501Questioning Paul
Towrahless
…Without Guidance
12
Mesites | The Middleman
Would you Believe?…
His frayed emotions spent, Paul continued to flail in the air, taking sweeping swipes at God. Having not landed a solid blow, he became a tragic figure, tangled up in his pathetic flailing. He was a punch-drunk boxer, tottering in the midst of his tantrum.
Fueled only by ego and desperate to land the haymaker he craved, his vendetta against the Almighty devolved into madness. He continued to tamper with the evidence and bellow bombastic taunts as he mocked everyone, including God.
And yet through it all, completely detached from reality, he became the high-minded moral failure Yahowah had foretold 666 years earlier. Reflecting his Lord’s overbearing attitude, Sha’uwl continued to present his attack on the Almighty as if he were a beacon of light in a dark world. The bad seed of Abraham was insane, and yet with every whiny breath, this lowly and little man would have us believe that he alone was imbued with the means to save mankind.
This would be his haunting refrain: God is wrong, Paul is right, Jews are bad, Gentiles are mine.
Amidst this dearth of reason, the writing quality, which has been abysmal, deteriorates. Paul’s next verse requires a reordering of the words, the addition of a verb, a 502preposition, and some articles for it to convey an intelligible thought.
Therefore, let’s begin with the most credible scholastic source, the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear: “If for from law the inheritance no longer from promise to the but Abraham through promise has favored the God.”
“Because (gar – for) if (ei – as a condition) from (ek – out of) the Towrah (nomou – the allotment which is parceled out, the inheritance which is given, the nourishment which is bestowed to be possessed and used to grow, the precepts which are apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper and approved, and the prescription to become an heir (singular genitive, and thus restricted to a singular specific and unique characterization)) the (e) inheritance (kleronomai – possession of gifts from a deceased parent), no longer (ouketi) from (ek – out of) a promise (epaggelia – an agreement or consent (singular)), but (de) to (to) Abram (Abraam – a transliteration of Abram, Abraham’s original name) by (dia – through) promise (epaggelia – agreement or consent (singular)) he has favored (charizomai – he has done a favor to gratify and pleasure, showing hospitality and merriment, serving as a derivative of Charis – the name of the Greek goddesses of Charity) the God (o ΘΣ).” (Galatians 3:18)
The primary purpose of Yahowah’s Towrah | Teaching is to present His Beryth | Covenant. And the sole purpose of this Familial Relationship is to bequeath an inheritance, allowing the Children of the Covenant to inherit its blessings, the physical universe, and heaven.
Diving into the dark mind of Paul’s madness, this desperate theory would have us believe that Yahowah’s Towrah – a book filled with God’s promises – cannot possibly contain any of the promises the Almighty made 503on behalf of Abraham because the surviving eyewitness to this conversation attested to it 430 years after these events transpired.
It is like saying that, because Yahowah didn’t provide Moseh | Moses with a 14-billion-year-old transcript of His methods concurrent with creation, it did not occur. Or think of it this way: you agree upon a price to buy a home and shake hands with the seller. Later, when you have a realtor memorialize your agreement in writing, rather than affirming it, according to Paul’s approach, you have invalidated the promises made to one another.
And speaking of delusional, how is it that Paul believes that Abram favored God when it was clearly the other way around. All five of the Covenant’s blessings are for our benefit.
While I suspect that we have all had our fill of Paul by now, in a way, his continued and desperate attempt to portray Abraham and the Covenant as being distinct and separate from the Towrah in which both are presented, adds considerable credence to the assertion that this ploy is the fulcrum upon which Pauline Doctrine pivots. The realization that it is faulty does not bode well for the religion.
Paul wants us to believe, without evidence or reason, that Abram, circa 2000 BCE, became “righteous and vindicated,” and thus “saved,” as a result of “believing an undisclosed promise.” And then he wants us to reject the rest of the Towrah, the only source in which this relationship is known, even though it was inspired by God.
But how can anyone believe this wholly unverifiable and conflicting “promise of salvation through faith” when the Towrah’s account methodically presents Abraham engaging in a relationship with Yahowah by responding to what God had requested of him? To put this in perspective, the story of Abraham and God’s relationship with him 504begins in the 11th chapter of Bare’syth / Genesis and continues into the 25th chapter – providing some 20 pages of detailed information, all of it pertinent and interesting. And yet Paul would do away with all of this and reduce the development of the Covenant to a single undisclosed promise, one in conflict with everything God revealed. As a result, so long as you believe Paul, you can dispense with the Towrah and Prophets. Fact is, you can and most do, but not wisely.
Even if Paul’s contradictory claims were true, and they are not, even if Paul could validate his proposition, and he can’t, why would God deliberately present an inaccurate depiction of the most pivotal relationship He ever formed? And if God cannot be trusted to tell us what happened, why should we believe someone who claims to speak for Him regarding this relationship and its consequences?
In the Towrah, there is a very specific way God is open to being approached. That process requires walking away from religion and politics, getting acquainted, developing a relationship, and growing together, with God enhancing our lives along the way. But with Paul, getting to know God and then developing a relationship with Him is immaterial. He goes directly from believing to vindication. It is this improper perspective that beguiles so many Christians.
According to Yahowah, trust is the second of five steps we must take to participate in His Covenant. These steps, or requirements, include: 1) walking away from our country, especially that which is represented by Babylon, and therefore, from religion and politics, 2) trusting and relying on Yahowah, which necessitates knowing Him and coming to understand what He is offering, something that can only be achieved by studying the Towrah, 3) then based upon this knowledge, walking to Yahowah to become perfect, a path guided by the Towrah, 4) which is why we are asked to closely examine and carefully consider every aspect of the Covenant relationship, which again can only 505be achieved by studying the Towrah, and 5) be circumcised as men, and as parents, we are asked to circumcise our sons as our commitment to raise our children to become God’s children. After we do these five things, Yahowah responds by making our souls immortal, perfecting us, and adopting us into His Covenant family, so that He can enrich us with His teaching and empower us with His Spirit.
It would be foolish for Yahowah to save someone who does not know Him, who is not part of His family, who has not so much as bothered to consider what He wants or to know what He is offering. If He were to do so, heaven would be no different than the mess men and women have made here on earth.
In the Towrah, salvation is a byproduct of the Covenant relationship because our Heavenly Father cares for His children. And this is why faith in the unknown is not part of this equation.
But with Paul, salvation is instantly awarded to those who believe him. A person does not need to know Yahowah’s name, consider Yahowah’s instructions, engage in Yahowah’s Covenant, or answer Yahowah’s Invitations. Nothing is required. No knowledge. No thinking. No relationship. No action. No commitment. And yet, should Paul be right, heaven would be hell for Christians because those who have an affinity for the thoughtless and inactive myth will, like Paul, hate the voyage of discovery we will take with Yahowah through His word and world.
The second reason to discard Paul’s ploy is that the scenario he is presenting is rationally impossible. Since the Towrah is the only place where God introduces Himself to us, the only place where the terms and benefits of the Covenant are presented, and the only place where the path to God and thus to salvation is explained, by negating and bypassing it, there are no promises.
506Third, to suggest that a person cannot rely on the written testimony of God in His Towrah, but can believe an unrecorded and unsubstantiated promise from this same God, is insane. Keep in mind, Yahowah proved that His testimony can be trusted by offering countless accurate prophecies. And Paul proved that his antagonist position should not be trusted by offering an onslaught of errant citations and logical fallacies. He could not even get his own personal history right.
Fourth, almost every aspect of Paul’s “salvation by believing a promise made to Abram” theory conflicts with the lone eyewitness account of what actually occurred. To discard the written testimony of an eyewitness, especially when that eyewitness is God, only to believe this man, is far too foolish even for faith. Doing so requires the faithful to believe that God authorized a man to trash His reputation, to annul His testimony, to deny His purpose, and to refute His solution, so that everything He promised and proposed could be discarded.
And fifth, since Yahowah proved beyond any doubt that He is God and that He authored the Torah and Prophets, and did so through countless prophecies, all of which have occurred precisely as predicted, or are in the process of coming true right before our eyes, to reject such affirmed testimony, and instead believe in Paul’s letters, a man who got his lone prediction wrong, isn’t real smart.
Returning to the text of Galatians 3:18, kleronomai, translated “inheritance,” highlights one of many problems with Christianity. As a result of Paul’s letters, the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms have been relegated to an “Old Testament,” with the inference that it is “kleronomai – the will and testimony of a deceased parent,” or at least that of a retired and incapacitated father who is no longer relevant because he “allotted everything he possessed to his son.” The same concern is also evident in diatheke, which Paul has used relative to the “agreement,” which also speaks of 507“a testament or will which was written to dispose of and distribute a deceased or incapacitated individual’s property.”
Also interesting, kleronomai is a compound of kleros which is “a means of selecting someone by random chance” and, specifically, “to cast or draw lots,” and the all-too-familiar nomos, “allotment which is parceled out as an inheritance.” It is therefore a “random chance” means of determining one’s inheritance which is being errantly associated with the Torah.
Beyond this, the notion that because something is written it ceases to be a promise is also absurd. A “promissory note” is a written pledge to pay someone what is owed to him. A legal contract stipulates responsibilities and delineates the things each party promises to perform. The contract does not change the nature of the promises, it simply holds the parties accountable for the promises they have made. Likewise, while it is actually a three-party agreement with the government, most consider their marriage license to be a written affirmation of a husband’s and wife’s oral vows regarding their union. Similarly, an affidavit serves to memorialize oral testimony, making one’s oath legally binding rather than nullifying it. Written agreements mitigate misunderstandings and create an enduring legacy.
This passage, combined with the previous one, once again precludes us from pretending that Paul was referencing the Oral Law or Traditions of the Rabbis. According to Pauline Doctrine, the Torah must be bypassed for the promise to remain valid and for “believers” to become heirs of his god. Therefore, in his warped mind, the affinity between the Covenant established between Yahowah and Abraham, and the Towrah in which this Covenant has been memorialized, is counterproductive. Therefore, with Paul, this is an “either-or” proposition. According to Sha’uwl, you can fail by 508following the Towrah’s guidance or you can be saved by believing in an unspecified promise made by the very same God whose testimony is incapable of saving anyone.
Christians have been misled by Paul’s letters into believing that the Torah represents a works-based, onerous, and thus impossible means to salvation. And yet that is not remotely accurate. While we must engage to participate in the relationship, our salvation is the byproduct of that agreement. All we are required to do to become perfect and immortal is to answer Yahowah’s Invitations and meet with Him on the days that He has set aside to save us. He does the work, as do all loving fathers on behalf of their children.
From a Pauline perspective, “faith in a promise” requires nothing from the beneficiary. But then what is in it for God? Imagine having to endure the company of someone with whom you share nothing in common and whose agenda and priorities are the opposite of your own. After all, Yahowah is averse to everything Christians hold dear: Paul and his letters, being religious, discounting His name, being referred to as Lord, the Christian New Testament, an Old Testament, being anti-Semitic, a new covenant, Grace, calling His Word “the Bible,” everything associated with the Church, the Trinity, the cross, bowing down, being worshiped, Sunday observances, Christmas, Lent, Easter, Halloween, the pagan myth of a dying and bodily resurrected deity, and prayers apart from responding to His Towrah.
Relative to Galatians 3:18, the problem is not with the translations, but instead with the original document. Paul wrote: “Because if, as a condition, from the Towrah the inheritance, no longer from promise, but to the Abram by promise of the God, He has favored and pleasured.” The King James Version published: “For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.” It was a precisely accurate 509translation of the Latin Vulgate. “For if the inheritance is of the lege/law, then it is no longer of the promise. But God bestowed it to Abraham through the promise.”
