Questioning Paul

261Questioning Paul

Devil’s Advocate

…Plague of Death

Antikeimai | Adversarial

A Passion to Negate…

As we move past mutilation and cannibalism into the second half of the fifth chapter of Paul’s epistle to the Galatians, we find the wannabe apostle differentiating between the “flesh” and the “spirit.” This will become a major theme in his letters, one designed to further demean the sign of the Covenant.

Thankfully, the wording gradually improves. Regrettably, the message does not. And that is because the source of Sha’uwl’s inspiration remains the same. This begins with Paul acknowledging that he was conveying his opinions.

Although that is not entirely accurate. What follows would have resonated with the Greeks in Paulos’ audience because he adopted the Platonic and Socratic spiritual mysticism of Gnosticism. The Gnostics believed that the material world, which they referred to as “the cosmos” or “the flesh,” was created by the Demiurge, a “practitioner of public works” who fashioned the evil associated with the physical universe. Paul’s association of “stoicheion kosmos – the rudimentary principles representing the basic elements of the universe in the world’s religious mythology” with the Author of the Towrah was evidence that he was headed in this direction. His contrasting 262presentation of “the flesh” versus “the spirit” is proof, as is his fixation on “enslavement” versus “liberation.”

In the Gnostic faith, the Deity was malevolent and enslaving – just as Paul has been seen depicting the God of the Towrah. Growing out of the consciousness of man, “the One” who was Spirit usurped the power and authority of the Demiurge. This “Monad,” using Plato’s terminology and popularized by Pythagoras, represented “the Good Spirit” who came to reign above the original, but now old and arcane, Theos. The “Spiritual One,” consistent with Paul’s presentation, is the “dunamis – power” which is found through contemplation, is revealed through rhetoric, and is accepted through faith.

As a result, in Gnosticism, just as is the case in Paulos’ letters, the Creator should be shunned so that the spiritual world of “the One God” can be embraced, enlightening, emancipating, and saving all those who believe, achieving oneness with the Deity. Personal poverty (achieved by donating one’s wealth to the cult’s spiritual guides), sexual abstinence (as opposed to marriage and family), and helping other initiates (being slaves to one another in Paul’s words) were hallmarks of the Gnostic religion.

Believers were told that the flesh was evil and that the one true God had no association with the physical world. So, when the secret knowledge of the spiritual realm was revealed and accepted, the faithful could rise up, transformed by believing the promises made by the One’s messengers.

It is interesting to note that the English word “demiurge” is from a Latin transliteration of the Greek word demiourgos, meaning “public worker,” which is manifest in Paul’s “works of the Torah” theme. Also revealing, the oldest known pictorial depiction of a Gnostic deity is a lion-faced serpent whose head was superimposed on the sun, and who was flanked by images of the moon 263and stars. Making matters worse, not only was this depiction found in Mithraic literature, the body of the snake superimposed on the sun forms an inverted cross. It is from a similar image that Constantine, an initiate in the cult of Mithras, created Roman Catholicism.

In Gnosticism, mystical experiences led the faithful to direct participation with the divine. Sufficient for salvation was an acquaintance with the One through spiritual doctrine presented in the faith’s scriptures...

“But (de) I say (lego – I speak, I narrate, and I tell the story, I communicate, providing meaning, I report, I convey, and I imply (the present tense portrays the narrative as current and ongoing, the active voice makes Paulos responsible for the implications of his words, and the indicative mood reveals that the writer wants the reader to accept the assertion as true)) in spirit (ΠΝΙ / pneumati – the Divine Placeholder is a symbol for the ruwach (however, since Sha’uwl’s spirit bears no resemblance to the Ruwach Qodesh of Yahowah, the lowercase spirit is appropriate)), you are all commanded to advance (peripateisoe – you must go about and regulate the conduct of your life; from “peri – concerning” and “pateo – advancing” (with the imperfect tense [from P46], Paulos is portraying the process as a state of being which began in the past without any assessment of its completion, the active voice reveals that the subject is advancing, while the imperative mood expresses a command)).

And so (kai – therefore) the desire and passion (epithymia – the forbidden strong impulses and longings) of the flesh (sarx – physical body) deny (ou – negating a proposition), lest (me – if not) you may come to an end (teleo – you might be finished, reaching a terminus or conclusion (the aorist tense conveys at some time, the active voice reveals that this conclusion is a result of the reader’s actions, and the subjunctive mood expresses a mere possibility)).” (Galatians 5:16)

264This is a presentation of Gnosticism. Paul finally got something right. Too bad he was advocating on behalf of a discredited religious philosophy.

