Questioning Paul

29Questioning Paul

Devil’s Advocate

…Plague of Death

Ptochos | Belittling

On the Other Hand…

If we could remove Paul’s next sentence from this man’s appalling dissertation, with four corrections, it would be his first accurate statement. It is somewhat consistent with God’s testimony – which is a refreshing change. Of course, it follows a plethora of lies and will lead to many more, but still, even a glimpse of lucidity in the midst of this insanity is a welcomed relief.

In the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27^th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear, we find: “When but came the fullness of the time delegated out the God the son of him having become from woman having become under law...”

Amplified by the lexicons at our disposal, and reordered to accommodate the transition into English, the same words reveal...

“But (de) when (hote) came (erchomai – arrived) the fullness (to pleroma – the complete contents) of the (tou) unspecified time (chromos – indefinite occasion), the God (o ΘΣ) sent out (exapostello – out of being set apart and dispatched the messenger with a message on a mission) the (ton) son (ΥΙΝ) of Him (autos), having come to exist (ginomai – having become and having originated) from (ek – out of) a woman (gune – an adult female), having come to exist (ginomai – having originated and being) under 30(hypo – through, as an agent of, under the auspices of, by the means of, subject to, or because of) [the] Towrah (nomon – nourishment which facilitates an inheritance; used throughout the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew noun towrah, meaning teaching and guidance (written in the singular accusative case, making “Towrah” the direct object of the verb))…” (Galatians 4:4)

While Paul would have us believe that the “pleroma – fullness and complete content” of the Towrah’s time had come to an end – Yahowah’s Towrah | Guidance is everlasting. Even the portion of God’s Towrah | Teaching currently available to us extends 3000 years beyond Paul’s pathetic letter – taking us to year 7000 Yah.

Yahowah’s plans for His creation span seven thousand years – not four thousand and change. God’s story was not nearly complete. The best part was still to come – Kipurym | Reconciliations and Sukah | Camping Out. Promises made will be promises kept.

Beyond not wanting to shortchange His creation, Yahowah’s timing is precise. It is not “chromos – unspecified, occurring on some indefinite occasion.” Abraham and Yitschaq confirmed their Covenant relationship with Yahowah in year 2000 Yah (1968 BCE). In year 3000 Yah, the Messiah and Son of God laid the Cornerstone of Yahowah’s Home. Returning to Mowryah | Moriah in year 4000 Yah (33 CE), Yahowsha’ fulfilled Pesach | Passover, and helped enable the benefits derived from Matsah | UnYeasted Bread and Bikuwrym | Firstborn Children, leading to Shabuw’ah | the Promise of the Shabat – each on the prescribed day. And because God is consistently precise, Yahowah will reconcile His relationship with Yisra’el and Yahuwdah on Yowm Kipurym in year 6000 Yah (October 2^nd, 2033 at sunset, 6:22 PM in Yaruwshalaim). Five days later, right on schedule, the Covenant’s Children will Sukah | Camp Out with God, enjoying the restoration of the Kingdom of 31Dowd | David for one thousand years – taking us to year 7000 Yah. God’s plans are the antithesis of “unspecified and indefinite.”

“Exapostello – separated and sent out” is an accurate depiction of the origin and purpose of Yahowsha’. Comprised of ek, “out of and away from,” and apostello, “one who is prepared, equipped, set apart, even sent off as a spiritual messenger,” he was “sent off, prepared and equipped,” to serve us.

However, when “Son of God” is being used as a title, which is the implication here, then it should rightfully be attributed to Dowd | David – the lone individual given this distinction by God. He spoke of his relationship with his Heavenly Father, writing brilliant and inspiring prose in his Mizmowr | Psalms and Mashal | Proverbs, 1000 years prior to Paul’s pathetic attempt to write the actual Messiah out of Yahowah’s story.

It is always appropriate to call a child of the Covenant the son of God because it is consistent with Yahowah’s own nomenclature. However, we have to be careful when addressing Yahowsha’ because he consistently avoided this title, consistently referring to himself as the “Son of Man.” Further, largely because of Paul’s letters and his spellbinding influence over Mark, Luke, and through them, Matthew, the title Yahowah afforded Dowd was misappropriated and bequeathed to the Christian Christ, giving him a divine varnish.

“Ginomai ek – come to exist out of, originating from” a woman is surprisingly accurate. Yahowsha’ was born in the ordinary sense. There was nothing about his physical presence that would have impressed anyone – and that was by design. There was no virgin birth, and he was not born on Christmas Day. These are all Christian embellishments and myths, each designed to distract the world’s attention away from the Passover Lamb while creating the false 32impression that Yahowsha’ was God.

Should any of this be difficult for you to accept at this point in your study, that is understandable. I am editing this section of Questioning Paul twenty years after I began this voyage of discovery with Yahowah in the fall of 2001. Therefore, I have long since translated and contemplated thousands of Yahowah’s prophetic statements regarding Dowd and have come to appreciate God’s position relative to the Shepherd and Lamb. As you make your way past Questioning Paul and through Observations to Coming Home, you will no doubt concur.

Hypo, translated “under,” could have been rendered “by means of,” thereby making this portion of Paul’s statement accurate as well. Yahowsha’ is a corporeal manifestation of Yahowah’s will and His Towrah’s purpose. He came into our world “hypo – as a result of and because of” the Towrah.

However, he was not “hypo – under” the Towrah in the sense of being subservient or subjugated – no one is. And sadly, based upon what has come before and what follows, this was clearly Paul’s intent. Moreover, this verse plays off of Galatians 4:2, because “when came the fullness of the unspecified time…” and “until the previously appointed time set by the Father” are parallel concepts. Sandwiched in between them, Galatians 4:3 conveys Paul’s conclusion that the Torah was an inadequate first step and that it momentarily enslaved us. This remains an insurmountable problem for Pauline Doctrine and thus Christian credibility.