That said, Gerald Borchert of the Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Douglas Moo of Wheaton College, and Thomas Schreiner of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary working under the auspices of Mark Taylor, the “Chief Stylist,” Daniel Taylor, the “Senior Stylist,” and Philip Comfort, the “N.T. Coordinating Editor,” collectively known as “Team Tyndale,” with regard to Galatians, coordinated this stylish theological twist whereby the promised inheritance was nullified by trying to keep the law. Then for good measure, they tossed in an extra “grace,” just to be sure they had paid proper homage to Paul’s goddesses. “For if the inheritance could be received by keeping the law, then it would not be the result of accepting God’s promise. But God graciously gave it to Abraham as a promise.”
Why would one God have “Old” and “New” Testaments? Was He unable to get it right the first time?
According to Yahowah, His Covenant has not yet been renewed, and when it ultimately is reaffirmed on Yowm Kipurym in year 6000 Yah, the restoration of the familial relationship will be predicated upon full integration of the Towrah. Yahowah has promised to write His “towrah – teaching” inside His children such that it enhances our ability to make sound decisions. As such, the notion that the Towrah and its Covenant are outdated, necessitating new approaches, is inconsistent with this promised future event.
Turning to Sha’uwl’s next statement, we are confronted with considerable differences between an older manuscript and the majority texts as presented in the Nestle-Aland. So, while I’ve included the additional verbiage found in post-Constantine codices, I’ve placed 510these words within brackets. But with or without them, this is nearly incomprehensible.
After having said that Yahowah’s Towrah was both irrelevant and diabolical, Paul was compelled to explain why God even bothered to write it. So, here is Paul’s most lucid explanation as it is chronicled by the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear: “What then the law? Of the transgression on account it was set forward until which might come the seed to who it has been promised having been directed through messengers in hand of mediator.”
Rearranging these same words, but not misrepresenting any of them, here is another perspective on the same statement:
“Then (oun – therefore), why (tis – or what) the (o – this) Towrah (nomos – Torah, mistakenly perceived as “the Law” by Christians, with nomos speaking of an allotment which is parceled out, precepts apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper and approved, and prescriptions to become an heir)?
[Of the (ton) transgressions (parabasis – violations and promulgations, disobediences and disregarding, lawbreaking and overstepping) because of the favor (charin – for the purpose and reason of, for the charity and pleasure of) it was continued (prostithemai – it was provided and added to)]
Until (achri) the (to) seed (sperma – offspring and descendants) which (hos – who) might come (erchomai – may happen (in the subjunctive mood the verb’s action is a mere possibility)) to whom (hos – to which) it has been promised (epangellomai – asserted, professed, or announced) having been commanded (diatasso – having been instructed, arranged, and planned) [by (dia – through)] messengers (angelos / aggelos – a class of spiritual beings serving as envoys commonly known as 511angels) in the hand (en cheir – in control of) of a mediator and middleman (mesites – of a reconciler; from mesos – middleman).” (Galatians 3:19)
Paul has painted himself into a corner. At this time, especially within walking distance of Yisra’el, the Towrah was the best known and most often quoted text. That is still true. It is the most accurate historically, the most prophetically precise, the most thoroughly moral, the most consistently enlightening, and the most innovative and important document the world has ever known. So now that Paul has trashed it, his audience is obviously questioning why God bothered with it in the first place. What was God’s purpose? What, if anything, did He accomplish by writing it? Where did God go so wrong that His teaching is no longer valid?
Sha’uwl is floating another trial balloon, hoping that no one actually reads or considers the book he is relegating to a bygone era. In Paul’s view, Yahowah’s Towrah was a document “ton parabasis – associated with transgressions.” Yahowah’s Teaching and Guidance “ton parabasis – overstepped its bounds with promulgations, which is the spread, proliferation, and dissemination of a decree which cannot be disobeyed and disregarded.”
At best, at least according to this self-proclaimed apostle of God, the Towrah “prostithemai – was provided, augmented, and continued” only “achri – until” the “charin sperma – fortuitous and charitable seed” “erchomai – might come” to rescue mankind from the mean-spirited and incompetent god of that old testament. The replacement “sperma – offspring” would be more “charin – pleasurable, charitable, and agreeable, treating everyone favorably,” liars like Paul apparently included.
So attractive would be the replacement god, he would come in the name of the Greek Charis – Charities and the Roman Gratia – Graces, emulating the beautiful party girls 512of pagan mythology. That, according to Paul, was the full extent of the Torah. And now that the seed had come, you were encouraged to cast the Torah aside. Goodbye and good riddance, God’s alleged spokesman said of God.
Who do you suppose is the “mesites – mediator and middleman” if not Paul, himself? When he means to say, Iesou Christo, he writes it. Moreover, since this supposition is diametrically opposed to what Yahowsha’ proclaimed during the Instruction on the Mount, he’s obviously not Paul’s mediator.
I would also be remiss if I did not share two additional facts. First, Yahowah specifically asks us not to “prostithemai – add to” His Towrah. And second, Yahowah routinely affirms that His Towrah is “‘owlam – eternal and everlasting.”
If that were not enough to suggest that Sha’uwl ought not be trusted, the second half of his pontification is especially ripe with rotten fruit. From whence is anyone to understand how to capitalize on the favor being provided by the new seed? If the mercy He is providing does not come by observing the Towrah, why was he promised in the Towrah?
Why pretend that the seed’s credibility is enhanced because it was promised that he “erchomai – might come?” Scribed in the subjunctive mood, the promise was at best probable. Do you suppose that Paul is trying to disparage Yahowah’s prophetic record in the Towrah and Prophets, where everything He has promised has materialized? After all, any rational individual who studies God’s predictions and their fulfillments come to realize that Yahowah not only proves that He is God, but also that His Towrah testimony can be trusted. Is Sha’uwl implying that God just got lucky this time, and that we would be wasting our time to observe His prophecies more closely?
Facts aside, it would be in Sha’uwl’s interest for his 513audience to relegate Yahowah’s Word to the scrapheap of time, because those who consider God’s testimony will reject Paul’s letters.
But that is not the end of the rotten fruit. Yahowsha’ arrived in the fourth millennia of human history to fulfill the Towrah’s promises in the Yowbel year of 4000 Yah. He entered Yaruwshalaim four days before Passover, at the exact moment predicted in the opening chapter of the Towrah and ninth chapter of Dany’el. Then he, in concert with the Father and Spirit, enabled the benefits that would be provided through Yahowah’s Invitations to Meet on Pesach, Matsah, Bikuwrym, and Shabuw’ah. It was not perchance, but by design.
While predicted and explained, it was not a command, and more importantly, his arrival was not “dia angelos” by way of “angels.” Yes, Gabriel announced his arrival to Dany’el, but that was the full extent of any “mal’ak – spiritual messenger’s” contribution. Therefore, Sha’uwl is willing to mislead his audience, hoping that they disassociate Yahowah from Yahowsha’.
Further, Yahowsha’ was neither “mesites – mediator or middleman.” There is one God, one Savior – Yahowah. That is what Yahowsha’ means as a compound of “yasha’ – to free and save” and “Yahow – a contraction of Yahowah.” No one comes between Yahowah and His Covenant children.
There is nothing in the Towrah which suggests that it was a “temporary” solution, and if there were, you could bet your oldest shekel Sha’uwl would have cited it. Virtually every important instruction in the Torah comes with the provision that “this is to be ‘owlam – eternal and everlasting.”
Especially relevant, Yahowsha’ expressly refuted the notion that he came to annul the Torah. He said that even the smallest strokes of the letters which comprise the words 514which proclaim its message would endure as long as the universe exists and until every last promise is fulfilled. (Matthew 5:17-19) Therefore, since Paul’s message is in direct conflict with Yahowsha’, who is Paul’s “sperma – seed?”
The Torah does not say that it was given because of “transgressions.” But that didn’t stop the KJV from proposing: “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” The inspiration for those words came from the Latin Vulgate: “Why, then, was there a lex/law? It was established because of transgressions, until the offspring would arrive, to whom he made the promise, ordained by Angelos through the hand of a mediator.”
A disclaimer is in order: what you are about to read is not true. Using the New Living Translation may be harmful to your health. “Why, then, was the law given? It was given alongside the promise to show people their sins. But the law was designed to last only until the coming of the child who was promised. God gave his law through angels to Moses, who was the mediator between God and the people.”
That is not what Paul wrote, and thus the NLT is not a translation. It is not even true. It is not what Yahowah said about the Torah’s purpose, so this message is counter to the Word of God. It is even the opposite of Yahowsha’s statements regarding the Torah.
Not only is “law” an invalid depiction of the Towrah, it was not given by way of angels. That means that Gerald Borchert of the Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Douglas Moo of Wheaton College, Thomas Schreiner of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and their stylists Mark and Daniel Taylor, and Philip Comfort have 515joined with Sha’uwl to deceive – all gaining fame and making money in the process.
How do you suppose these “scholars” reconcile their “but the law was designed to last only until the coming of the child who was promised” with the child of the promise saying:
“You should not think or assume (me nomizomai – you do not consider, expect, nor suppose at any time even the possibility of the commonly held or popularly established presumption, never accepting the prevailing precept or justification (negative particle, aorist active subjunctive verb)) that (hoti – namely) I actually came (erchomai – I appeared then, now, or in the future (aorist active indicative)) to tear down, invalidate, put an end to, or discard (kataluo – to dissolve, destroy, disunite, subvert, overthrow, abrogate, weaken, dismantle, or abolish, releasing or dismissing any of the implications, force, influence, or validity of) the Towrah (ton nomon – that which has been assigned to nourish and provide an inheritance) or the Prophets (e tous prophetes – those who are inspired to speak and write based upon divine inspiration, making God’s thoughts and plans known even before they happen).
I actually came not (ouk erchomai) to dismiss, to invalidate, to discard, or to put an end to it (kataluo – to tear it down, to dissolve, to destroy, to disunite, to subvert, to overthrow, to abrogate, to weaken, to dismantle, or to abolish it, dismissing any implication or influence), but instead (alla – to the contrary, emphatically contrasting that to the certainty) to completely fulfill it (pleroo – to proclaim and complete it, providing the true meaning and thinking, to liberally supply, carrying out, accomplishing, and rendering it totally and perfectly). (Matthew 5:17)
Because (gar – for this reason then so that you understand) in deed and in truth (amen – truly and 516reliably), I say to you (lego sy), till (hoes – up to the point that) with absolute certainty (an) the heaven and the earth (o ouranos e ge – the universe and the surface of the planet) cease to exist (parerchomai – pass away, disappearing), not ever under any circumstance shall (ou me – there is no way whatsoever, not even so much as a possibility that) one aspect of the smallest letter (eis iota – shall a single Yowd, the first letter in Yahowah’s name and the smallest character in the Hebrew alphabet) nor (e) a single stroke of the pen (mia keraia – one of the smallest line distinguishing any aspect of any Hebrew letter) cease to be relevant (parerchomai – be averted or neglected, have any chance of being ignored or disregarded, being passed over or omitted, perishing) from (apo – being disassociated, separated, or severed from) the Towrah (tou nomou – that which has been assigned to nourish and provide an inheritance) until with absolute certainty (hoes an) everything (pas – every last aspect, all and the totality of it) comes to exist (ginomai – it all take place and happens, becoming a reality). (Matthew 5:18)
Therefore (oun – indeed and as a result), whoever may (hos ean – if at any time anyone introduces a contingency or condition whereby the individual) dismiss or attempt to do away with (luo – may seek to toss aside, invalidate, or abolish, tearing away or asunder) one of the (mian ton) smallest and least important of these (houtos ton elachistos) prescriptions and instructions which are enjoined (entole – rules, regulations, and authorized directions, precepts, and teachings), and (kai) he may instruct or indoctrinate (didasko – he might teach, delivering moralizing discourses while conceiving and instilling doctrine, expounding or explaining so as to enjoin) people (anthropos – humanity or mankind) in this manner (houto – thusly and likewise), he will actually be called by the name and will be judicially summoned as (kaleo – he will be referred to and called by the proper name, literally and passively summoned, called to task and 517designated) Lowly and Little (elachistos – a.k.a., Paulos, which means small, inadequate, and insignificant, insufficient, irrelevant, and unimportant, of no consequence, immaterial, and inconsequential (Paulos, the Latin name Sha’uwl adopted as his own means “elachistos – lowly and little)) in the kingdom of heaven (en te basileia ton ouranos – by, within, among, and with regard to the reign and royal authority of the heavens).