Since the oldest extant copy of Galatians was written by a professional scribe in Alexandria, Egypt, we know that he would have been schooled in the application of Divine Placeholders. It is therefore likely that the scribe of Papyrus 46, written one hundred years or more after Galatians was originally penned by Sha’uwl, replaced his Greek words with these contrivances so that his letters would harmonize with the Septuagint. Harmonization, which is the process of creating consistency in the presence of diversity in style and substance, was the most common way scribes intervened in the text. And while Placeholders were ubiquitous, since Ruwach Qodesh is the Torah’s terminology, it would have been an abomination to Sha’uwl. Moreover, because Sha’uwl’s Gnostic spirit is the antithesis of Yahowah’s Spirit, it would be inappropriate to dignify his spirit with an uppercase “S.”

The Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear published the following rendition of Paulos’ Gnostic inspiration: “I say but in spirit walk around and desire of flesh not not you might complete.” Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, like the more recent Nestle-Aland 27^th Edition, correctly renders pneumati in lowercase: “I say then: Walk in the spirit: and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.” Ad-libbing a bit, the KJV wrote: “This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.”

Authoring their own epistle, the Greek “scholars” working on the behest of the New Living Translation imagined that Paul meant to say: “So I say, let the Holy Spirit guide your lives. Then you won’t be doing what your sinful nature craves.” I suspect that these Christian institutions were all desirous of hiding the Gnostic leanings of their religion’s founder.

265That leads to this, a second referendum on Gnosticism:

“For indeed (gar – because then), the (e) flesh’s (sarx – the physical nature of the body’s) desires and passions are against (epithumeo kata – forbidden impulses, evil longings and impulsive lusts are in opposition to) the spirit (tou ΠΝΣ / pneumatos – Divine Placeholder for the Ruwach (however, since Sha’uwl’s Gnostic spirit bears no resemblance to the Ruwach Qodesh – Set-Apart Spirit of Yahowah, the lowercase spirit is appropriate)). And so then (de) the spirit (to ΠΝΑ / pneuma) is in opposition to (kata – against) the flesh (tes sarx – that which is physical), because (gar – for) of these (houtos) each another (allelon) it is hostile and adversarial (antikeimai – it is opposed and adverse) in order to (hina – as a result) negate (me) what (hos) conditionally (ean – when) you might presently propose and want (thelo – you all may currently desire and enjoy, taking pleasure in the opinions of what) of these (houtos) potential behaviors and somehow doing an assigned task (poieomai – you all might perform an assigned duty).” (Galatians 5:17)

If you are wondering if Paul could have been this blatant regarding his endorsement of Gnosticism over the Towrah, the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear isn’t any more forgiving: “The for flesh desires against the spirit the but spirit against the flesh these for one another lie against that not what if you might want these you might do.”

But we can always rely on the King James to dignify Paul: “For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.” Not a word of this is true. God did not make our bodies to be opposed to the Set-Apart Spirit, but instead designed us so that we would appreciate and could accept the Ruwach Qodesh. As such, body, soul, and Spirit are complementary, celebrating 266life in harmony with Yahowah’s design. Further, God never negates His purpose by interfering with freewill. Christians endorsing Paul’s caustic attack on the Towrah are proof of this. Therefore, the Authorized King James Version is wholly errant.

For consistency sake, here is the Latin Vulgate’s take on this passage: “For the flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh: For these are contrary one to another: so that you do not the things that you would.” It is strikingly similar to the KJV, which is telling considering the incomprehensible nature of Paul’s Greek.

Turning a convoluted sentence into a mini drama, the NLT authored the following theory: “The sinful nature wants to do evil, which is just the opposite of what the Spirit wants. And the Spirit gives us desires that are the opposite of what the sinful nature desires. These two forces are constantly fighting each other, so you are not free to carry out your good intentions.” I suppose you would have to ask them what they meant by us “not being free to carry out our good intentions.” After all, I had thought that Paul had meant to say that our intentions were of the flesh, and thus both bad, and in opposition to the spirit.

Since it is apparent that Sha’uwl is pitting “the spirit” against “the flesh” in pristine Gnostic fashion, there is a hole in his reasoning. According to Yahowchanan, Yahowsha’ is “the Word (logos) made flesh (sarx).” Moreover, there is a “spirit” opposed to God’s Word (and thus His Towrah) and to Yahowsha’: Satan. With this in mind, and from this perspective, let’s consider the Devil’s Advocate’s case in favor of his “spirit,” and against the Towrah.