Since she will be compared to Hagar, Sarah’s slave momentarily, it is instructive to know that it is not likely that Miryam | Mary was the name of Yahowsha’s mother. Miry means “rebellious” and ‘am means “people.” Further, Miryam | Miriam led a rebellion against her brother, Moseh | Moses, greatly angering God. Therefore, Yahowah would 33never have chosen a woman by this name to bear the Passover Lamb. Those who rebelled against God, like Paul, likely chose it, with it serving to affirm their disdain for Moseh and the Towrah.

Trying to sweep the mess they have made under a flying carpet, Roman Catholic apologists now claim that hers was an Egyptian name and meant “beautiful lady,” even “well-beloved,” in the language of the land that enslaved the Children of Yisra’el. And speaking of foreign influences, she was not the Mother of God or Queen of Heaven either as these titles came from Babylon.

As we shall soon discover, Paul will try to contrast this mother with Hagar, the slave of Abraham’s wife. And while there is no rational comparison that can be made between these women, Paul, ever the clever one, will hang his theory on the idea that Sarah, who is also an unnamed woman in his thesis, can become the mother of freeborn children by way of the promise made to her husband, whereas Hagar represents slavery to the Torah. So, by going from “woman” to “woman,” Paul bypasses the Torah and the role of our Spiritual Mother.

The fourth error in Paul’s best sentence thus far is that Towrah never should have been translated as nomon. It was the title of the best-known and most recognizable book in the land at the time. As a title, Towrah should have been transliterated, just as we are doing now in English. And then if he wanted to translate towrah, he should have chosen any of the many Greek words for “teaching, guidance, instruction, and direction.”

In their quest to garner religious favor for their king, the theologians who crafted the King James Bible wrote: “But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.” Then, the New Living Translation, reflecting the perspective of modern Christianity, turned what could have 34been construed as an affirmation of the Torah into a disparagement of it based upon the way they translated hypo: “But when the right time came, God sent his Son, born of a woman, subject to the law.”

I had thought that theological animosity for Yahowah’s Towrah was why they rendered hypo as “subject to” as opposed to “because of” or “by the means of” the Towrah. But upon further reflection, the NLT may well have accurately reflected Paul’s intended disdain for the Torah based upon the surrounding context.

While this was Paul’s best effort, it was riddled with deceptions. Nothing is more beguiling than hiding the truth by placing a lie on top of it. It is how counterfeits are made. It is the reason frauds prevail. When you see threads of truth woven into an improperly conceived tapestry, you are witnessing Satan’s finest work. This will become obvious with the completion of the sentence.

In this light, those who believe that Paul could not have been a false prophet because some of what he wrote was true, tossing one partly-hewn rock into a pigsty is hardly the standard borne by those who serve Yah. And such thinking fails to appreciate how deceivers operate and how religions achieve their goals. The duplicitous realize their counterfeits must appear credible for them to prosper. And yet, while their bogus bills share many of the same strokes as legitimate ones, they are completely worthless – even illegal.

Along these lines, some Christian apologists posture the notion that it is unfair to label Paul “anti-Torah” because he occasionally speaks favorably of the Torah in other letters. But if so, all that would prove is that the man who felt no compunction regarding contradicting God was willing, when the circumstances required, to contradict himself. So how is it that Paul’s willingness to negate his own thesis suddenly makes him credible?

35Striving to make his delusions believable by associating his conclusions with God’s Word, Sha’uwl continues to lead unwary souls to She’owl. In the words of the McReynolds Interlinear: “that the ones under law he might buy out that the adoption as son we might receive back.”

This implies that we were all “subject to the law,” which is invalid no matter how Paul’s words are interpreted. The Towrah exists on our behalf, to serve us, not the other way around. It frees us from submission and subjugation.

This also implies that we were redeemed from the Towrah instead of by the Towrah, thereby misrepresenting the entire purpose of God’s Guidance. And if that were not bad enough, the Towrah’s Covenant is the sole means to accommodate our adoption into Yahowah’s family.

Lastly, by saying that we “might be received back,” Paul is protesting that we were once God’s children but somehow became estranged. And that means that God cannot be trusted to protect His family. It suggests that His Covenant isn’t everlasting and that His promises are not enduring.

But should you want a more reliable translation, this is my best effort...

“…in order that (ina – for the purpose and result of) the ones (tous) under (hypo – by means of or subject to) Towrah (nomon – nourishing allotment which provides an inheritance; used universally throughout the Greek Septuagint rendering of the Hebrew Towrah to translate towrah – teaching and guidance), he might redeem (exagorazomai – he may make use of the opportunity to ransom, possibly working to buy back) in order to (ina) the son set (ten uiothesian – a Pauline term based upon an assumed compound of huios – son and a derivative of tithemi – to set or place) we might receive back or obtain 36from (apolambano – we may receive what is sought and due; from apo, to be set apart, and lambano, to be taken by the hand, therefore sometimes translated take aside, lead away, or welcome back).” (Galatians 4:5)

Uiothesian, rendered “son set” is not actually a word, but instead something Paul made up and only he uses. Rendered “adoption” in Christian Bibles, this is the first of three deployments in Paul’s epistles. The second and third installments of uiothesian are found in Romans, where Paul contradicts himself and God by asking: “Who are the Israelites to whom the son set (uiothesian) and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Torah and the service and the promises.” (Romans 9:4)

Since this all flows out of the same misguided rant, to properly appreciate his ploy, Sha’uwl has now proposed:

“So I say, as long as the heir exists as someone who is childish and immature, he is no different than a slave, belonging to the lord and master who owns and controls everyone and everything. (4:1) Certainly, he is under the auspices of foremen who control the workers and administrators until the previously appointed time set of the Father. (Galatians 4:2)

