspring,” who is Christus.” To this Jerome added: “~ The Promise was certainly made to many descendants of Abraham, since God used the figure of the stars in the sky and the sand on the shore. But Paul is saying that the word used for offspring can be taken in the singular sense, because the promise is primarily about Christ, (the one offspring who redeems all other offspring), and only secondarily about the physical and spiritual descendants of Abraham.” The Roman theologian is saying that Paul made a big deal out of nothing, and I concur. And to make his point, Jerome had to change “promises” back to “promise.”

Speaking of making something out of nothing, the New Living Translation would have us believe that zera’ and sperma both mean “child.” “God gave the promises to Abraham and his child. And notice that the Scripture doesn't say ‘to his children,’ as if it meant many descendants. Rather, it says ‘to his child’—and that, of course, means Christ.” Therein we see one of the problems of Paul’s writing and reasoning exposed. His words and thoughts are far too easily misconstrued and misrepresented.

The less evident, but more intriguing, message related to the use of “zera’ – seed” is found in a promise made in the Garden of Eden. Yahowah predicted that the “zera’ – seed” of woman would bruise Satan on his head, which is precisely what Dowd accomplished with his mentally stimulating Psalms. God also warned that the Serpent would bruise mankind in the heel, which serves as the basis of Ya’aqob’s name – the child of the Covenant who became Yisra’el.

495Apart from appreciating the eternal nature of the relationship between Yahowah and Abraham, and how that led to God blessing Yitschaq and Ya’aqob, and therefore Yisra’el, in addition to providing the lineage which led over chasms of time to the Shepherd and Lamb, this is all much ado about nothing. It is a pathetic argument for the reasons already discussed.

Once again, citing the book Christians are wont to claim Galatians was nullifying, Sha’uwl’s next sentence is based upon Bare’syth / Genesis 15:13. In context, here is some of what Yahowah’s Towrah reveals about the ongoing nature of the Covenant, which He said would remain in effect…

“And He said to him, ‘I am Yahowah who, for the benefit of the relationship, brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans | Babylon to give you this land to possess as an inheritance. (Bare’syth / Genesis 15:7)

So, he said, ‘Yahowah, in what way shall I know that indeed I shall possess it as an inheritance?’ (Bare’syth / Genesis 15:8)

“He said: Abram, you should know with absolute certainty that indeed as one making a sojourn, your seed will exist in a land which is not for them (in Egypt). And they shall serve them. And they will respond and seek resolution, accordingly, in four hundred years. (Bare’syth / Genesis 15:13)

But also, therefore, that Gentile nation which reduces them to servitude, I will judge. And afterward, they shall come out with an intensely important and tremendously valuable possession. (Bare’syth / Genesis 15:14)

As for you, you shall go to your Father in peace, satisfied and reconciled. You shall be buried with grey hair, moral and pleasing. (15:15) And they shall return here in the fourth generation of time, 496because indeed, the corruption, distortions, and perversity of the ‘Emory | Amorites are not yet fully developed or totally complete. (Bare’syth / Genesis 15:16)

On this day, Yahowah cut the Familial Covenant Relationship with Abram to promise and affirm: ‘To your offspring (zera’), I give (nathan) this (‘eth ze’th) Land (‘erets).’” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 15:18)

“To your seed I will give this land” cannot be misappropriated to say “‘And to the offspring of him,’ it does not say: ‘And to the seeds,’ like upon many, but to the contrary as upon one, and ‘to the seed of you’ which is Christos.” Although, having buried the truth regarding Yahowah, Yahowsha’, the Covenant, and the Towrah, the gift of the land may have seemed like an appropriate comparison to Sha’uwl.

Very few Christians have attempted to explain what Sha’uwl does next. This is the first of countless times that Sha’uwl will deploy a phrase that sets him apart from those who scribed the Towrah and Prophets. They spoke for Yahowah, but Paul speaks for himself. His “but I say” is used so frequently, it should have alerted everyone to the fact he was speaking for Paul when he wrote...

“But (de) this (houtos) I say (lego – I speak), ‘A promised covenant agreement (diatheke – a testament, will, or agreement of some kind to dispose of and distribute a deceased individual’s property) having been ratified beforehand (prokyroo – having been sanctioned and validated in advance; from kuroo, to promise and confirm publicly that something is valid, and thus truthful and reliable, and pro, ahead of time) by (hupo – because of, under the auspices of, by the means of, and for the reasons that) the God (tou ΘΥ), this (o) after (meta – with) four hundred and thirty (tetrakosioi kai triakonta) years 497(etos), having become (ginomai – having appeared on the scene and arrived upon the stage of history as) Towrah (nomos – the means to be nourished by that which is bestowed, becoming heirs, precepts which are apportioned, established, and received as a means to proper and to be approved, prescriptions for an inheritance) does not (ou – objectively denying the reality of an alleged fact) revoke it (akyroo – invalidate, nullify, contradict, or void it, depriving it of authority) so as to (eis) invalidate or abolish (katargeo –idle or inactivate, diminish or remove the force of) the (o) announced promise (epaggelia – the heralding of the consent approval and agreement (singular)).’” (Galatians 3:17)

You may have noticed that the singular promise which became promises, plural, is now singular again. This is a symptom of one of the many problems associated with lying: remembering what was said.