“But (de) if (ei – on the condition) in spirit (ΠΝΙ / pneumati) you are (eimi – you exist), you are not guided (ou ago – you are not led and carried) under the control of (hypo – subject to) the Towrah (nomon – nourishing 267allotment which facilitates an inheritance).” (Galatians 5:18)

The circle is complete. According to Sha’uwl his spirit’s guidance is good and liberating while the Towrah is of the flesh and is controlling. But at least by putting his spirit in opposition to the Word of God, we now know for certain that Paul’s spirit is demonic.

The facts in this case are clear. Our Spiritual Mother is introduced early in the Towrah, initially in Bare’syth / Genesis one. She plays a starring role throughout God’s testimony. The “Ruwach – Spirit,” as Her title affirms, is “Qodesh – Set Apart” from Yahowah. That means the “Ruwach Qodesh – Set-Apart Spirit” is part of the Author of the Towrah. The Spirit and Yahowah can, therefore, never be in opposition because the Spirit and Yahowah are one and the same.

Therefore, in his continued hatred of God’s Word, Paul wants Christians to believe that the only way to walk in the spirit is to walk away from the Towrah – when the opposite is true. And Paul also wants Christians to associate “the flesh” with “the Towrah” and “the spirit” with “his Faith.”

Therefore, the comparisons between “the flesh” and “the spirit” which follow are specifically designed to read like a campaign speech. Sha’uwl wants Christians to view his rival’s Torah from the bleakest and most derogatory perspective while considering his advocacy for “change we can believe in” through the rose-colored glasses of faith. And as is the case with politicians, Sha’uwl will not only lie with most every stroke of his poisonous pen and movement of his putrid lips, but as a hypocrite, he, himself, is opposed to the position he extols.

Since Jerome was familiar with the fact that the Septuagint universally translated “towrah – teaching and guidance” using nomos, his rendering of this statement was 268contrived to support Paul’s assault on God’s Word: “But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law.” Not surprisingly, the KJV played along: “But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.” The Christian NAMI knows better, but it did not seem to matter: “If but in spirit you are led not you are under law.” And from this, the NLT extrapolated: “But when you are directed by the Spirit, you are not under obligation to the law of Moses.” It is no wonder Christians are lost souls.

Because we cannot remove the following list from this context, where God’s Towrah is presented as being of the flesh, the most impoverished qualities attributable to the human experience are now being associated with the Torah by its Adversary.

This continues to read like Gnostic scripture...

“But now (de) evident, clearly seen, and widely known (phaneros – manifest and apparent) are (eimi) the works and assigned tasks (ta ergon – the job and result) of the flesh (tes sarx – of the physical realm (now being used as a metaphor for the Towrah)) which indeed (hostis – whatever) exist as (eimi) sexual promiscuity (porneia – immoral fornication), impure materiality (akatharsia – decayed flesh which is filthy, unclean, and worthless and wasteful), sensuality (aselgeia – licentiousness and lewdness, unrestrained lust and debauchery),…” (Galatians 5:19)

The only reason this Pauline list of things associated with the flesh was “phaneros – clearly evident and widely known” is because this audience was far more familiar with Gnosticism than they were with the Towrah. And here, “ta ergon tes sarx – the works of the flesh” is being presented in parallel with “ta ergon tes nomos – the assigned tasks of the Towrah.”

If you recall, in his first reference to the “Old System” in Galatians 1:4, Paulos used poneros, instead of the 269closely related, porneia, to demean Yahowah’s Towrah, writing: “He might possibly gouge or tear us out (exaireo emas) from the past inflexible and unrelenting circumstances of the old system (aionos – the previous era, the long period in history operating as a universal or worldly system) which had been in place in the past (enistamai) which is disadvantageous and harmful (poneros – which is wicked and worthless, evil and faulty, immoral and corrupt, annoying and mischievous, laborious and criminal, unprofitable and useless, unserviceable and malicious, malevolent and malignant) down from and in opposition to the desire, will, and intent of the God.”

In this case, “the God” is “the One” of Gnosticism, and the “laborious, disadvantageous, and harmful” “Old System” is from its Demiurge. Therefore, we should not be surprised to see porneia appear first in Paul’s list because the most prevailing trait of the Gnostics was their disdain for sexual impropriety.

While akatharsia is often translated “immorality,” that is not what the word actually means. It is far more Gnostic than that, because as a derivative of akathartos, it is a compound of a, serving as a negation of “kathairo – being clean and pure.” It speaks of the “worthlessness of that which is material,” and most dramatically of “decaying flesh.”