And also in this way it follows that when we were infants, under the elementary teachings and rudimentary principles of religious mythology, the simplistic and basic initial precepts of the supernatural powers associated with the cults of the earth, water, air, and fire, and the deification of the sun, moon, planets, and stars of the world, we were subservient slaves. (Galatians 4:3)

But when came the fullness and complete contents of the unspecified time, the Theos sent out the son of Him, having come to exist from a woman, having come being under Towrah (4:4) in order that the ones under Towrah, he might buy back so that to the son’s 37adoption, we might be received back and obtained.” (Galatians 4:5)

Paul is wrong, we were not “bought back, obtained, or received from” the Towrah, but instead from our own perversions and the corruptive nature of religion. Further, the recipients of this merciful gift are adopted into the Towrah’s Covenant, where Yahowah makes His children immortal, perfect, enriched, and empowered so that we can grow and thrive. No one has ever been adopted by Yahowsha’. That is not the role of the Passover Lamb.

Buried under Paul’s bogus bill is the realization that our adoption into God’s family is facilitated by Bikuwrym | Firstborn Children as a result of Yahowsha’s fulfillment of Pesach | Passover and Yahowah’s contribution to Matsah | UnYeasted Bread. By substituting his lies for God’s gifts, everyone loses.

Yahowsha’ loved Yahowah’s Towrah. He observed the Towrah, taught from the Towrah, answered the Towrah’s Invitations, and embraced the conditions of the Towrah’s Covenant. It was based upon the Towrah that Yahowsha’ was able to serve as the lamb during the Miqra’ of Pesach, allowing Yahowah to fulfill Matsah, so that we could enjoy Bikuwrym and benefit from Shabuw’ah. Therefore, Yahowsha’s response to the Towrah and Sha’uwl’s statements regarding it are polar opposites.

As usual, the New Living Translation is not a translation, nor is it even a paraphrase. It is so divergent from the Greek text that it is more akin to a novel. “God sent him to buy freedom for us who were slaves to the law, so that he could adopt us as his very own children.” The authors of this publication appear as if they have never read the Exodus account whereby the Children of Yisra’el were freed from slavery. The Towrah did not enslave them. It was His gift to them on Shabuw’ah – celebrating the promise of seven and the Shabat. The Towrah is Yisra’el’s 38Emancipation Proclamation.

The KJV is no closer to the text: “To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.” In actuality, and thankfully, we are still subject to the Towrah. According to God, it has not been repealed. And that is fortunate for us, because it provides the narrow path to life.

As we approach this next protestation, we find yet another discrepancy between more modern Greek manuscripts like the 16^th century Textus Receptus and the 20^th century Nestle-Aland, with P46, the oldest witness to Paul’s letters. The clause “of the son” does not follow the placeholder for Spirit in the 2^nd century codex.

Reprising his selection of exapostello, this time Paul unwittingly associates its meaning with our Spiritual Mother’s role in the adoption process...

“But (de) because (hoti – that) you are (este – you exist as, represent, and correspond to) sons (huios – male children) sent out (exapostello – prepared, set apart, and dispatched the representative of) the god (o ΘΣ), the (to) spirit (ΠΝΑ) into (eis) the hearts (tas kardias) of us (emon) shouts (krazo – cries out, screams, or croaks), ‘Abba (abba – a transliteration of the Aramaic word used to address one’s father)’ – the (o) Pater | Father (ΠΡ – a placeholder derived from the Greek pater).” (Galatians 4:6)

In the order the words appear in the text of the modern manuscripts of the letter, at least according to the McReynolds Interlinear, the same statement reads: “Because but you are sons delegated out the God the spirit of the son of him into the hearts of us shouting abba the father.”

The Hebrew word for “father” is ‘ab, while ‘abah is a verb and means “to be willing to accept someone or 39something.” This is especially relevant because “abba” is not a Greek word, and Yahowah’s chosen language is Hebrew. The Set-Apart Spirit would, therefore, never say “abba,” but instead “‘ab.”

This error would not have been worth mentioning had Paul not switched languages to that of the Babylonians and Assyrians, Aramaic, to make his point. By doing so, he has belittled the language of the Torah, and thus its voice. And that was his intent.

Paul, himself, never knew a father’s love nor the pleasure of being a father. He was sent off to rabbinical school as a young boy – never to return home. He never, in all of his long letters, spoke of his mother or father. And Sha’uwl never married, and thus never experienced the joy of being a parent. All of this I think contributed to his less-than-ideal temperament.

Worse, reading between the lines, it is likely Paul was abused growing up. Psychopaths are seldom the product of loving and nurturing homes. There is a high prevalence of childhood neglect and abuse in psychopathy – making this conclusion essentially certain. It was true with Muhammad as well.

This statement also misrepresents the reasons God sent the “Ruwach Qodesh – Set-Apart Spirit.” She covers our souls with a Garment of Light and does not invade our hearts. She does not speak for us either; She speaks to us when we are engaged studying Yahowah’s Word. And as our Spiritual Mother, Her relationship with Yahowah cannot be defined as “father.”

Considering the vitriol Sha’uwl has unleashed against God’s Word, a relentless assault which began with his opening paragraph and will reach its crescendo in Galatians 4:24, it would be naive to dismiss any sleight he has positioned as anything other than his attempt to demean the Torah. In this light, the one who is unnamed “originating 40from a woman, having come to exist under Towrah” in verse 4:4, will soon be compared with the “slave woman” of Galatians 4:23 who bears children who are enslaved by the Torah. The “adoption” process in 4:5 is being foisted to imply that the “children of promise” in 4:28 can bypass the Torah and still be part of his god’s family.