And then (de – but by contrast), whosoever (hos an) might act upon it (poieomai – may engage through (the Towrah), making the most of it, attempting to carry out its assigned tasks (aorist active subjunctive)), teaching it (didasko – trying to provide and share its instructions, expounding upon it), this individual (houtos – these things) will properly be referred to and named (kaleo – it will be judiciously and appropriately called and designated) valuable and important (megas – sensible, albeit surprisingly uncommon) among those who reign within the heavens (en te basileia ton ouranos – by and with regard to the kingdom and royal authority of the heavens).” (Matthew 5:19)
While Yahowsha’ spoke to his audience in Hebrew, the translation of his Instruction on the Mount begins using “me nomizomai” in the aorist active subjunctive, which is “an express prohibition against accepting what will become a commonly held belief.” In this tense and mood, this “is something so wrong we should not allow ourselves to even begin to think this way, no matter how popular or prevalent this sentiment is within our society.”
Therefore, Yahowsha’ was telling us that so many people would embrace the myth that Sha’uwl has been promoting that his supposition would ultimately become commonly held, presumed to be established throughout the world. And yet it was absolutely and irrefutably wrong to assume that Yahowsha’ came to invalidate any aspect of the Towrah, as Paul was claiming.
518Kataluo is an unequivocal term in this context – and it is repeated twice. It means that people are in irreconcilable conflict with Yahowsha’ | “Jesus” if they are of the opinion that his life invalidates, subverts, sidesteps, abrogates, weakens, abolishes, or dismisses any aspect of the Towrah. And that means that the terms and conditions of the Covenant remain in effect and must be acted upon to participate in a relationship with God. That means that Yahowah is still inviting us to attend the same Meetings, expecting us to respond to Him if we desire immortality, vindication, adoption, enrichment, and empowerment. That means that the Towrah and its Covenant have not been replaced. That means that everything Paul has said is wrong. Believe this insignificant man, and you will die.
The most common Christian dismissal of God’s unequivocal statement is to suggest that “pleroo – to completely fulfill” somehow means “to do away with” as opposed to “doing what one has promised.” But twice in this very same statement, Yahowsha’ is translated using kataluo to say that this interpretation is in irreconcilable conflict with his position and reality. And last time I checked, the universe and the earth still exist. Therefore, we can be reassured that every promise, every prediction, every direction and inspiration in the Towrah remains true and in effect. This is what makes God so reliable.
Eliminating any opportunity for misunderstanding, Yahowsha’ was specific, telling us that not so much as the smallest Hebrew letter, a Yowd, which not-so-coincidentally is the first letter in his name, nor even the smallest stroke of the lines which comprise the Hebrew letters forming the Hebrew words of the Hebrew Towrah would be disregarded, then, now, or in the future. As a result of Yahowsha’s specificity, we are compelled to conclude that Paul lied when he claimed to be authorized by God, no matter how tortured the justification.
Incidentally, the reason that the validity of the smallest 519strokes and letters which currently comprise the Towrah was not presented as “eternal and everlasting” is because the words which comprise the current Towrah do, in fact, have a limited life. By the end of the Millennial Shabat in year 7000 Yah (3033 CE), there will be no need for the Towrah’s Teachings regarding how to come to know Yahowah, nor His Directions on how to engage in the Covenant relationship, even His Guidance on how to walk to Him by answering His Invitations, because by this time every soul will know Yahowah personally. We will all be members of His Covenant, and be recipients of every promised benefit. And yet at that time, as we watch our Heavenly Father create a new universe, we will still need His “towrah – guidance,” but then on how to live the most productive and enjoyable lives in the spiritual realm where our power will be unlimited. Then His Towrah will explain how to live life to the fullest in 4, 5, 6, and 7 dimensions.
Yahowsha’s second-to-last statement is confusing for some. There is a tendency to translate “kaleo, he will be called” “insignificant” as opposed to “he will be named” “Little and Lowly,” i.e., Paulos, in the kingdom of heaven. The former seems to imply that this insufficient individual is in heaven, but holds a lowly status, while the latter reveals the individual’s personal and proper name, as well as describing heaven’s utter disdain for Paulos. Not only is there no hierarchy, therefore, status, in heaven, since we are family, lowly and little is Paulos’ chosen name, the name of the individual best known for having done specifically what Yahowsha’ condemned.
Remember, Paul, which is a transliteration of the Latin “Paulos,” meaning “little and lowly,” was born with the Hebrew name “Sha’uwl,” a name which is synonymous with She’owl and means “to question.” But since this man despised being questioned, he abandoned his given name and chose to speak and write as Paulos. Further, Paulos is not a transliteration or translation of Sha’uwl, but is instead 520a Roman moniker. And since it means “little and lowly,” it would be foolish to ignore Yahowsha’s statement as if it were a “coincidence.” This is especially true since Paulos founded the world’s most popular religion by doing the very thing Yahowsha’ admonished us to avoid – negating his Towrah.
From the opposing perspective, those who do the opposite of what Paulos said and did, who act upon the Towrah, and who, to the best of their ability, teach the Towrah, expounding upon it, their contribution to Yahowah’s Covenant family is called sensible, even important, albeit uncommon. It is not that those who expound on the Towrah’s guidance hold some sort of elevated status, but instead it is their willingness to engage with God and share His instructions which is seen as sensible and valuable.
It is also interesting to note that many, if not most, of the prophecies presented in the Towrah are yet unfulfilled. Yahowah has not yet returned with Dowd. Yisra’el and Yahuwdym have not yet been reconciled. The Millennial Shabat has not commenced. The Towrahless One, or “Antichrist,” has not yet risen to power. The Time of Ya’aqob’s Troubles, when Yisra’el is narrowed at the waist and jihadists flood into the vulnerable nation, has not yet occurred. Neither the all-Islamic war against Israel nor the final world war has been waged. The promises associated with the final three Miqra’ey – Taruw’ah, Kipurym, and Sukah – have not yet been enabled. Therefore, the Torah could not have ended its useful life, even if such a thing was possible 2000 years ago. Paul is wrong on all accounts.
Returning to the anti-Towrah diatribe being promoted 521by the little and lowly one, I must admit, his next statement is either confusing or indicting. We are required to speculate on who Sha’uwl is attempting to introduce as the “Middleman.” And based upon the most popular and respected translations, I am not the first to wander down this winding road.
“But now (de) the middleman (o mesites – mediator who intervenes and either reconciles an existing relationship or creates a new covenant (singular/masculine)), he is (estin – exists) not (ouk) of one (heis – of a single thing or lone individual), but (de) the God (o ΘΣ) he is (estin – he exists as) one (heis).” (Galatians 3:20)
Since the “middleman” cannot be Yahowah or Yahowsha’ based upon their testimony, since he remains unnamed, it is looking all the more like my initial assessment was valid. Paul is presenting himself as the mediator, the one proposing to reconcile the relationship. He has become indistinguishable from his god.
The interlinear associated with the Nestle-Aland 27th Edition reads: “The but mediator one not is the but God one is.” In the King James Version, we find: “Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.” Jerome wrote the following in the Latin Vulgate: “Now a mediator is not of one, yet God is one.” The NLT suggests: “Now a mediator is helpful if more than one party must reach an agreement. But God, who is one, did not use a mediator when he gave his promise to Abraham.” The self-proclaimed literal New American Standard Bible published: “Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one.” To their credit, they used italics to indicate that “party only” and “only” was not written in the Greek text. The New International Version, an extremely popular paraphrase, conveys: “A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.”
522As an eternal optimist, I am motivated to derive something sensible from this gibberish, even if Paul’s sentiments appear disingenuous. So, here is my best shot. I suppose Sha’uwl may be trying to say that as the “mediator and middleman,” he is creating a new covenant for the masses, unlike the “old” God who had “limited” his Covenant to one now-despised race. As such, Paul, is the reconciler, the one who “may not exist as a diminished manifestation of God who is one,” because he is inseparable from the mythos of his god. Paul, as the mediator, and thus judge, was now parlaying a more accommodating and popular covenant.
While Paul’s last point is anything but clear, it is clearly inaccurate. There is a reason Paulos has not specified the nature of the undisclosed “promise” he alleges an “unnamed” God “privately” made to Abram, or how he became privy to it. Apart from the demons doing somersaults in his brain, there isn’t a rational explanation for either.
Nonetheless, Yahowah’s Towrah, which describes every known aspect of this relationship, is not only contrary, but is actually opposed, to this infamous promise upon which the fate of humankind allegedly hangs. Okay.
“Indeed (oun – therefore and consequently), the (o) Torah (nomos – that which has been assigned to nourish and provide an inheritance) accordingly is against (kata – is contrary to) the (tou) promises (epaggelia – the announcements (this time plural)) of the God (tou ΘU). Not may it become (me ginomai – it could but shouldn’t exist (the optative mood is used by a writer to portray an action as possible or to express a wish or desire)).” (Galatians 3:21 in part)
The Father of Lies has upped the ante. It would have been one thing to have dismissed Yahowah’s Towrah | Guidance by distilling the entirety of God’s teaching into a 523promise, or now “epaggelia – promises.” But this is in a different league. Rather than being congealed into a soundbite, the Middleman claims that God’s Towrah testimony is in opposition to the promise He made to Abraham.
However, since the entire story from Bare’syth | In the Beginning to Mal’aky | My Messenger is predicated exclusively upon the development of this relationship, and God’s promises to this man, some yet unfulfilled, to pit the Towrah against the promise would require throwing away every word Yahowah shared and starting over from scratch. There would be no reason for a Messiah or Passover Lamb. There would be no exodus or return.
That is an audacious claim.
Unfortunately for those who are wont to believe the unbelievable, Paulos has stumbled over his own tongue. The same fellow who was fixated on the irrelevant notion that “zera’ – seed” was singular, now can’t remember if there was one promise or many promises. And while “promises” is the correct answer, Paulos has shown a decided proclivity for “promise” singular, which is invalid. But either way, such inconsistencies on something that drives to the heart of his message is incriminating.
For those who may suggest that Paul is annulling his own conclusion that the Towrah is in opposition to its promises, by saying “Not may it become,” please note that the optative mood was deployed to convey one of two ideas, neither of which serve as a refutation of the preceding comment. Paul was either saying that “this opposition was distinctly possible,” or that “he wishes that this opposition wasn’t so.” And both positions are in conflict with the testimony of Yahowah and Yahowsha’.
And yet what follows is far worse. Paulos is stating emphatically that there is no one who is righteous or vindicated in or by the Towrah because the Towrah does 524not have the ability or power to impart life.
Au contraire, it is only by observing and acting upon the Towrah’s guidance regarding Pesach and Matsah that we become righteous and live. The God of the Towrah, the Author of life, its Designer and Creator, is also our Savior, the only one who can absolve our sins.
“For (gar) if (ei – perchance) had been given (didomi – had been produced, granted, allowed, and appointed) the Torah (nomos – the source of nourishment and inheritance) to be the one with the power and ability (o dynamai – the capacity and resources) to impart life (zoopoieo – to make alive), certainly (ontos – surely and truly) in (en) the Torah (nomos – that which has been assigned to nourish and provide an inheritance) would (an) be (en) the (o) righteous and vindicated (dikaiosyne – upright who are right and acceptable, approved in the correct relationship).” (Galatians 3:21) (While the more popular and recently compiled Greek manuscripts have ek, meaning “out of,” rather than en, meaning “in,” before the last reference to the Torah, as is found in P46, it really doesn’t make much difference.)