Speaking for Himself, Yahowah, in Bare’syth / Genesis 26:5, told us that He not only shared His Towrah with Abraham, but that the reason He was now honoring its provisions with Yitschaq was because Abraham listened intently and carefully observed everything He had to say. Therefore, the very Towrah which presents the Covenant was concurrent with it. These are parallel events, not sequential.

For comparison sake, the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27^th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear attests that Paul wrote: “But this I say, agreement having been validated before by the God, the after four hundred and thirty years, having become law not invalidates for the to abolish the promise.”

As has become his custom, Paul has positioned a principle that is only plausible if the audience is unaware of what Yahowah has written. He is suggesting that the Towrah is irrelevant because the Covenant preceded it, and 498therefore cannot nullify it. When in reality, the Towrah not only confirms every nuance of the Covenant, without the Towrah, the Covenant is unknown and unknowable. Simply stated: without the Towrah, there is no Covenant. With the Towrah, there is only one Covenant. The Covenant is inseparable from the Towrah. One does not exist without the other.

It is inappropriate, although not out of character, for Paul to begin this statement with “But this I say.” It is as if he thinks his personal suppositions, even when they are in conflict with God, are superior. And yet here, what he is saying is only believable if you are unaware of what Yahowah has said.

Rather than affirm that the Covenant established with Abraham was validated and memorialized in the Towrah, Sha’uwl is proposing the notion that the Towrah “did not revoke or invalidate” it. In that way, rather than the Towrah being essential to the Covenant, it becomes irrelevant to it. This strategy was ingenious, albeit insidious.

To understand why Sha’uwl used such twisted logic, blending half-truths with outright lies, we have to consider this statement within the context of the point he has been trying to advance. Paul is linking “the promise / promises made to Abraham” with his “Christos” and then to “believing the message he has been preaching,” while at the same time bypassing the entirety of Torah, which must be negated for his formula to prevail. Therefore, he is telling the Galatians that since the Torah cannot revoke or invalidate the promise, the Torah is extraneous to that promise.

The reason this clever, although ridiculous, line of reasoning prevailed is that the natural tendency of people ensnared in a religious system is to give those who claim to speak for God the benefit of the doubt. I am embarrassed to say that I was once counted among those he beguiled. 499And that is why I shared my preconceived thoughts regarding Galatians at the outset of this evaluation. I was predisposed to justify the discrepancies between the Christian interpretation of this epistle and Yahowah’s testimony. I had hoped to solve the many conundrums by suggesting that it was the Talmud, not Yahowah’s Towrah, that was being assailed. But I would have to sacrifice my integrity and my soul to do either. Since the facts condemn Paul, it would be immoral and irrational to absolve him by concealing or twisting his testimony.

It is ironic in a way. I have been vilified for having turned over and exposed the rocks Paul has hurled at the Torah. And yet, for far too long I was guilty of letting my desire to validate Paul’s message taint my judgment.

Yes, it is true, the Torah didn’t invalidate Yahowah’s promises. But that is like saying the novel Moby-Dick didn’t invalidate Ahab’s vow to get the whale. Every last detail associated with these promises would be completely unknown without the Torah. In this light, please ponder:

“Brothers, according to man I say nevertheless a man having been validated with an agreement; no one rejects or actually accepts added provisions. (3:15) But to Abram these promises were said, ‘And to the offspring of him.’ It does not say: ‘And to the seeds,’ like upon many. But to the contrary, as upon one, and to the seed of you which is Christos. (3:16)

But this I say, ‘A promised covenant agreement having been ratified beforehand by the God, this after four hundred and thirty years, having become Towrah does not revoke it so as to invalidate the promise.’” (Galatians 3:17)

In context, the transition from “promises” to “promise” in the beginning of 3:16 and at the conclusion of 3:17 is glaring. Those skilled in rhetoric recognize that inconsistencies of this type serve as proof that an individual 500is lying and cannot be trusted.

The twist here is “invalidate” as opposed to “validate.” In reality, the Covenant’s promises which were discussed between Yahowah and Abraham were affirmed, that is to say, they were “validated,” while they were being established, and again concurrent with the liberation of the Children of Yisra’el from bondage in the crucibles of Egypt – a story central to the message of the Towrah and its Covenant.

Turning to the interpretive translations of Galatians, we find the KJV inferring that, since the Law cannot invalidate the promise, the Law must be wrong, which is worse than, albeit a natural extension of, what Sha’uwl was trying to say. “And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.”

The Latin Vulgate isn’t wrong; it’s just inadequate: “But I say this: the testament confirmed by God (testamentum confirmatum a Deo), which, after four hundred and thirty years became the Law (Lex), does not nullify, so as to make the promise empty.”

The New Living Translation published: “This is what I am trying to say: The agreement God made with Abraham could not be canceled 430 years later when God gave the law to Moses. God would be breaking his promise.” After all, Paul was composing the lyrics for their hymnals.