The awkward and invalid reference to the spirit” in Galatians 4:5 is an attempt to associate our Spiritual Mother with Sarah, just as Sha’uwl will do again in Galatians 4:27-31. And by having the Spirit speak to the Father in Aramaic, Sha’uwl not only dismisses the Hebrew Towrah, but also associates the Spirit and “Mary” with one of the most distinguishing aspects of the Babylonian religion; that of the Madonna and Child and the Mother of God.

Unfazed by the realization that Paul did not include the phrase “of the Son” in this sentence, the NLT misrepresents the Galatians message once again. “And because we are his children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, prompting us to call out, ‘Abba, Father.’” The verb “krazo – shouts out” was singular in the text, meaning that it is the spirit who allegedly “cries out,” as opposed to “us being prompted to call out.” The KJV wrote: “And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.”

This next thought, in this context, also affirms that Paul had positioned his previous statements to imply that Yahowah’s Torah was something from which we had to be freed in order to be saved. In the Nestle-Aland’s preferred Interlinear, it reads: “So that no longer you are slave but son if but son also inheritor through God.”

“So as a result (hoste) you no longer exist as (ouketi eimi) a slave (doulos), but to the contrary (alla) a son (ΥΙΣ). But now (de) if (ei) a Son (ΥΙΣ) and (kai) an heir by chance (kleronomos – receiver of an inheritance 41through casting lots) through (dia) a theos (ΘΥ).” (Galatians 4:7)

Kleronomos has ghastly connotations. It is based upon kleros and nomos, with “kleros – the casting or drawing of lots in a game of luck” modifying “nomos – the Towrah’s nurturing allotment which provides an inheritance.” Nothing with God is perchance. That is what makes Him trustworthy. Chance, however, is akin to faith.

Beyond this, we were not slaves to the Torah, making Sha’uwl’s premise preposterous. God’s Word is the means to our liberation. Even the Hebrew word most commonly translated “saves,” yasha’, primarily means “to liberate, free, and deliver from harm’s way.”

In the process of liberating the Children of Yisra’el from human religious, political, economic, and military oppression Yahowah revealed His Towrah. By so doing, He demonstrated His willingness to do the same for all of us, and at any time.

The King James rendering of the seventh verse reads: “Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.” And yet, we are called to be coworkers, because it is an honor to work with Yahowah. After all, Yahowsha’ considered himself to be a servant and was predicted in Yasha’yah / Isaiah to be the “rightful coworker who would make many right by bearing their transgressions.”

Continuing to advance Paul’s slavery mantra, the New Living Translation published: “Now you are no longer a slave but God’s own child. And since you are his child, God has made you his heir.”

Unfortunately, the slave reference harkens back to the dark days of Galatians 3:10-12, 3:24-25, and 4:1-5, and thus ties all of these verses together. By doing so, any possibility of disassociating the Torah from the source of 42enslavement no longer exists.

The best way to understand Paul’s thesis, which claims that we must be “freed from the Torah’s curse of slavery” to become “adopted heirs,” is to consider his rhetorical progression. He begins by calling the Torah a curse.

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

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

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

Christos bought us back from the evil and hateful curse and malicious influence of the Towrah, having 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)

Then Sha’uwl claims that the Towrah is an instrument of death, saying that there is no life in it or inheritance from it.

“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 43promise could be from the Faith of Iesou Christou might at some time be passively given to the believers. (Galatians 3:22)

Sha’uwl goes on to associate the Towrah with enslavement, and Christon with freedom, as if the Towrah and Yahowsha’ were not only unrelated, but actually opposites.

“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)

According to Paul, adoption and inheritance required being freed from the enslavement of the Towrah.

44And also in this way it follows that when we were infants, under the elementary teachings and rudimentary principles of religious mythology, the simplistic and basic initial precepts of the supernatural powers associated with the cults of the earth, water, air, and fire, and the deification of the sun, moon, planets, and stars of the world, we were subservient slaves.” (Galatians 4:3)

Reinforcing the foundation he had laid, Paul restates that abandoning the Torah is a precondition for adoption.

“But when came the fullness and complete contents of the unspecified time, the Theos sent out the son of Him, having come to exist from a woman, having come being under Towrah (4:4) in order that the ones under Towrah, he might buy back so that to the son’s adoption, we might be received back and obtained. (Galatians 4:5)

But because you are sons sent out by the god, the spirit into the hearts of us shouts, ‘Abba’ – the Pater | Father. (4:6) So as a result, you no longer exist as a slave, but to the contrary a son. But now if a son and an heir by the chance casting of lots through a god.” (Galatians 4:7)

Based upon these statements, it would be a fool’s folly to assume that Paul was lampooning the Talmud, Rabbinical or Roman Law as opposed to Yahowah’s Towrah. Moreover, since it is universally accepted that the Galatians were overwhelmingly Gentiles, the fact that they were never “under or subject to” Rabbinical Law is proof in itself that Sha’uwl wasn’t condemning his people’s religious traditions or Oral Law. So, it is bone-chilling to recognize that Sha’uwl – Christianity’s founding father – has condemned his soul to She’owl | Hell by composing the most appalling diatribe in human history. This is particularly distressing considering how many souls he has 45taken with him.

Sha’uwl told his audience that all they needed to be saved was to believe him, doing so while lying through his teeth. With every intoxicating thought and sickening word, the plague of death spread throughout the world. For something this poorly written, Paul’s faith would be surprisingly contagious. Not only would billions die estranged from God, the faith Sha’uwl | Paul promoted would become the Chosen People’s most menacing adversary.



Now that Paul has laid the foundation of his thesis – “the Towrah enslaves” – we are confronted with a trilogy of statements whereby the enslaved are associated with “nature,” with “false gods,” with “the inadequate initial constitution,” and with “the observance of special days, months, and years.” Therefore, bereft of a transition away from Paul’s belittlement of the Torah, and in the midst of his crusade against God’s Word, we are compelled to accept the realization that Paul is continuing to associate some very unsavory things with Yahowah’s foundational testimony.