Paul is declaring Yahowah’s Towrah inept and impotent. In direct contradiction to God’s personal involvement and testimony, according to this man, God’s Guidance and example cannot fulfill His Passover and UnYeasted Bread promises, delivering life or vindication. But if this were true, nothing was accomplished by the Lamb of God, rendering the crucifixion nothing more than a gruesome spectacle. And who knows why God even bothered with Matsah. I suppose He took the day off work, slumbering in the tomb.
If there is no power to prolong life or to facilitate righteousness in the Towrah, why did Yahowah promise these things to Abraham? Why save Noah and his family if they were going to die, anyway? Why did He rescue His 525children from bondage in Egypt? Why was Dowd | David, declared “tsadaq – right and righteous, correct and vindicated?”
Do you suppose that Yahowah is going to model His eternal reign after someone both flawed and dead? Where is Adam, Chawah, Noah, Enoch, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Samuel, David, Isaiah, and Elijah? Where is Moses?
Or better question yet, suppose it were actually possible for man to kill God, how does God dying save man? What made Yahowsha’ unblemished? How could Yahowsha’ be perfect if he lied about the Towrah? Was it just a cosmic coincidence that Yahowsha’s sacrifice happened to coincide perfectly with Passover, UnYeasted Bread, Firstborn Children, and Seven Shabats in the Yowbel Year of 4000 Yah? What enabled the reunification of Yahowsha’s soul with Yahowah’s Spirit on the morning of the third day if not the Towrah’s promises regarding Bikuwrym?
Said another way, if believing a promise to vindicate was all one had to do to be saved, why was Yahowsha’ tormented as the Passover Lamb?
Or perhaps you prefer this question: if the God who authored the Towrah cannot be trusted, if He is incompetent and impotent, then why would you believe this man who claims to speak for Him?
Paul’s most recent diatribe is part of a long argument, one that started in earnest a half-dozen statements ago. His is a disingenuous maneuver designed to bypass the Torah, moving directly from an undisclosed promise to our salvation – with nothing in between, including an explanation, a relationship, or a depiction of God’s plan. Paul’s purpose has been to put a wall around the Torah, telling his audience that they can and must discard it.
But if you toss away Yahowah’s Towrah, you discard 526any chance of knowing God, any hope of engaging in a relationship with Him, any prospect of entering heaven. It is such a costly leap of faith into the abyss of religion, it’s a shame that so many do it without thinking. And perhaps, just perhaps, that is what Paul and his spiritual advisor wanted.
In direct contradiction of Yahowsha’s Instruction on the Mount, Sha’uwl is denying the Torah’s power to restore and to prolong life. In direct contradiction to God’s Word, he is bluntly proclaiming that no one was saved from the time Adam was expelled from the Garden to the time he intervened to resolve God’s problem. If he’s right, Yahowah is wrong, because He called Abraham and Dowd | David righteous – extending the same offer to every child of the Covenant. For Paul to be right, Moseh is estranged from God. If Paul is correct, the Exodus was a hoax – nothing but a cruel charade. Even Yahowah’s prophets were played.
To accept Paul’s assessment, we have to discard the “Old Testament.” But without it, what is the justification for the “New” one? Why would anyone in his or her right mind disregard God’s word and replace it with this mindless drivel?
Who is Yahowsha’ | “Jesus” if his existence and purpose were not foretold through the prophets? Why did he die? Who “resurrected” him? Who was his “Father?” Why call him “Christ?” Why call the religion “Christianity?” Why include the “Old Testament” along with the “New Testament” when they are opposed to one another? Why bother with the “Ten Commandments?” Why speak of Abraham?
Despite the claims made in the King James Version, the Latin Vulgate, and the New Living Translation, God’s title does not appear in the Greek text more than once, not twice, and certainly not three times. Moreover, there is no 527basis for a question, much less an answer. But so that you come to appreciate just how divergent these supposed “translations” are from the Greek text, let’s begin our review by considering the Nestle-Aland Interlinear: “The then law against the promises of the God. Not may it become. If for had been given law the one being able to make live really from law (not applicable) was the rightness.”
Now, compare that to the KJV: “Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.” Or the Latin Vulgate upon which it was based: “So then, was the law contrary to the promises of God? (Lex ergo adversus promissa Dei?) Let it not be so! For if a lex/law had been given, which was able to give life, truly justice would be of the lege/law.” And now, the New Living Translation which contradicts itself: “Is there a conflict, then, between God’s law and God’s promises? Absolutely not! If the law could give us new life, we could be made right with God by obeying it.” The fact that these three translations agree with one another and disagree with the Greek text demonstrates that they are revisions of one another. Publishers are businessmen and they know familiarity sells.
Struggling to make sense of what Paul was trying to portray to his audience has become exasperating, especially since his message has been so unGodly. Therefore, the time has come to introduce each subsequent statement by providing a scholarly frame of reference. We are going to use the Nestle-Aland 27th Edition McReynolds Interlinear – today’s most trusted textual resource – as a handrail in Paul’s inverted world. So please consider their rendition of Galatians 3:22: “But closed together the writing the all under sin that the promise from trust of Jesus Christ might be given to the ones trusting.”
I do not claim that this is any clearer, but it is more 528precise and complete…
“To the contrary (alla – certainly and emphatically by way of a contrast), the (o) writing (graphe – usually used to designate the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms) imposed restrictions, trapping, and enclosing (sugkleio – being like fish caught in a net, restricted and confined, being locked up as prisoners, hemming them in on all sides, completely shutting down) of everything (ta pas) under (hupo – because of and under the control of) error and evil (hamartia – sin, disinheritance, wandering away from the path, missing the mark, and wrongdoing) in order that (hina) the (e) promise (epangelia (singular)) from (ek) the Faith (pistis – the Belief or Religion) of Iesou Christou (ΙΝΥ ΧΡΥ – Divine Placeholders used by early Christian scribes for Iesou with it serving as a corruption of Yahowsha’, and Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement) might at some time be passively given to (didomi – the possibility exists that it may be granted without the recipient engaging or without a plan, being bestowed without reference to time to (aorist passive subjunctive)) the believers (tois pisteuo – the faithful, i.e., the ones who believe Sha’uwl).” (Galatians 3:22)
Beyond his vacillation over whether there were promises, or just one promise (after saying that there were “promises” in 3:21, there is just one “promise” in 3:22), there are six significant problems with this statement. First, sugkleio speaks of “netting fish,” and “trapping and imprisoning people, binding and tying them up.” It is from sun, “with,” and kleio, “to shut a door and withhold something, making access inaccessible.” To be sugkleio is “to be void of pity.” It speaks of “obstructing the entrance to heaven.”
Sha’uwl is saying: “the writing (a.k.a., the written Towrah) closes the door, blocking the entrance to heaven, making it inaccessible.” Therefore, God’s testimony “traps everyone in a net as if they were fish.” He is calling God’s 529Word “a prison.” And as bad as that is, he will connect sugkleio with “phroureo – held in custody as a prisoner” in the next verse, exacerbating this overt denunciation of Yahowah’s Towrah.
Second, while Paul is claiming that the Towrah “encircles and encloses” “evil,” its role is to protect us from evil, removing it from our souls, literally erasing the stain, while at the same time insulating us from its consequence.
Third, since Paul has said that there is no correlation between the unspecified promise / promises and the Towrah, it is irrational to say that the same Towrah exists in order to provide the alleged promise or promises. He is contradicting himself, something Yahowsha’ condemned other rabbis for doing during his criticism of them in Matthew 23.
Fourth, there is no “faith of Iesou Christou.” Yahowsha’ did not have or promote a religion. He claimed to be the living embodiment of the Towrah. He was resolutely Towrah observant. He consistently affirmed what Yahowah had previously written. He did not add anything new.
Fifth, with complete knowledge and understanding, “faith” is nonsensical. Yahowsha’ cannot represent God and believe. If he requires faith, then there is no hope for the rest of us.
Sixth, the problem with faith is that it is always uncertain, which is why “didomi – the possibility exists that it might be passively given to those who do nothing at some time without reference to a plan” was scribed in the aorist passive subjunctive. Who and what are the faithful to believe? If the promise was singular, and represented Yahowsha’, what were the promises? Why weren’t the assurances recorded in the Towrah? Why trust the verbal, unspecified promises of the God of the Towrah when His written testimony is supposedly unreliable? To whom and 530to what are the faithful being saved?
How can those in their right mind place their faith in a man who is quasiliterate, who is constantly contradicting himself, who misrepresents the facts, who is often irrational, and who is demeaning the God for whom he claims to speak?
KJV: “But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.” LV: “But Scriptura/Scripture has enclosed everything under sin, so that the promise, by the faith of Iesu Christi, might be given to those who believe (ut promissio ex fide Iesu Christi daretur credentibus).”
Writing their own epistle, the NLT proposed: “But the Scriptures declare that we are all prisoners of sin, so we receive God’s promise of freedom only by believing in Jesus Christ.” While it is obvious that these renderings diverge somewhat from Paul’s script, the task of deciphering the wannabe Apostle is even more difficult than translating him.
Even if we were to limit sugkleio to “enclose and restrict,” the Torah is not a vessel filled with “error or evil.” Yahowsha’ had no faith and no religion. And belief is completely irrelevant to our salvation.
Moving on, please consider the difficulty the Nestle-Aland Interlinear had with the following text before reading my attempt to decipher Paul’s subsequent message. “Before the but to come the trust under law we were being guarded being closed together for the being about trust to be uncovered.” While I am sympathetic to the etymological reasons why the most respected Greek textual resource consistently renders the term upon which the Galatians debate pivots, pistis, as “trust,” as opposed to “faith,” every word Paul writes dictates that this was not what he intended.
531Sha’uwl’s derogatory statement speaks of the coming of faith, which is tantamount to the formation of his religion:
“But (de) before (pro) this (tou), coming (erchomai – to go, to move, to become, or to happen) to the (ten) Faith (pistis – Belief), under (hupo – by, because of, and under the control of) the Towrah (nomou – that which has been assigned to nourish and provide an inheritance (accusative case making it a direct object of the verb)), we were actually being held in custody as prisoners (phroureo – we were being kept as convicts, confined, strictly controlled, with guards in opposition to us (imperfect passive indicative)), restricted and trapped (sugkleio – bound and imprisoned, caught and confined, locked up and out) to (eis) the (ten) bringing about (mello – typically the intended or impending future expectation or hope, but this was scribed in the present tense) of the Faith (pistis – Belief, a.k.a., Religion) was revealed (apokalypto – uncovered, disclosed, and unveiled).” (Galatians 3:23)
Just when we thought it couldn’t get any worse, Paul proves us wrong. Even Satan shows more respect for God.
To say that Sha’uwl and Yahowah did not see things the same way would be the understatement of the millennia. Phroureo is accurately translated as “we were actually being held in custody as prisoners.” Then, based upon the compound of “pro – before” and “horao – seeing,” Paul is implying that the Towrah’s prisoners were kept in the dark, but now, as a result of his “revelation,” the faithful are able to see what those incarcerated by God had missed.
There is no longer a rational rebuttal to the realization that Paul was slandering God, claiming that Yahowah was an abusive warden, and that all those who sought His company were prisoners. God’s claim to have liberated us from man’s religious and political schemes was an outright 532lie – according to Paul. The Towrah is God’s penitentiary.
But that is not all: according to this psychotic megalomaniac, it is Paul who is saving us, not from sin, but from God. Prior to his heroic intervention, and the conception of “Salvation by Faith,” the world was held hopelessly captive by God with no hope of release. The Earth was really She’owl | Hell and the inmates were blinded by their jailer.
To believe Paul, he is mankind’s only hope of salvation. But where does his faith lead and to whom? Surely not back into the “clutches of that onerous and abusive” God.