Even aselgeia, rendered “sensuality,” has deeper Pauline overtones. In that he is associating the Towrah with the flesh because of circumcision, note that based upon its etymology, aselgeia literally means “incontinent.”

Ever the hypocrite, Paul wallowed in his personal lasciviousness in chapter 7 of Romans. Further, by his own admission, he knew nothing of the beauty of loving and romantic sensuality between a man and woman. Anyone who has ever read the Towrah knows that God isn’t opposed to sensuality. After all, He designed the object of 270our affection and brought us together for this purpose.

As we are beginning to witness, Pauline Doctrine is overly fixated on the avoidance of sexuality, as opposed to developing loving relationships. Yahowah wants us to appreciate the nature of His Covenant. Paul simply wants Christians to abstain from something he could never appreciate. Misery loves company.

Additionally, Sha’uwl has obscured the role of the “Qodesh – Set-Apart” Ruwach – Spirit in Yahowah’s redemptive process. She is the Towrah’s remedy for our immorality. Moreover, the most immoral thing a person can do is what Paul has done: deceive others in the name of God.

These renderings are somewhat consistent, save the wide variations in definitions. NAMI: “Evident but are the works of the flesh which is sexual immorality, uncleanness, debauchery,…” LV: “Now the works of the flesh are manifest: which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury,” KJV: “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,” NLT: “When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, the results are very clear: sexual immorality, impurity, lustful pleasures,”

Having denounced the Towrah, Paul is establishing the moral code for his new religion. It is incompatible with God’s instructions. For example, Yahowah is not concerned about “porneia – sexual promiscuity and fornication.” His list of inappropriate sexual behavior is limited to incest, pedophilia, bestiality, rape, and the harassment of anyone under one’s control.

Similarly, apart from the benefit of general hygiene and the symbolic gesture of washing our hands, our “akatharsia – material impurities and cleanliness” are of no interest to God. The reluctance to clean one’s house or take a shower at the end of the day may deter visitors, but 271neither have any bearing on our relationship with God.

The addition of “aselgeia – sensuality” after “porneia – sexual promiscuity,” reminds me of the politically incorrect line in Mel Brooks’ movie “Blazing Saddles.” Conducting a job interview, the actor Harvey Korman playing Hedley Lamarr, asks…

Hedley Lamarr: “Qualifications?”

Applicant: “Rape, murder, arson, and rape.”

Hedley Lamarr: “You said rape twice.”

Applicant: “I like rape.”

And while rape is a crime and no laughing matter, the realization Paul repeated himself reveals a sexually perverted and repressed attitude. On the other hand, Yahowah is the architect of our sensuality and encourages it. It is one of the most enjoyable aspects of a loving relationship.

The Christian fixation on promiscuity, fornication, and sensuality is purely Pauline. It is not unlike a Muslim woman playing religious dress up by wearing a tent when the instruction comes from Muhammad, a rapist, pedophile, and misogynist.

Considering Paul’s devotion to the Greek and Roman goddesses of Charity and Grace, his condemnation of Shim’own, his enmity toward the Disciples Yahowchanan and Ya’aqob, his hostility toward the Covenant, his animosity toward Yahowah’s Towrah, his desire to mutilate his rivals, and his willingness to contradict the Word of God, this also oozes hypocrisy:

“…the likeness representing what can be observed (eidololatria – often rendered idolatry and worship of idols, but based upon its etymology, it is an “eidolon – image or likeness” “eidos – representing the external and outward appearance or manifestation” of eido – that which 272can be seen, perceived, discerned, and observed”), the use and administering of drugs (pharmakeia – use of medicines, poisons, sorcery, witchcraft, black magic, and seductive deceptions), hatred and hostile antagonism (echthra – enmity toward one’s foes or opposition, discord and feuds, animosity), strife and dissension (eris – conflict, contentious variance, discord, arguing, debate, wrangling, and quarreling), deep devotion and jealousy (zelos – earnest concern, enthusiastic zeal, warm support expressed through emotional feelings, ardor, the excitement of the mind, and indignation), the desire to make sacrifices (thumos – that vital source which moves us which wells up from within, boiling with passion and intense desire, which can lead to anger, rage, or wrath; from thuo – to make a sacrifice), selfish ambitions (eritheia – hostile rivalries, specifically electioneering while running for office), discord and division (dichostasia – standing apart, taking another stand, dissension and disunity; from “dis – a second” “stasis – stand”), the freedom to choose for oneself (hairesis – the option to choose or hold a divergent opinion, separatist teaching, factions and diversity, selecting a religion using heretical tenets; from “haireomai – to prefer, choose and accept for oneself, to vote or elect”),…” (Galatians 5:20)