The next three pronouncements advance a singular thought. Here is the first of them through the eyes of the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear: “But then indeed not having known God you were enslaved to the in nature not being gods.” Or if you prefer...

“Certainly (alla – to the contrary and by way of contrast) on the other hand (men – indeed) then (tote) not having known, perceived, or acknowledged (ouk oida – not having been aware of) theos (ΘΝ), you were enslaved (douleuo) to (tois) nature (physis – the laws of the physical 46and natural world; from phuo – your birth and how you were begotten) not existing as (me ousin – not being or corresponding to) gods (theois – deities).” (Galatians 4:8)

God did not design us to be slaves, ergo, we were not begotten as slaves to nature. In fact, in the Towrah, nature is subservient to man.

Not knowing God does not enslave us. And freedom, while advantageous, does not turn us into gods. Yet, this was what Paul wrote. Theois is the plural of theos | god.

My former business partner, speaking of someone like Paul, said: “You can fix a lot of things, but you cannot fix stupid.” I only wish that was what we were dealing with here. This is entirely too sinister to call mistaken.

While pagan gods and goddesses were often associated with nature, the Greek and Roman religions practiced in Galatia were considerably more sophisticated. So with this statement, Paul was demeaning the intelligence of his audience which would have done nothing but irritate them. Too bad more modern audiences are not similarly offended.

Speaking of being irritating, remember that Sha’uwl deployed “stoicheion – elementary teachings and rudimentary principles of religious mythology” in Galatians 4:3 the same way he used “slave to nature” in his previous statement. So now, making sure that his audience would also make this same connection, he wrote...

“But (de) now (nyn) having known (ginosko – having become personally familiar with) god (ΘΝ), but (de – and or) more (mallon – instead, to the contrary, or by contrast), having been known (ginosko – having been recognized and understood) under (hypo) god (ΘΥ), how (pos) have you returned, changing your beliefs (epistrepete – you changed your ways, your faith, your religion, and your opinions, reversing course) back (palin – again and again 47repetitively) upon (epi) the (ta) incapacitating and incompetent (asthenes – feeble and weak, powerless and infirmed), even (kai) worthless, belittling, and terrifying (ptochos – lowly and little, destitute and impoverished; from ptoeo – to terrify and to diminish and pipto – to fall, crouching in submission before dying) elementary teachings and rudimentary principles of religious mythology (stoicheion – simplistic and basic initial precepts of the supernatural powers associated with the cults of the earth, water, air, and fire, and the deification of the sun, moon, planets, and stars representing the underdeveloped, inadequate, simplistic, and improperly formed first step) which (ois) back again (palin – repetitively) and again from above (anothen – from heaven and for a very long time) you are choosing (thelete – you are desiring and taking pleasure in, wanting) to be controlled as a slave (douleuein)...” (Galatians 4:9)

Yahowah does not present Satan as deplorably as Sha’uwl describes God and His Word. I am flabbergasted, bewildered and disgusted, even suffering from an inability to properly project my revulsion.

Just a moment ago, Paul was telling believers that they had become gods, but now they are incompetent and worthless. Nevertheless, by slandering the Galatians for the third time, we can be assured that Paul’s preaching was no better than his writing. Those who knew Paul best, those who suffered through his verbal diatribes against the very God he claimed inspired him, rejected him – all of them. What is wrong with the rest of humanity?

So that you don’t think that I’m being unfair to Paul, the Interlinear associated with the Nestle-Aland 27^th Edition renders the same statement: “now but having known God more but having been known by God how you returned again on the weak and poor elements to which again from above to slave you want.”

48Beginning at the beginning, considering the fact that most people’s written expressions convey vastly more information than their verbal proclamations, and recognizing that Sha’uwl has consistently misquoted and contradicted Yahowah, there is no chance whatsoever that anyone came “to know God” based upon his preaching. The same is true of his writing, even today, and as a result, God does not know a single Pauline Christian. Therefore, Paul had this wrong.

Beyond this, “mallon – more” is inappropriate in the context of the Covenant. Once we know Yahowah through His Towrah, after coming to understand what He is offering and asking in return, we are in a position to respond accordingly. It is only then that God reciprocates and comes to know us as His children. However, the last thing we should desire is for Him to know us better than we know Him.

The more closely we examine what God said about Himself, the more we will come to love and respect Him. However, the same is not true for us. The entire purpose of the Set-Apart Spirit’s Garment of Light is to replace the darkness in our souls with His Light so that, as our Father, He sees Himself in us. Therefore, Paul had this wrong.

We can quit our job, we can move to a different state or country, we can change political allegiances, we can even divorce our spouse, but we cannot disown our children. The same is true with God. So, while each of us is given the opportunity to ignore, reject, or accept the Covenant, should we embrace its terms and conditions, we are Yahowah’s sons and daughters forever. That is His promise, a vow memorialized among the Covenant’s benefits. When it comes to the revolving door to heaven, Paul had this wrong as well.

Paul is suggesting that, when he thought the Galatians believed him, they were saved, but by rejecting him they 49were doomed. His pivotal term is intriguing in this regard. Epistrepte, which was translated as “have you returned, changing your beliefs,” is a compound of “epi – upon or against” and “strepho – to turn on one’s self, no longer caring for oneself by changing one’s mind.” It is defined by various lexicons as “to change faith or religious beliefs toward true worship and obedience.” Since God is opposed to religion, since God does not want to be worshiped, and since He places no value in faith, Paul is once again wrong. And it only gets worse from here.