As the Devil’s Advocate, Sha’uwl knows that he will be eternally incarcerated in She’owl with his Lord. And while he knows that there is no escape – what’s the point of being delusional if not to dream? This is Paul fantasizing about leading the ultimate prison break – out of Hell.
Is there anyone foolish enough to follow him there believing he can pull it off?
The overriding problem with all of this, beyond of course demeaning Yahowah and denouncing His Towrah testimony, is that Paul never explains the basis of the unspecified promise. But when there are no conditions, no rules, no constraints, there can be no assurances and anarchy is the result.
When faith is wholly ambiguous, what a person believes becomes irrelevant. And yet with the “coming of faith,” there are no rules, no guidelines, no consequences, no right or wrong, no definitions of what is good or bad, and no absolutes or certainties. An individual’s conception of their god, their god’s purpose and will, even their god’s integrity becomes immaterial. What the promise might portend for those who believe such a nebulous thing, remains undisclosed and subject to each person’s 533interpretation, his or her hopes and aspirations.
Believers are able to imagine their own deity, their own religion, their own definition of righteousness, and even project their own caveats upon what life with their deity might be like. With Paul’s faith, everyone is entitled to his or her own perceptions of their god, of faith, of life, and of salvation. And no one’s interpretation can be any better or worse than another’s – unless of course it differs ever so slightly from Paul’s and then there is a dreadful curse.
But if so, what basis is there to believe anything this moron contrived? How is it that under such a scenario, he can be right and those who oppose him be wrong?
The answer to this question is actually obvious. Paul sees himself above the Almighty. He shares this viewpoint with Satan. In his mind, he is better than God.
To know Paul is to know “the mediator.” He is “the seed” and the basis and object of the Faith. He is the source of “the promise.” Everything comes to a full stop with Paul. That is why he prefers “promise” to “promises.” Yahowah has been emasculated and Yahowsha’ has been castrated. We have been left with little more than: “but I say...”
But alas, if only that was the entire essence of Paul’s letters. But unfortunately for the faithful, he did not craft his religion out of whole cloth but instead removed threads from Yahowah’s Towrah, dyed existing strands new colors, and wove his own lies into the fabric of God’s testimony. It required more effort on Paul’s part, but without usurping God’s credibility, he did have a leg to stand upon. As a result, the Christian religion was built upon the ruins of the Torah.
Why is Paul insistent on claiming “apokalypto – revelations” when he has yet to disclose anything? Ought there be some modicum of substance for a new religion?
534Here are the Christian interpretations of Galatians 3:23. KJV: “But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.” LV: “But before the faith arrived, we were preserved by being enclosed under the lege/law, unto that faith which was to be revealed.” NLT: “Before the way of faith in Christ was available to us, we were placed under guard by the law. We were kept in protective custody, so to speak, until the way of faith was revealed.” In this case, the English translations are not nearly as harsh as the words Sha’uwl selected. But, based upon what has and will be said, this accommodation is not deserved. We are about to meet Paul’s “guardians and taskmasters.”
Even though the next verse is part of this same thought process (if we can be so kind), it began so long ago, a quick review is in order.
“Because if from the Towrah the inheritance is no longer from a promise, but to Abram by a promise he has favored the God. (Galatians 3:18)
Then, why the Towrah? Until the seed which might come to whom it has been promised having been commanded by messengers in the hand of a mediator and middleman. (Galatians 3:19)
But now the middleman, he is not of one, but the God, he is one. (Galatians 3:20)
Indeed, the Torah accordingly is against the promises of the God. Not may it become. For if had been given to the Torah to be the one with the power and ability to impart life, certainly in the Torah would be the righteous and vindicated. (Galatians 3:21)
To the contrary, the writing imposed restrictions, trapping, and enclosing everything under the control of error and evil, missing the way in order that the promise could be from the Faith of Iesou Christou 535might at some time be passively given to the believers. (Galatians 3:22)
But before this coming to the Faith, under the control of the Towrah we were actually being held in custody as prisoners, confined and strictly controlled, restricted and trapped until the bringing about of the Faith was revealed.” (Galatians 3:23)
Before we press on, now that the text of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear is being provided as a handrail with considerable regularity, and typically in advance of the more complete and accurate amplified translations, I would like to explain the process deployed in rendering one of Paul’s statements. First, I will evaluate it as it appears in a reputable and scholastic presentation like the Nestle-Aland 27th Edition. If there is a pre-Constantine codex, I compare the older version to the more modern text. Then I examine every word under an etymological microscope, even those with which I am totally familiar (so I do not become complacent), consulting a variety of lexicons and dictionaries in order that all possible shadings are considered, including tenses, voices, and moods. I will evaluate word order and the deployment of pronouns, conjunctions, articles, and prepositions. Then I will strive to develop a more fully amplified rendition of what Sha’uwl wrote, always sharing his choice of words so that curious readers can verify their etymological ancestry for themselves.
Next, I reorder some of the words as is required to transfer the thoughts they convey into the structure of English grammar. At this point, I check verb tenses and 536other grammatical references a second time, and then complete the translation with an eye on the surrounding text. And as a rule, I try to render each additional statement so that it is as consistent as is possible with the overall message being delineated.
If the etymology of a word exceeds what can comfortably be placed within the sentence itself, or even inside a parenthetical devoted to the word’s meanings, without the text being overly verbose and thus confusing, I will write a separate descriptive paragraph on the most interesting words. And then I strive to share whatever the Spirit reveals to me regarding the statement’s veracity and implications, adding those insights into my commentary. Lastly, when a statement is complete, I’ll go back and attempt to introduce it in such a way that the transitions are clear and the intent is readily evident.
While I have devoted more than a year of my life to assess Paul’s statements and strategy as accurately and fairly as possible, Paul’s most recent statements have been so antagonistic toward Yahowah’s Towrah, on my first pass through this material, I simply translated each statement and moved on, hoping that the next line would help modify the previous one. But nothing seemed to help. So, in my struggle to deal with writings this hostile to Yahowah, my beloved Father whom I respect, I decided that you were entitled to an independent witness.
Therefore, I have consistently provided interlinear translations so that you would not be dependent upon my translations alone. I have long ceased to be impartial. And this is why I have also provided additional English Bible renditions of each verse. I am happy to have the case against Paul be made by those who he has beguiled and/or enriched.
Initially, my hope was to extricate Sha’uwl from the pit he dug for himself. But since Paul’s letter has made that 537impossible, I have taken sides – and so has God.
The bottom line is: I am very uncomfortable with what Sha’uwl is saying. Therefore, I’m lessening the burden this places on me by exposing you to the translations of others who are not bothered by him. For example, the Nestle-Aland Interlinear presentation of the next line in Galatians reads: “So that the law tutor of us has become to Christ that from trust we might be made right.”
In comparison to that, this almost seems sane:
“As a result (hoste – so then therefore), the (o) Towrah (nomos – the allotment which is parceled out to bestow and inheritance) has come to exist as (ginomai – has become) our (ego) disciplinarian and enslaving pedagogue (paidagogos – one who instructs in a particularly pedantic and dogmatic manner using strict, old-fashioned methods, with an overbearing demeanor as slave-trainer of adolescent boys, an enslaving guardian, a custodian who keeps trainees in custody, a harsh and arcane taskmaster, or controlling supervisor of little children, often of those who were enslaved, striking, smiting, and stinging them) extending until (eis – to the point of) Christon (ΧΡΝ – Divine Placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement to usurp the Septuagint’s credibility and infer Divinity) in order that (hina – so that as a result), by means of (ek – out of) the Faith (pistos – the Belief or Religion (in the singular genitive, this is a specific characterization of belief system, a.k.a., religion)) we might, at some point in time, while doing nothing ourselves, be justified (dikaioo – we have the possibility of someday being vindicated, declared innocent, and becoming righteous as a result of being influenced (aorist, passive, subjunctive)).” (Galatians 3:24)
The unflattering metaphor which lies at the heart of this sentence provides us with a window into Sha’uwl’s 538depraved mind. From his perspective, the Torah is a “paidagogos – tough disciplinarian lording over us as if we were slaves.” The concept, not surprisingly, was a loanword from rabbinic usage. The term carries a decidedly negative connotation. It is distinguished from a teacher in that the paidagogos is only responsible for mundane behaviors, such as the rules regulating conduct, some as trivial as table manners.
Up to this point, Sha’uwl has promoted his case for his Faith by misquoting, truncating, twisting, dismantling, dissolving, and demeaning the Towrah. There has been no reason to delve into the realm of rabbinical commentary, Greek or Roman society, or into the use of slaves. But since Paulos has now gone down this path, we are compelled to reveal pertinent failings.
In the rabbinical mindset, a paidagogos “directed the affairs of children.” It was used to describe “slaves who supervised and directed the lives and moral conduct of adolescent boys.” It is from pais and a repudiated form of ago. Pais means: “a child, especially a young boy or adolescent, who is often a servant and slave.” It is in turn derived from paio, meaning “to strike or smite, to wound and sting.” Ago and its cognate, agoge, mean “to conduct training and discipline, to be an attendant or servant, and to lead away,” even to “impel or force, influencing the mind.” This root speaks of “leading someone away to the magistrate at a criminal court.”
Therefore, considering the rabbinic baggage, paidagogos is in lockstep with Sha’uwl’s tortured perspective on the Towrah and its God, Yahowah. In his view, Yahowah is a “cruel taskmaster” and an “enslaving pedagogue. According to Sha’uwl, Yahowah “instructs in a particularly pedantic and dogmatic manner using strict, old-fashioned methods.” God displays an “overbearing demeanor and is ever ready to smite those He has enslaved if they dare step out of line.” Paul is then positioning 539himself, and his Faith, as less constraining and overbearing, as more modern, more compassionate, more tolerant, more generous, even liberating. Nothing is asked, nothing is expected, nothing is required; nothing except an acknowledgment that the Torah is wrong and that Paul is right.
If, as Paulos is asserting, Yahowah and His Towrah are antiquated and arcane, the logical extension would be to label His old-fashioned methods the “Old Testament.” And then through similar extrapolation, why not label Paul’s more modern, less judgmental, and more universally tolerant, politically correct and outcome-based approach a “New Testament.”
Then speaking of Paul’s influence in the conception of the Christian “New Testament,” a tome his letters dominate as a result of the faith-based salvation scheme he conceived, a belief system emerged where the initiates can only hope that at some undisclosed point in time there is the possibility that something favorable might happen to them. Pretending to step forward, the religious have been taken back to the myths and mysteries of old. It would be a leap of faith into obscurity, uncertainty, and ignorance.
To which Yahowah says, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowing and understanding. Because you have rejected knowledge and understanding, I reject you from being ministers for Me. Since you have forgotten the Towrah of your God, I also will forget your children.” (Howsha’ / Hosea 4:6)
The paidagogos were not associated with schools, or with learning, but instead with harsh discipline, so the KJV would be wrong with “schoolmaster.” “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” LV: “Itaque lex pædagogus noster fuit in Christo, ut ex fide iustificemur.” “And so the law was our guardian in Christ, in order that we might be justified 540by faith.” NLT: “Let me put it another way. The law was our guardian until Christ came; it protected us until we could be made right with God through faith.” There is no basis for “it protected us” in the Greek text.
Even if we were to deprive paidagogos of its arcane cultural baggage, we would be left to resolve a whole new set of issues raised in Sha’uwl’s next sentence. When you start with a bad metaphor, things go from bad to worse. Such is the case with this, “Having come but the trust no longer under tutor we are,” as it was rendered in the Nestle-Aland.