Since Paul is anything but clear, upon etymological investigation we discover that “eidololatria – a likeness representing what can be observed,” is based upon “eidolon – image which is similar.” It in turn is derived from “eidos – representing the external and outward appearance or manifestation.” Then digging deeper, “eido – is of that which can be seen, perceived, discerned, and observed.” Collectively, these words provide the basic meaning of eidololatria. And yet, since Yahowah created humankind “in His image and in His likeness” it cannot be a bad thing. Based upon this insight, God is telling us that He can be perceived through the image and likeness of man.

273And even if we buy into the commonly rendered religious connotation of eidololatria as “idolatry,” we find Paul’s faith based upon “Faith in the Gospel of Grace,” noting that the Charis, known as the Gratia in Rome, were the Greek goddesses of licentiousness. So, while Yahowah is unabashedly opposed to all forms of idolatry, including the memorialization of the names of false gods, Paul has based his religion on “Grace,” a transliteration of the Roman Gratia.

Moving on to the second term in this the second installment of derogatory concepts Paul is associating with Yahowah’s Towrah, we find pharmakeia, from which we get the English word “pharmacy.” Its primary meaning is “to administer drugs,” and “to provide medicines.” Since there is no reason to believe that the Spirit is opposed to medicine, we must assume that Paul meant “the use of illicit, mind-altering drugs, or that he was against the use of potions in the practice of magic. And yet, he has told us that he was demon-possessed and Yahowah revealed that Sha’uwl “would cause his companions to drink, thereby, associating them with his poisonous antagonism and wrath” in Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:15, because of Sha’uwl’s fixation on “observing the male genitalia.”

Ignoring the obvious connection between Pharmakeia and pharmacy, and thus the manufacture and distribution of medicines and healthcare products, Christian translators convey pharmakeia’s dark derivatives, recognizing that some drugs were toxic and potions were sometimes used to create magic spells. Therefore, rendering pharmakeia as “witchcraft” or “sorcery” is like equating charming and beautiful women with whores.

Third, Yahowsha’ was extraordinarily “echthra – hostile” to the government and religious leaders of His day, so being “antagonistic” and “indignant” toward clerics and their false teachings cannot be inappropriate. Yahowah is 274relentless in this regard, showing unrelenting opposition to religion and politics.

Moreover, denouncing “echthra – hostile antagonism” is the epitome of hypocrisy for Sha’uwl. His Galatians letter is rife with “enmity toward his foes.” He is constantly “engaging in feuds.” He has “picked a fight” against Yahowah, Yahowsha’, and his disciples. Apart from the Qur’an, it would be hard to find a religious text filled with so much “animosity.”

And fourth, speaking of the Qur’an, Paul’s Galatian epistle is similarly “eris – quarrelsome and divisive.” Therefore, if “arguing, discord, and contentious variances” are wrong, so is Paul. That said, Yahowah wants us to be divisive. He wants us to quarrel with the likes of Paul.

Fifth, zelos is most often used in a positive sense. It defines the “fervor and passion” Yahowsha’ desired, but found lacking, in the Laodiceans – the very people who lacked the Spirit. Zelos speaks of “pursuing a mission with great zeal and to warmly embrace a loved one.” So, since Yahowsha’ considers zelos to be a good thing, methinks Paul was ad-libbing here. Moreover, Yahowah expressly states on the first of the two tablets He etched in stone that He is “jealous.” Therefore, if Paul’s right, God is wrong.

Sixth, and along these lines, like zelos, thumos, which speaks of “that which motivates us from within,” also supports a dichotomy of connotations. But when we examine its root, thuo, which means “to make sacrifices,” an etymological investigation leads us to the realization that Sha’uwl was opposed to Yahowah’s “desire to make the sacrifices” needed to fulfill His Towrah promises. Thumos would decry Yahowsha’s sacrifice as the Passover Lamb.

Seventh, Muhammad was the only person who rivaled Paul in his pursuit of “eritheia – selfish ambitions which led to hostile rivalries.” Sha’uwl spent much of his time 275campaigning against Yahowsha’s disciples, presenting himself as being superior to those the Passover Lamb chose and taught.