In Galatians 4:1 through 4:5, Paul not only directly associates stoicheion with the Towrah, but he also demeans the Torah by calling it childish, enslaving, controlling, works-based, overbearing, and thus oppressive, in addition to being mythological:

But when came the fullness and complete contents of the unspecified time, the Theos sent out the son of Him, having come to exist from a woman, having come being under Towrah (4:4) in order that the ones under Towrah, he might buy back so that to the son’s 50adoption, we might be received back and obtained. (Galatians 4:5)

Certainly, by way of contrast, on the other hand then not having known, perceived, or acknowledged theos, you were enslaved to nature not existing as gods. (Galatians 4:8)

But now having known theos, but more and by contrast, having been known under theos | god, how have you returned, changing your beliefs back upon the incapacitating and incompetent, also infirmed, even worthless, belittling, and terrifying, submitting before dying in the elementary teachings and rudimentary principles of religious mythology which, reverting back again and again, you are choosing to be controlled as a slave...” (Galatians 4:9)

May I issue this warning? One’s sanity may be tested by such absurdity. The realization that 2.5 billion people today are under the spell of this schizophrenic psychopath and demonic charlatan is exasperating.

After all of these derogatory comments, and after proposing a ludicrous affinity between “stoicheion – religious mythology” and the “nomos – Towrah,” Paul calls Yahowah’s Testimony “asthenes – incapacitating and incompetent, even sickening” as well as “ptochos – worthless, belittling, and terrifying, as well as deadly.” There is nothing Paul could have written that could have been more wrong.

But that was insufficient. He went on to claim that the 51“religious mythology” to “which they had returned again and again” came “from above,” as in from God in heaven. And that by “choosing” God’s “elementary teachings,” they were “deciding to be controlled as a slave...” The opposite is true. Yahowah and His Towrah exist to liberate us from men such as these.

A man on a mission, the Devil’s Advocate, ripped the heart and life out of the Towrah, rejecting the Shabat, the Miqra’ey, and the Yowbel: “Days you keep watch and months and seasons and years.”

The Father of Lies is repudiating Yahowah’s instructions to celebrate the Shabat, the seventh day, so that it is special. By denouncing the central elements of God’s plan and promise, man’s opportunity to know Him and enjoy His company was obscured. And that was the intent of these words. Paul was denouncing Yahowah’s Miqra’ey | Invitations to be Called Out and Meet at the time designated in the spring, summer, and fall seasons, meeting with God in the first, third, and seventh months of the year. By so doing, there would be no hope of salvation for those who foolishly believed the Son of Evil.

Even the reference to years was designed to negate the observance of the Yowbel, designating the time when debts are forgiven and slaves are freed. As a result, Paul’s devotees remain clueless regarding the Towrah’s purpose and the date of God’s imminent return. For Christendom, Paul’s statement was devastating and irrecoverable. All Christians would die. Sha’uwl had foreclosed Heaven, eternal life, and salvation.

Those reading along in an English bible, or even keeping tabs with the Nestle-Aland Greek rendition of Paul’s epistle, may have noticed that the ninth verse appears to conclude with a question mark, leaving us to believe that the tenth verse is independent of the ninth’s diabolical hypothesis. However, Papyrus 46 corrects the 52first word of what would otherwise have been the next sentence, changing “paratereisoe – you are observing and attending” to “paraterountes – by observing and attending,” thereby combining these thoughts. In so doing, Sha’uwl’s statement goes from bad to worse because he is saying that we choose to be controlled and enslaved by Yahowah’s Towrah by observing and attending the Shabat, the Miqra’ey, and the Yowbel.

Therefore, corrected to reflect the oldest extant codex, this same concluding statement reads:

“...by observing and carefully attending (paraterountes – by closely examining so as to be present, by taking a stand being perceptive through careful consideration, by paying unremitting attention to, by looking for benefit in by attending; from para – from, beside and near and tereo – to carefully attend), days (hemera), and (kai) months (menas – using moon phases), and (kai) seasons (kairos – appropriate or opportune occasions, proper or specific times), and years (eniautos – annual solar cycles or eras)?” (Galatians 4:10)

According to Paul, by observing Yahowah’s “days,” His “months and seasons,” and His “years,” and therefore by accepting Yahowah’s Invitations to Meet with Him and attending His Feasts is one of the ways God enslaves and controls humankind. It was the next logical step in Sha’uwl’s diabolical thesis. Having separated Yahowsha’ from the Torah, he is now separating mankind from Yahowah.

More deceitful, deadly, destructive, and damning than any words ever written, those Paul scribed nearly 2000 years ago have precluded billions of souls from knowing God. Christians do not celebrate the Shabat, attend the Miqra’ey, or understand the Yowbel – and thus cannot engage in a relationship with Yahowah. They do not know what these days, months, seasons, and years represent. 53Most find them despicable.

Paul’s message was translated by Jerome in the Latin Vulgate to say: “But then indeed, not knowing God, you served them who, by nature, are not gods. But now, after that you have known God, or rather are known by God: how turn you again to the weak and needy elements which you desire to serve again? You observe days and months and times, and years.”

Copying the Catholics, the Protestant Authorized King James Version said something fairly similar: “Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.”

The NLT’s liberal interpretation is more in keeping with Christianity’s antagonism for the Torah, and especially Yahowah’s instructions regarding His Sabbath, Invitations to Meet, and Yowbel Redemptive years. “Before you Gentiles knew God, you were slaves to so-called gods that do not even exist. So now that you know God (or should I say, now that God knows you), why do you want to go back again and become slaves once more to the weak and useless spiritual principles of this world? You are trying to earn favor with God by observing certain days or months or seasons or years.”

While the New Living Translation is dead wrong, they have accurately conveyed Sha’uwl’s intended message. He is demeaning the heart of the Torah: Yahowah’s Shabat (where we celebrate our relationship with God), His seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God (where we are freed from death, our sins are forgiven, we are adopted into the Covenant, and are enriched and empowered), and His Redemptive Years (where souls are freed and debts are 54forgiven). The wannabe Apostle has renounced the essence of God’s plan of reconciliation and salvation.