“But now (de) having come (erchomai – having happened and become, coming forth and arriving) the (tes) Faith (pistos – the system of belief or religion), no longer (ouketi – not any more) do we exist (eimi – are we placed) under (hypo – under the auspices of) an old-fashioned and strict disciplinarian (paidagogos – a pedagogue who instructs in a particularly pedantic and dogmatic manner using harsh, outdated methods, with an overbearing demeanor, an antiquated taskmaster enslaving children by striking, smiting, and stinging them).” (Galatians 3:25)
In other words, “believers have been liberated from the supervision, control, discipline, and even instruction of the God of the Towrah.” There are no rules, no requirements, no directions, from God. He no longer cares what you think of Him, what you believe, how you act, or what you do. Since there is no longer a right way, there are no wrong ways. Every path, so long as it is nebulous and unrestrictive, now leads to Paul’s god.
In Sha’uwl’s religion, Yahowah’s Towrah “no longer exists” as a meaningful guide. In his Faith, man’s fate is no longer linked to the path that God provided. According to Sha’uwl, the Torah is passé; its dominion is over – it is an encumbering and hurtful icon of the past. Goodbye and good riddance.
541Let’s see if the most influential Christian translations followed their leader down this unGodly dead end. KJV: “But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.” LV: “But now that faith has arrived, we are no longer under a guardian.” NLT: “And now that the way of faith has come, we no longer need the law as our guardian.”
Since the “schoolmaster and guardian” represent the Torah, according to Paulos, we are no longer living in God’s world. The Almighty is neither teacher nor instructor. There is nothing we can learn from His Towrah | Teaching. Since He is no longer guiding His children, we cannot follow Him. And because His example is now outdated, we cannot benefit from His work. Yahowah is no longer an influence in our lives. But if that is so, who is? Paul?
The Plague of Death’s message in Galatians 3:25 is not salvageable. For the “paidagogos – guardian or disciplinarian” metaphor to work, the one who leads us as little children to our Heavenly Father has to be Yahowsha’. But that is not possible since Yahowsha’ is inseparable and indistinguishable from the Towrah and from Yahowah, a reality in irreconcilable conflict with Sha’uwl’s new belief system.
While there are many reasons to be troubled by Sha’uwl’s paidagogos metaphor, it isn’t one which helps Christendom either. Pastors and priests present themselves, as well as their churches, as if they were still the guardians, supervisors, and teachers of their flock, as opposed to Dowd | David having lived that role. All they have done is substituted themselves for the Torah, and thereby, they have become their own gods. It is exactly what Rabbi Akiba, the founder of Judaism, did when he empowered rabbis above an “unnamed” God. As was the case with Paul, so it was with Akiba. One replaced the Towrah with a “New Testament” comprised of his letters, while the other 542replaced the Towrah with a “Talmud” comprised of his arguments.
Before we press on, a little perspective is in order. Mired in the midst of the third chapter of Galatians, we are discovering that almost nothing Paul has written has been true. And the remainder of what he has scribed is either incomprehensible or irrelevant. Therefore, one has to be ignorant of what Paul wrote, or irrational, to think of Galatians as being inspired by God. By claiming it as such, your god becomes an unknowable, vacillating, inconsistent, unreliable, and incomprehensible mirage.
Still clinging to the original meaning of pisteos, while rejecting the original title and name of Yahowsha’, the NA reads: “All for sons of God you are through the trust in Christ Jesus.”
More precisely and completely, this is what Sha’uwl wrote:
“For (gar – indeed because) everyone is (pas) a child (huios – children) of God (ΘΥ). You all exist (este – you all are) that way (dia – through and on account) by the (tes) Faith (pisteos – belief system or religion in the singular genitive specific characterization) in (en) Christo Iesou (ΧΡΥ 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).” (Galatians 3:26)
That is not true. We are not all God’s children. According to the Second Statement Yahowah etched in stone, as a result of the corrupting influence of religion, thousands among billions are counted among those adopted into the Covenant. That is just one in a million.
That same Statement which was scribed on the first of the two tablets explicitly states that the means to 543Yahowah’s mercy is through “shamar mitswah – closely examining and carefully considering the instructive conditions of the relationship agreement – a.k.a., the Covenant.” Therefore, the means to becoming a child of God is cerebral, not fanciful.
Also, apart from the Torah and Prophets, Yahowsha’ is without identity or purpose. His life is a lie, and his sacrifices are for naught, if he is disassociated from the Word of God.
This, of course, begs the question. If Bikuwrym – Firstborn Children is rendered inoperative, if responding to the terms and conditions of the Covenant isn’t the means to be adopted into God’s family, what about Yahowsha’? He observed, upheld, relied upon, even fulfilled the book that Paul has said is devoid of life.
Paul’s statement has become the foundation of Christianity. Christians have been led to believe that they become God’s children through faith in “Christ Jesus” – someone whose accurate title, name, identity, nature, life, purpose, words, and deeds they neither know, acknowledge, nor respect. And since they have substituted all of these things for a character who has more in common with Dionysus than Yahowsha’, how is Paulos’ new faith any different than the belief systems of the Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, or Romans?
By changing the order, and by rendering “pistis – faith,” the King James Version has captured Paul’s intended meaning: “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” However, that is not true. We are not all children of God. In fact, those who agreed with Paul’s preaching, and all of those who subsequently believed his letters, are specifically excluded from God’s Covenant family – victimized as many have been by this false prophet.
Our Spiritual Mother enables our adoption into our 544Heavenly Father’s family on “Bikuwrym – Firstborn Children.” She does so based upon our decision to engage in the Covenant relationship in accordance with His conditions, our willingness to answer God’s Invitations to Meet with Him, and our commitment to know and understand, then trust and rely upon, what He has done to facilitate the Towrah’s promises. But since we cannot love someone we do not know, cannot engage in a relationship when we are unaware of what is being offered, and cannot respond to Invitations we do not think were offered to us, what then? Are we to believe that faith based upon ignorance, or worse, denial, has merit?
It is common for people to place their faith in faulty propositions. The masses have believed fictitious proposals throughout history. But if the promises regarding these things are unfounded, or worse, deceitful, destructive, deadly, and damning, a believer’s faith is as meritless as are the misconceptions.
In his attempt to convey Paul’s thoughts, Jerome missed this realization as well. LV: “For you are all sons of God, through the faith which is in Christo Iesu. (Omnes enim filii Dei estis per fidem, quæ est in Christo Iesu.)” NLT: “For you are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” It’s telling that each translation was arranged in the same order, one which flows in opposition to the Greek.
Having dismissed the Towrah and its Covenant, there is no longer any merit to circumcision, which Yahowah had stated was the everlasting sign of His eternal Covenant. And therefore, the NA states: “As many as for unto Christ were immersed Christ put on.”
Documented more comprehensively, this becomes:
“Because (gar – for indeed then) as many as (hosos – so long as) to (eis) Christon (ΧΡN), you all were actually at some point baptized (baptizomai – you all were dipped, 545immersed, and / or really submerged without process or plan by the actions of another (aorist, passive, indicative)), Christon (ΧΡN) you were all clothed or plunged (enduo – you all dress and put on; from en – in and duno – go into or sink into, being plunged (aorist (occurring at some point in time without regard to a plan or process) middle (the subject, you all, are being affected by your own actions) indicative (conveying action the writer wants his audience to believe is real which occurred in the past))).” (Galatians 3:27)
There is no purpose or benefit to baptism. According to God, and He ought to know, there is no association between baptism and participation in the Covenant, entry into Heaven, the remission of sin, or salvation. It is among the pagan practices Yahowah asked us to avoid.
As adept as Paul has become at misappropriating something Yahowah revealed and twisting it to support his agenda, if there had been something God had revealed even remotely akin to baptism, you can be assured that Sha’uwl would have cited it. But nada. This is the lone exception because there was nothing to pilfer. Baptism is not part of God’s plan.
If baptism had a counterpart in the Towrah, Naby’, wa Mizmowr, it would have had a Hebrew equivalent, but there is no such word or concept in the language God used to convey His message to the world. Yahowah asks us all to wash our hands, and while in the wilderness, He asked those entering His Tabernacle to wash their hands and feet. In the mode of a caring Father, He instructs us to wash our clothes at appropriate times, especially when around contagious individuals, where He also encourages everyone to wear face masks. These references to cleansing are about hygiene and are never presented as a substitute for circumcision.
Baptism has become Christianity’s signature rite. It is 546used instead of circumcision to demonstrate admission and acceptance. And it was introduced into the religion for the first time with these words from Paul’s pen.
The Greek word “baptizo” was in common use when it was first penned by Paul in Galatians and thereafter by Mark, Paul’s associate. Before we consider its religious and etymological history, however, I would like to demonstrate how Paul used Mark to promote his agenda, so that we properly credit baptism’s syncretism into Christianity to Paul and to Galatians 3:27.
Our quest to know “John who was called ‘Mark’” begins in Acts 12:12 where Shim’own Kephas | “Peter” is shown visiting with him after a mal’ak | spiritual messenger freed the disciple from Herod’s custody. However, Sha’uwl absconds with him immediately thereafter in Acts 13:5, making Mark part of the imposter’s posse by Acts 13:13. When next we see Mark it is in Acts 15:37-39, where the aspiring “Gospel” writer was wavering and ready to take leave of Paul along with Barnabas. “But Paul kept insisting otherwise, that those who had deserted him not take him.” “And there arose such a sharp disagreement that they separated from one another, and Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away.” Paul, however, did not handle desertion well, especially since Mark and Peter, Paul’s nemesis, had once been friends.
The trail runs through Colossians 4:10-11, where we find that Paul prevailed and once again had Mark back in his clutches, wrenching him away from Peter and Barnabas. In his letter to the Colossians we find Paul saying: “Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner sends you his greetings, and Barnabas’ cousin Mark, about whom you received instructions if he comes to you. Welcome him and Iesou, who is called ‘Justus.’ These are the only fellow workers for the kingdom of God who are from the circumcision, and they have proved to be an encouragement to me.”
547In Philemon 24, Mark is listed along with Luke as “my fellow workers.” This leads to 2 Timothy 4:10-11, where in the last words Paul would write in his final letter: “alone, only Loukas | Luke is with me, Markon | Mark having been taken (analambano – carried off and led away). Bring (ago – lead, guide, and/or carry) him with you because (gar – indeed, used to provide an explanation and express a cause) he is to me useful (euchrestos – highly serviceable and very profitable, exceedingly easy to make use of) for the purpose of (eis – the intent and result of) my ministry (diakonia – to serve and support me, and to make my preparations following my commands).”
The word translated “useful” is euchrestos, a compound of “eu – good, prosperous, and well as in to be well off, doing well, well done, and beneficial,” and “chrestos – suitable and eternally useful, fitted for service and beneficial.” Chrestos is a spelling variant of chrestus, the title the earliest texts attribute to Yahowsha’ and his followers instead of christos or christianos. It was unappealing to Greeks and Romans because Chrestus was commonly used as a nickname for their slaves.
Diakonia, the word translated “my ministry” is used 34 times in the Christian New Testament, all but one by Paul and his pals (Luke once, Acts 8 times, Romans 4 times, 1 Corinthians twice, 2 Corinthians 12 times, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Timothy, and Hebrews once each, and 2 Timothy, twice). It serves to encapsulate Sha’uwl’s mission and is synonymous with Pauline Doctrine. It is from “diakonos – raising dust” as in “moving around in a hurry.”
And indeed, Paul used Mark to kick up considerable dust, writing the “Gospel” according to Paul which is known as “Mark” and became the basis of Luke and Matthew. And that is why they are both anti-Semitic and reflect Paul’s sentiments. And it is why Paul did not quote from them, as Mark, then Luke, wrote their “Gospels” and 548the Acts of Paul per Sha’uwl’s directions. Matthew would follow by plagiarizing Mark and Luke some thirty years thereafter. (It is surprisingly common for men to swoon at the feet of psychopaths.)
Now that we know that Mark’s Gospel was written a decade or two after Galatians, and at Paul’s direction, let’s see if we can ascertain where he pilfered the concept of “baptizo – baptism.” That answer, while readily available, is embarrassing. It is used in the Sibylline Oracles, lines 160-166: “Ye miserable mortals, repent, baptize (baptizo) in living streams your entire frame with its burden of sin. Lift to heaven your hands in prayer for forgiveness and cure yourselves of the impiety by fear of God!”