On my first pass through this material, I was focused on translating one verse at a time, and thereby lost sight of the connection between these spurious notions. And at that time, I was predisposed to render each of Paul’s statements as consistent with Yahowah’s overall message as the words themselves would allow. At the time, I evaluated this trilogy of verses as if Paul was assailing pagan traditions and festivals, especially those observed by the Persians, Romans, and Greeks, whereby they worshiped gods predicated upon the natural and physical world.

And while I will share where that thought process led, as it is always beneficial to understand the nature of religious counterfeits, I must now admit that my “metanoeo – attitude, perspective, and thinking has changed” based upon a more contextual, careful, and complete review of Paul’s letter. Based upon what he has said thus far in Galatians 2:16 through 4:7, and what he will say in verses 4:21 through 4:31, the inescapable conclusion is that all of this represents a singular doctrinal statement. According to Paul: “the Torah enslaves and must be rejected.”

As an affirmation of this abomination, Paul first introduced the concept of our “inheritance,” in Galatians 3:18, whereby he disassociated the Torah from God’s “promise to Abraham to forgive us.” Subsequently, Paul asked, “So why then this Towrah?” clearly referring to the Word of God, as he would have no reason to explain the origin of human edicts. By the 19^th verse, Paul spoke of the Towrah existing only “until the prescribed Messenger’s arrival.”

Then in the second half of the 21^st verse, the man with the audacity to contradict God’s Word while claiming to be His Apostle, claimed that no one has been made right with God based upon the Towrah, which further undermined 55any attempt to pin the blame for man’s enslavement on worldly schemes. The Towrah remained the subject of the 22^nd verse, where Paul used hypo to speak of “but to the contrary, the writing imposed restrictions, completely shutting the door on heaven, imprisoning everything under error and evil,” just as he used hypo in the first three verses of the fourth chapter to speak of us being childish slaves under the control of oppressive authority figures – themselves apparently representing the Torah’s tendency to enslave.

So it was in the midst of this that we were confronted with Galatians 3:25, “But now having come to the Faith, no longer do we exist under an old fashioned and strict disciplinarian,” whereby a direct comparison was made to Galatians 4:1-3: “So I say, as long as the heir exists childish and immature, he is no different than a slave, belonging to the lord and master who owns and controls everyone and everything. (4:1) Certainly, he is under the auspices of foremen who control the workers and administrators until the previously appointed time set of the Father. (4:2) And also, in this way, it follows that when we were infants, under the elementary teachings and rudimentary principles of religious mythology, we were subservient slaves.” (4:3) Therefore, the oppressive “lord and master” in Sha’uwl’s view is the “Towrah,” effectively destroying any chance we had of redeeming his testimony by subsequently disassociating the “foremen,” “managers,” “mythological region,” or “enslavement” from being associated with the Torah.

Stroke by stroke, word by word, Paul is building his case against Yahowah, His Word, and His plan of reconciliation and salvation. And he will stop at nothing, including demeaning the disciples, misquoting God, contradicting Yahowsha’, and twisting Yahowah’s testimony, to establish himself and his doctrine. It is Paul versus God and all of His witnesses and prophets. 56Therefore, Paul has not become the Adversary, but he is, at the very least, his messenger.

Men are enslaved by other men and their religious and political schemes, not by nature or by God. Moreover, Yahowsha’ did not come to liberate anyone from the Torah, but instead to fulfill the Torah’s promises and thereby provide liberty for humankind.

We come to know Yahowah through the Towrah and the Prophets, and yet Paul has only presented mutilated snippets of five verses thus far from them – all of which he has mangled. And there is no reason to assume that his preaching (at least in content) would have been any better than his writing.

Coming to know Yahowah as He presents Himself in the Towrah, results in God coming to know us. Yahowah does not, however, know those who don’t know Him. Respecting Yahowah and His revelation results in being valued sufficiently by God to be adopted into His family. But those who do not revere God sufficiently to study His Word (a.k.a., the Towrah) are excluded from His family.

Those who do not know and understand the Towrah remain susceptible to Paul’s doctrinal delusions. And that poses a particularly difficult problem for Christians because they have been conditioned by Paul to ignore the Towrah. Therefore, they do not know what they are missing, and they miss the fact that, by demeaning it, Paul was contradicting the God he claimed to represent.

This presents a conundrum. If we encourage Christians to study the Towrah before rejecting Paul, they will not be open to it and thus will remain averse to Yahowah and His plan of salvation. And yet, the most effective way to encourage Christians to reject Paul is to compare this man’s letters with God’s teaching. Those who are rational will adjust their perspective, thinking, and attitude, recognizing that it is irrational to believe that God 57inspired a man to contradict Him.

After falsely testifying that the recipients of his preaching knew God and were also known by Him, the wannabe Apostle backtracked, suggesting that the Galatians were now orphaned. If that were true, then our salvation would be predicated upon our fidelity as opposed to God’s provision, and our spiritual rebirth would be temporal, not eternal. If this were possible, heaven would have to be equipped with a revolving door. And for Paul’s pleading to have any merit, so would hell.

But this egomaniac’s errant theology pales in comparison to his abysmal attitude toward God. By asking the Galatians “how can you ‘return’” to “the initial teachings (a.k.a., the Torah), Paul is implying that his preaching was vastly superior to Yahowah’s teachings. And by calling God’s plan a “worthless and incompetent initial step,” he is suggesting that only a fool would choose to trust God’s solution over his.