This explains Mark’s spurious presentation of “John the Baptist,” in which the corruption of the conflation of Yasha’yah / Isaiah, Mal’aky / Malachi, and Shemowth / Exodus reads similarly to the Sibylline Oracles’ account. Luke then begins his “Gospel” by embellishing Mark’s dubious account with the absurd claim that “John’s birth” was “miraculous” and even foretold by “the angel Gabriel to Zechariah” who claims that he will “come in the spirit and power of Elijah” to scold Yisra’elites. Then to buff the “divine” varnish, Zechariah’s wife, Elizabeth, is allegedly a “daughter of Aaron” and a “relative of Mary.” Both pregnant at the same time, “it came about that when Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. And she cried out with a loud voice, ‘Blessed among women, blessed is the fruit of your womb.’” (Luke 1:40-42) While continuing to wax poetic for a considerable time, when it finally comes to presenting the fanciful tale of “John the Baptist,” Luke cites the account Mark had written at Paul’s behest.
Matthew’s account is also derived from Mark. But when we turn to the Disciple Yahowchanan | John, after his famous “in the beginning was the Word…and the Word 549was God,” he transitions to “John,” saying that he “bore witness of him.” Curiously, however, there is no mention of “John” being the “Baptist” nor of him “baptizing” “Jesus.” The only use of baptizo is in the mouths of the Pharisees.
The reason for all of the fuss, is that without the invention of “John the Baptist” baptizing “Jesus,” there is no justification for the Christian rite. Moreover, apart from this fabrication, there is no other reference to “Jesus” being anointed with the dove, and thus being a Messiah. It is also the only time “Jesus” is referred to as the “son” by “God.”
Putting the concept of baptizo in the mouths of Jewish leaders is telling. Turns out that a Jewish sect composed the Sibylline Oracles, not only introducing the concept of baptism for the remission of sin, but also a plethora of other religious concepts that were incorporated into Paul’s letters. There is so much to them, and they are so indicting of Paul, we will detail the connection between the Sibylline Oracles, Jewish philosophy, Pauline Doctrine, and Christianity in Volume 4 of Questioning Paul.
For now, it is important that we recognize that Galatians 3:27 is the first time that the pagan practice of baptism was presented in conjunction with Christianity. Second, there is no basis for baptism in the Towrah, although the religious rite was widely known to Jews as a result of their Sibylline Oracles – which were exceedingly popular at this time. Third, Yahowsha’ | “Jesus” was not baptized. Fourth, the legend of “John the Baptist” was composed by Luke and is a fairytale. Fifth, Yahowsha’ | “Jesus” never baptized anyone – including his disciples. Sixth, apart from Yahowchanan | John, and him attributing the concept of baptizo to religious Jews, something the Sibylline Oracles affirm, every other mention of baptism in the Christian New Testament was instigated by Paul, beginning with his associate, Mark, and then Luke. And seventh, the Sibylline Oracles were instrumental to Paul as 550he sought to distinguish his new Faith from Yahowah’s Towrah. Baptism is just the beginning. When comparing the Gospels to the Oracles, there are so many common threads, even I was shocked.
Even if we were sufficiently ignorant to accept baptizo | baptism as Godly and correct, and it is neither, Paul would still be wrong attributing it to his Christon. If you recall, he wrote: “Because (gar) as many as (hosos) to (eis) Christon (ΧΡN), you all were actually at some point baptized (baptizomai – you all were dipped, immersed, and / or really submerged without process or plan by the actions of another (aorist, passive, indicative)), Christon (ΧΡN) you were all clothed or plunged (enduo – you were all dressed and put clothing on; from en – in and duno – go into or sink into, being plunged (aorist (occurring at some point in time without regard to a plan or process) middle (the subject, you all, are being affected by your own actions) indicative (conveying action the writer wants his audience to believe is real which occurred in the past))).” (Galatians 3:27)
The Passover Lamb and Set-Apart Spirit have discrete roles, and it is the Spirit, not the Lamb, who is responsible for adorning us in a garment of light – perfecting us from God’s perspective. Therefore, we are spiritually immersed and cleansed by the Set-Apart Spirit, and thus not by Yahowsha’.
Our Spiritual birth from above occurs on “Bikuwrym – Firstborn Children,” as did Yahowsha’s. And this is only after we have availed ourselves of immortality on “Pesach – Passover” and have answered the Invitation to come into the presence of the Spirit’s Maternal Light on “Matsah – UnYeasted Bread,” which perfects us so that we are prepared to be adopted. Paul failed to report any of this because the Towrah saving us in these ways is incongruous with his religion.
551Lastly, enduo, scribed as enedusasoe, and rendered “you were all clothed or plunged,” as a compound of en and duno, literally means: “you all should believe that you have at some point in time really taken a plunge and actually sunk in.” That is insightful, especially considering the leap of faith Sha’uwl is advocating.
Duno was most commonly used in reference to the “setting sun.” In that Satan’s name is Halal ben Shachar, which conveys “the self-exalting son of the sun,” associating Yahowsha’ with this demonic reference is a bad idea. Further, it is troubling because the souls of those advocating Sha’uwl’s scheme “sink into” “She’owl – the pit where deceased souls await questioning” and thus judgment.
As has been noted, the verb, enedusasoe, was written in the second person, plural, aorist, middle, indicative. The aorist indicative indicates something which the writer wants his audience to believe has actually happened in the past, but something which was not part of any discernible process or plan. And the middle voice signifies that subjects of this verb will have been affected by their own actions – which is taking the plunge into Pauline mythology. Also, since enduo sometimes conveys the idea of “having clothed and dressed oneself,” in this way too, it would be opposed to having the Set-Apart Spirit adorn us in Her Garment of Light.
This may be material because everything up to this point has been decidedly passive, with everything happening to and being done for the faithful, making this change significant. The inference then may be that those who are “immersed into” Sha’uwl’s “faith in Christon (a name which speaks of “the application of drugs”) “have taken the plunge and have clothed themselves” in his religion.
Sha’uwl has already disparaged circumcision in this 552letter, saying that it was not required, only to associate it with the Disciple Shim’own, who he condemned. But he is just getting warmed up. Sha’uwl’s animosity toward circumcision will become the dominant theme in this letter. And here, baptism is being positioned as a replacement for circumcision, as the rite of passage into Paul’s Faith.
But let us not forget, according to God when He condemned Sha’uwl by name in Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:16, Yahowah warned us, saying that Sha’uwl’s aversion to circumcision would be part of the false prophet’s poisonous brew.
“Woe to the one who causes and allows his neighbors and companions to become intoxicated, thereby associating them with his venomous wrath, but also causing them to be inebriated for the purpose of observing their genitals.
You will get your fill of shame and infamy instead of honor and glory. Inebriated, you also show yourself unacceptable, going roundabout over the lack of circumcision.
Upon you is the binding cup of Yahowah’s right hand (a metaphor for judgment). Therefore, public humiliation and indignity will be your status and reward.” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:15-16)
Nothing cuts through the fog of lies better than God’s prophetic testimony. Therefore, we will continue to remind ourselves that Yahowah despises this man and his hideous ploys.
Ever in the dark, and never striving to exonerate themselves from Paul’s delusions, the King James Version published: “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” We do not “wear ‘Christ,’” and common words like “baptizomai” should be translated, not 553transliterated. But again, demonstrating the KJV was simply an updated version of the Roman Catholic text, and not Paul’s Greek, we find the same wording in Jerome’s Vulgate: “For as many of you as have been baptizati/baptized in Christo have become clothed with Christum.”
There is no reference to “united” or “new” in the Greek text, and yet the authors of the New Living Translation wrote: “And all who have been united with Christ in baptism have put on Christ, like putting on new clothes.” And how did the NLT dream team come up with “new” in the etymology of the verb, enedusasoe?
While we can and should be adorned in the Set-Apart Spirit’s Garment of Light, we cannot and should not attempt to “put on ‘Christ’.” As a corporeal being, this would be flesh wearing a second skin.
If there were a baptism of Christon, why didn’t Yahowsha’ | “Jesus” baptize anyone, including his disciples? That is quite a conundrum for Christians.
No longer surprised by anything he claims, Sha’uwl’s next statement is not accurate either. By way of preview, the NA reads: “Not there is Judean but not Greek not there is slave but not free not there is male and female all for you one are in Christ Jesus.”
That is hilarious coming from the fellow who was so insistent in dividing the world between Jew and Gentile, limiting the disciples to Jews while claiming the rest of the world for himself. But now that Sha’uwl has declared war on them, he has reneged on the promise that he, himself, made at the beginning of this letter. And of course, part of the reason that he is claiming that there is no longer any 554distinction between Ioudaios and Hellen is because he had used circumcision to differentiate between them – something he is now replacing with baptizo.
“No longer (ouketi) is there (eni – there exists) Yahuwd (Ioudaios – Jew; a transliteration of the Hebrew name Yahuwd meaning Related to Yahowah) nor (oude) Greek (Hellen), no longer (ouketi) is there (eni – there exists) slave (doulos) nor (oude) free (eleutheros – freeborn), no longer (ouketi) is there (eni – there exists) male (arsen) and (kai) female (thelys), because then (gar) all (pas) of you (sy) exist as (este) one (heis) in (en) Christo (ΧΡΩ – placeholder for the Ma’aseyah (but without the definite article it is being deployed as a name meaning “drugged”)) Iesou (ΙΗΥ – placeholder for Yahowsha’ whom Sha’uwl has disassociated from Yahowah).” (Galatians 3:28)
The man who never knew the love of a woman, preferring Timothy’s adoration, was now promoting a very odd perspective on sexual orientation. He may have preferred boys, but I can attest that there is a tremendous difference between men and women – and the distinction is as delightful as it is beneficial. But, then again, since circumcision was strictly for men, by annulling the distinction Yahowah conceived and blessed, Paul was striking out at God – likely as a result of his own frustrations.
Always the duplicitous one, Paul will go on to demean women, subjecting them to be lorded over by men, something that negates his current realm. He is even responsible for Christianity’s abhorrence of homosexuality, which can no longer be an issue if we are genderless.
And if we are androgenous, why did Yahowsha’ present Yahowah as our Heavenly Father? Why also is the Ruwach Qodesh – Set-Apart Spirit depicted as Maternal? 555Why are we encouraged to value our Father and Mother as the Second Instruction on the Second of Two Tablets Yahowah etched in stone? How does the Covenant materialize and grow without the unique contributions of males and females? Why did Yahowah ask Abraham, but not Sarah, to be circumcised?
While it is hard not to laugh at Paul’s hypocrisy, the “no longer Jew or Greek” statement is diametrically opposed to the Towrah and all of the Prophets. Yisra’elites are the Chosen People, and no matter how badly Paul and Christians want to replace them, this reality is never going to change. To say otherwise is to contradict Yahowah and to disregard everything He has said. Consistent to the very end, moments before He returns, Yahowah’s focus remains on Yahuwdah and Yisra’el. Gowym only matter when we align ourselves with what Yahowah intended for His people.
We must ask ourselves, if there are no longer Yahuwdym, why has Yahowah promised in Yirma’yah / Jeremiah 31 to reconcile Yahuwdah and Yisra’el in the process of restoring His Covenant on Yowm Kipurym | the Day of Reconciliations in year 6000 Yah (2033 CE)?
Just because something rolls off the tongue and sounds sweet, even Politically Correct because it is accepting and tolerant, does not make it so. Yahowah said no such thing, and in fact, He says the opposite.
Paul wrote this to undermine the value of Yahuwdym and Yisra’el in Yahowah’s ongoing story. He no longer wanted to share any part of the world with the disciples. But more than this, if Yahuwdym were equivalent to Greeks, one could be replaced with the other – and therein is the most sinister aspect of Paul’s latest scheme. This is the seed that would spawn Replacement Theology – the spurious notion that all of God’s promises to His people were transferred to Gentiles and their Church.