To which the man who played his audience as if they were fools said that, by choosing to observe the Torah, such individuals were choosing to be controlled as if they were slaves. Rather than freeing His children from bondage in Egypt, Paul would have you believe that Yahowah’s domineering persona dragged His people away from the liberty they enjoyed in the Promised Land and then forced them to serve as slaves in Egypt.

But let’s pretend for a moment that Sha’uwl’s view of Yahowah is correct, that God was a despicable deity, that He was completely incompetent, even counterproductive, and that His plan was incapable of freeing anyone, much less saving them. Who then was Sha’uwl speaking on behalf of? Was Sha’uwl going to save his believers based upon his authority and power, or were they going to have to rely on the same “mean-spirited, counterproductive, and unreliable” God Sha’uwl repeatedly demeaned?

58If you have not studied, and thus do not intimately understand, the Spirit behind Yahowah’s special day, the Shabat (where we learn to celebrate our relationship and calibrate time), the purpose of Yahowah’s seven annual meetings, or Invitations (wherein God delineates the path to eternal life, perfection, adoption, enrichment, and empowerment), or Yahowah’s Yowbel years (wherein all debts are forgiven and all people are freed), then please invest the time to read the first six volumes of Yada Yahowah.

Rather than facilitating our freedom from man’s works-based religious schemes, rather than providing the means to our salvation, rather than enabling our adoption into our Heavenly Father’s family by way of His Covenant, Sha’uwl would have you believe that we become “controlled and enslaved by observing and attending certain days, months, seasons and years.” And yet the most important elements in Yahowah’s plan of adoption are delineated thereby. The very days, months, seasons, and years Yahowsha’ observed and attended have been recast as God’s means to control and enslave His creation. When it comes to twisting, even inverting, Yahowah’s Word, and revising, even contradicting, His plan, this is as bad as it gets.

By connecting the message presented in verses nine and ten, as is required by reason and the evidence found in the oldest surviving manuscript of Galatians, it becomes impossible to overlook Paul’s hatred of the Torah, and specifically his antagonism toward “observing and attending” Yahowah’s set-apart times for us to meet each week and year. This passage cannot be seen as anything other than an assault on the Shabat, Passover, UnYeasted Bread, Firstborn Children, the Promise of Seven, Trumpets, Reconciliations, Shelters, and the Yowbel years, whereby the self-proclaimed “Apostle” would have those who believe him reject the core aspects of God’s plan. And 59that is in spite of the fact that each element was described as an “eternal and everlasting prescription” in the Towrah.

Therefore, for Paul to be right, the God whose plan he had rejected and demeaned would have had to have given Paul the authority to contradict Him. But that would make Paul the opposite of Yahowsha’ and more competent than God. Moreover, since Paul claims to speak for Him, it should be noted that the endorsement of a god who needs correcting is as useless as is the advice of that god’s supposed apostle.

I’ve always wondered how Christians reconcile the realization that Yahowsha’ observed the Shabat, the seven Miqra’ey, and the Yowbel, and that he endured Passover to give us renewed life. Yet in complete conflict with his example, Christians justify Sunday worship, Lent, Easter, Halloween, and Christmas, all based upon Paul’s senseless claims.

A rational review of this irrational diatribe leaves no other option than to realize that Paul, not “Jesus Christ,” is responsible for the faith of Christianity and serves as its founder. Without his 14 epistles and influence over Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts, there is nothing left of the religion.

Paul was telling the Galatians not to observe any aspect of Yahowah’s plan of reconciliation. As a result, the Galatians, as Celtic Gauls who were heavily influenced by the Druid religion as well as the Babylonian belief system through the Persians, even Greek mythology, would have continued to celebrate the pagan holidays which were incorporated into the Christian religion.

By this time, the Galatians were also Romans – and thus compelled to honor the Roman pantheon – which had come to include seeing certain men as gods. Octavian Augustus, for example, had rebuilt a temple in their midst to the Phrygian goddess, Cybele, calling it the 60Monumentum Ancyranum, or the Temple of Augustus and Rome in Ancyra, to venerate himself. It retains the extant text of the Res Gestae Divi Augusti, “The Deeds of the Divine Augustus,” on its interior walls.

According to Acts 14, Paul and Barnabas were called “Zeus and Hermes” during one of their visits after they had participated in the healing of a lame man. Pagan priests offered sacrifices to them. But when they refused, Paul alleges that Jews from Antioch persuaded the crowds to drag him out of town to stone him. And if true, and it is not, it would make these people highly impressionable.

In the context of worshiping Zeus (king of the gods) and Hermes (messenger of the gods), it would have been appropriate for Paul to do what he did not say: to denounce the assimilation of Roman, Greek, and Babylonian mythological holidays. Having not done so, Christians would incorporate many of them into their amalgamated religion.

For example, Dionysus, the god of grapes and wine, died each winter and was said to be resurrected each spring. This “renewal” became an annual religious festival celebrating the promise of resurrection from the dead. Held over the course of five days each Spring, the Dionysia set the stage for the Christian replacement of Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children, with Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday (“institution of Communion”), Good Friday (“death and burial of ‘Jesus’”), Holy Saturday (where “‘Jesus’ slept in the grave”), and Easter Sunday (the ‘resurrection’ of ‘Jesus’) occurring during the last week of the Babylonian festival of Lent.

Similarly misguided practices are observed today in astrology, especially with the horoscope. As evidence of this, those who promote astrology say: “Days of the week are also associated with Sun signs and Planets and have their own Lucky Days,” to which some list each 61astrological sign along with its propitious time. And then they claim “numerology can help you predict your Lucky Days, and the destiny of your life based upon your birthday number, because it is your life number.” Recognizing that all of this was conceived in Babylon, and assimilated into Judaism during their captivity, it’s worth noting that, had Paul not been so fixated on demeaning God’s Word, there were aspects of the Babylonian religion which were incorporated into rabbinical Judaism which were deserving of criticism.