556Ironically, after saying that there is no distinction between free and slave, in the next chapter, Sha’uwl will contradict himself and protest that those who observe the Towrah are still enslaved by it. And if that were not enough, the duplicitous one introduces himself as “Paulos, a slave of Christ,” in his letter to the Romans. But that is actually his point. Paul is implying that we are no longer slaves to the Towrah, but are instead beholden to his new religion.
The familiar prose of the King James Bible has come to resonate in religious circles: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” But to the contrary, according to Yahowah, there are still Yahuwdym, Yisra’el endures, we are decidedly male and female, and most people remain ensnared by their religion.
Jerome’s Latin Vulgate reads similarly: “There is neither Iudæus nor Græcus; there is neither servant nor free; there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christo Iesu.” Recognizing the popularity of Paul’s prose as promoted by the King James, and knowing that familiarity sells, even the adventurous New Living Translation left this lie alone: “There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Yet, to their credit, apart from butchering the Savior’s name and title, all three translations accurately presented the words Paul wrote. Now if only Paul’s words were accurate.
For those who feel that I am being too critical, and that Paul’s last statement was just a figure of speech, a bit of soaring oratory, then I would suggest that you may want to consider the consequences of Replacement Theology and the devastating impact it has had on God’s people. If Paul’s current diatribe was that of a politician, and if Galatians was nothing more than political puffery, that would be one thing, but it is not. Paul’s initial letter serves as the 557underlying treatise on a new faith-based religion. And he claimed to speak for God. The standard for such is perfection, not balderdash.
Moving from a lack of discernment to a lack of consistency, Sha’uwl concludes his current line of “reasoning” by contradicting his initial point. If you recall, previously he said that “seed was singular” because it spoke not of Abraham’s descendants (those pesky Jews), but instead just of Iesou Christou (who was Jewish until Paulos gave him a Greek name). But now, according to Sha’uwl, we “all exist as Abraham’s seed.”
This is not something to be dismissed. The singular nature of the seed became the genesis of Paulos’ faith-based religion. The singular connotation of one seed at the absolute exclusion of many descendants is how this all began. It was how Paul differentiated between the “promise” and the Torah. While his reasoning has been flawed from the beginning, even if it were valid, he is about to harpoon his own rationale.
His initial clause obviously needs a verb, but the Nestle-Aland was not inclined to speculate on the kind of action Sha’uwl was recommending: “If but you of Christ then of the Abram seed you are by promise inheritors.”
The stakes could not be higher. With each new lie, Paul is setting the stage for the cornerstone of his mythology: Replacement Theology. Since the faithful in Christou are now “Abram’s seed,” Christians have replaced Jews. The Gentile church, should you believe the Father of Lies, is now the heir to all of God’s promises. All you have to do is believe and you can have it all…
“But (de – then and now) if (ei – conditionally) you all (sy) Christou (ΧΡΥ), then (ara – consequently) of the (tou) Abram (Abraam – transliteration of the name ‘Abram, meaning Enriching Father) seed (sperma – descendant or offspring) you exist (este – you all are) with 558respect to (kata – down from, against, or according to) promise (epaggelia – agreement and announcement (singular)) heirs (kleronomos – with an inheritance).” (Galatians 3:29)
As we have previously surmised, kleronomos, translated “heirs,” is a compound of kleros and nomos, therefore affirming that the “nomos – Towrah” is where we find “the allotment which is parceled out to bestow an inheritance.” Interesting in this regard, kleros speaks of a game of chance. It refers to “a lot or stone with a person’s name inscribed on it which, along with other names on other stones, was tossed into a jar, shaken, and then selected purely by random as a result of which stone fell to the ground first.” The addition of kleros, therefore, corrupts the realization that our adoption into Yahowah’s Covenant family is predicated upon a thoughtful choice rather than random chance. God’s family is not selected by casting of lots, which is akin to divination, something Yahowah says is an abomination.
But the problem is actually much bigger. Since the crux of Paul’s argument continues to be a contrived contrast between the Towrah and the promise made to Abram, selecting a word for “heir” based upon nomos defeats the purpose and demonstrates a complete disregard for the intelligence of his audience.
And yet Paul took this risk for a reason. His religion would have been stillborn had he not been able to transfer everything God declared and promised away from Jews and to Gentiles. This statement is another plank in the diabolical edifice of Replacement Theology.
And it is far worse than just the inappropriate negation of Jews and affirmation of Gentiles – to God’s chagrin – Paul went a giant leap beyond. He would continue to viciously attack his own people, demeaning and demonizing them. He created the conditions under which 559Christians would feel justified, even heroic, in their nearly two-thousand-year assault on Yahuwdym. They would follow in Sha’uwl’s footsteps.
The KJV managed to turn a statement into a question: “And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise?” Jerome was a smart fellow, so I am convinced that he recognized that Paul had just contradicted himself. LV: “And if you are Christi, then are you the offspring of Abraham, heirs according to the promise.”
There is nothing akin to “and now that you belong to” in the Greek text, so why is it in the NLT: “And now that you belong to Christ, you are the true children of Abraham. You are his heirs, and God's promise to Abraham belongs to you.” In addition, there is also no justification for “the, true, children, of, you, are, his, and, God’s, to, (the second) Abraham, belongs, to, or you.”
Since this is redundant and repulsive, if you have had enough, you may want to jump down to the chapter summary and then pick up Paul’s trail again as he opens the fourth chapter of Galatians.
“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 560in 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?
Not 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 – listening to the religious faith? (3:2) In this way you are ignorant and irrational, lacking in knowledge and 561unable 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 happened 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)
562But 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 become 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)
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. (Galatians 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)
Because if from the Towrah the inheritance is no longer from a promise, but to Abram by a promise he has favored the God. (Galatians 3:18)
Then, why the Towrah? Until the seed which might come to whom it has been promised having been commanded by messengers in the hand of a mediator and middleman. (Galatians 3:19)
But now the middleman, he is not of one, but the God, he is one. (Galatians 3:20)
563Indeed, the Torah accordingly is against the promises of the God. Not may it become. For if had been given to the Torah to be the one with the power and ability to impart life, certainly in the Torah would be the righteous and vindicated. (Galatians 3:21)
To the contrary, the writing imposed restrictions, trapping, and enclosing everything under the control of error and evil, missing the way in order that the promise could be from the Faith of Iesou Christou might at some time be passively given to the believers. (Galatians 3:22)
But before this coming to the Faith, under the control of the Towrah we were actually being held in custody as prisoners, confined and strictly controlled, restricted and trapped until the bringing about of the Faith was revealed. (Galatians 3:23)
As a result, therefore, the Towrah had become our disciplinarian and enslaving pedagogue, pedantic and dogmatic with its strict, old-fashioned methods and overbearing demeanor, a taskmaster, extending until Christon in order that, by means of the Faith we might, at some point in time, while doing nothing ourselves, be justified. (Galatians 3:24)
But now having come forth and arrived the Faith, this belief system and religion, no longer do we exist under the auspices of an old-fashioned and strict disciplinarian, this pedagogue who instructs in a particularly pedantic and dogmatic manner using harsh, outdated methods. (Galatians 3:25)
Because everyone is a child of God. You all exist that way out of Faith in Christo Iesou. (Galatians 3:26)
Indeed, then, as many as to Christon, you all were actually at some point baptized. To Christon you were all clothed or plunged. (Galatians 3:27)
564No longer is there Yahuwd | Jew nor Hellen | Greek. No longer is there slave nor free. No longer is there male and female. This is because now all of you exist as one in Christo | Christ Iesou | Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)
So then, if you all are Christou | ‘Christian,’ then consequently, you are Abram’s seed. You exist representing promise as heirs, receiving the inheritance.” (Galatians 3:29)
It is as breathtaking in its audacity as it is irrational in its inception.
While there have been a few isolated moments of lucidity, confusion has been more prevalent. While we have read things which have not been completely wrong, most of what we have read has been errant and misleading.
In order to set all of this in perspective, based upon Yahowah’s own presentation of His nature, His purpose and plan in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, here is how I would categorize the first seventy-four Galatians verses.
Completely Accurate (0%):
Irrelevant (8%): 1.2, 1.13, 1.14, 1.19, 1.21, 2.15
Insufficient (3%): 1.18, 3.1
Half Truths (5%): 3.8, 3.16, 3.17, 3.26
Unintelligible (4%): 1.7, 2.14, 3.20
Inaccurate (80%): 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, 1.15, 1.16, 1.17, 1.20, 1.22, 1.23, 1.24, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 2.16, 2.17, 2.18, 2.19, 2.20, 2.21, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 5653.7, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15, 3.18, 3.19, 3.21, 3.22, 3.23, 3.24, 3.25, 3.27, 3.28, 3.29
Therefore, not one of the seventy-four passages presented in the first half of Galatians represents a completely accurate depiction of our potential to form a relationship with God. And just 5% were partly accurate, but not sufficient to advance understanding. So, it would be fair to say that nothing that Paul has written thus far in Galatians has been helpful.
While a modicum of all verses was unrelated to our relationship with Yahowah, that is only a problem in that Paul has been overly concerned with promoting himself and establishing his unassailable credentials as an Apostle. And while a partially accurate statement is acceptable in an ordinary letter, such cannot be construed as the Word of God.
Prior to having scrutinized Paul’s every word, I was inclined to believe that most of the difficult issues associated with Galatians were the result of an inadequate resolution between the Towrah and Talmud. But upon closer evaluation, there can be no doubt that Sha’uwl’s intent has been to dissolve and dismantle Yahowah’s Towrah. He has left no other option in this regard.
I was surprised to find that so much of Galatians was unintelligible. Either the words in the text were insufficient to register a cogent thought, or the point being made was incomprehensible.
But the fact that 59 of the 74 passages, more than three out of every four statements, nearly 80%, are wrong (that is to say they are in conflict with Yahowah’s Word and Yahowsha’s testimony) is devastating to Paul’s credibility and to the veracity of his foundational epistle.
And when it comes to evaluating the veracity of a letter considered to be “Scripture” by billions, we must also add 566insufficient and irrelevant to this total, increasing that which is unintelligible or useless to 15% of the total.
But in this case, we cannot pin the blame on scribal error or careless transmission. There are no older or more reliable Greek manuscripts than Papyrus 46, in which we find copies of Paul’s epistles, including Galatians. Recovered alongside the oldest manuscript copy of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, in addition to Acts, in Papyrus 45, both codices are the product of professional scribes. Moreover, the most comprehensive dating evaluation concluded that P46 may have been scribed as early as 85 CE, with the most pessimistic evaluations placing it in the late 2nd century.
Moreover, Papyrus 46 is remarkably consistent with modern manuscripts which are based upon majority texts. At least apart from the absence of placeholders in younger manuscripts, Papyrus 46 corresponds to the NA27 (Nestle-Aland 27th Edition) 95% of the time. So, if we cannot trust the textual accuracy of Galatians, the rest of the “New Testament” becomes highly suspect.
Based upon the evidence before us, and recognizing that we are still in the midst of Paul’s letter, we are in a position to make some preliminary conclusions about the epistle to the Galatians. It would be fair to say that nothing Paul has written in Galatians has been completely accurate or useful. Not a word has added to our understanding of Yahowah’s name, nature, Towrah, Beryth, or Miqra’ey. Fully 96% of what we have read has been inaccurate, incomprehensible, or irrelevant.
But to be fair, Galatians is widely considered to be Paul’s worst letter. Although I do not think that is so. There are others which are considerably less cogent, such as 2nd Corinthians. If it had not contained Paul’s personal history, if it had not been used to insist that we should no longer observe the Torah, and if it had not formed the foundation 567of Replacement Theology, it probably would have vanished along with Paul’s letter to the Laodiceans. (Listed in Colossians 4:16) If only…