Also, since the primary meaning of eritheia is “electioneering and the process of running for an elective political office,” by using it, Paul is demonstrating his hostility to representative government and democracy. And this position is further reinforced in the 13^th chapter of Romans, where Paulos orders the faithful to submit to governmental authority – an abomination from Yahowah’s perspective, especially considering the repulsive nature of Rome. Further, eritheia defines Paul, a man fixated on rehabilitating his public image.

Eighth, dichostasia, translated “discord and division,” is predicated on a compound of “dis – a second” “stasis – stand.” This is again the height of hypocrisy. Sha’uwl proposed a New or Second Covenant in complete discord with God’s instructions. Therefore, what the Devil’s Advocate is actually saying is that, while his rules do not apply to him, it is not okay for someone else to take another stand or one against him. Further, just on the face of it, “dichostasia – standing apart through dissension and disunity” summarizes most everything we have read in Galatians thus far.

And ninth, that brings us to hairesis, which literally means “choice.” It defines the act of “choosing” and is thus foundational to “freewill.” Based upon haireomai, it means “to select for oneself, to prefer, to choose, to vote, and to elect.” From Yahowah’s perspective, freewill is unassailable. And from Paul’s, believers are to have no choice in the matter of their religion. So once again, we find similarities between Galatians and the Qur’an which makes the same claim.

If you dig a bit deeper, most lexicons eventually define hairesis as what we have thus far found throughout 276Galatians: “forming a divergent opinion, selecting a religious faith, becoming part of a sect, false or separatist teaching, and religious tenets.” The remaining definitions describe what Christianity has done with Galatians: “choosing a form of religious worship, making decisions which result in a diversity of religious factions, and taking people as captives.”

In this case, the lexicons are more instructional than English bibles. But, for consistency’s sake, here is the list of notable translations. NAMI: “…idol service, magic, hostilities, strife, jealousy, furies, selfish ambitions, divisions, sects… ” LV: “Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects,” KJV: “Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,” And last but least, the NLT: “idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division,”

While he has gotten nothing right, and almost everything wrong, the Gnostic listing of things Paul believes are associated with the “flesh,” and therefore with the “Demiurge” who authored the “Towrah,” continue with:

“…envious corruption (phthonos – jealous destruction; from “phtheiro – to corrupt and destroy”), drunkenness (methe – intoxication), public partying (komos – a festive assembly featuring feasting and merrymaking), and (kai) that (ta) similar to (homoios) this (houtos) which (hos) I previously spoke (prolego) to you (umin) inasmuch as (kathos – when) I said before (proepo) that (oti) the likes of such (oi ta toioutos – this kind) carrying out and committing these practices (prasso – preoccupation with such experiences), the reign and kingdom (basileia) of God (ΘΥ), they will not inherit (ou kleronomeo – they will not receive or gain possession of from father to child).” (Galatians 5:21)

277The problem with “phthonos – jealous destruction and envious corruption,” at least in the midst of Paul’s initial letter, is that the envy Satan has for Yahowah has caused Sha’uwl to corrupt God’s testimony throughout this epistle. And Sha’uwl’s jealousy toward Yahowsha’s Apostles has prompted him to destroy their credibility and message.

“Methe – intoxication” is a problem because, in Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:5, Yahowah accuses Sha’uwl of being “an intoxicating man of deceptive infidelity and treacherous betrayal,” revealing that “whoever is open to the broad path associated with Sha’uwl” will discover that “he and his soul are like the plague of death.”

Komos, translated as “public partying,” is an issue for another reason. It actually describes “a festive assembly featuring feasting and merrymaking.” It is therefore synonymous with the Hebrew word, chag, which Yahowah uses to describe the nature of His seven Invitations to Meet, calling them “Festival Feasts.” Paul may be a killjoy, but God likes to party.

In Paul’s defense, komos was associated with the festival honoring Bacchus, the counterfeit for Yahowsha’, whose annual winter celebration was renamed “Christmas.” But, as with most of what Paul has to say, his lack of specificity is his curse. Moreover, Sha’uwl quoted Bacchus during his conversion experience.

When we bring this list together with its conclusion we have a serious problem. By saying that those who demonstrate these behaviors “will not inherit God’s kingdom,” Paul has created a works-based religion in which being “good” by his definition becomes essential. Yahowah is far more interested in us being right. So much for faith.

Not only does Sha’uwl lack the authority to limit Yahowah’s mercy, many of the things on Paul’s list, God 278encourages. And there is not a single item on Sha’uwl’s list which is also found among the Ten Statements Yahowah etched in stone. This dichotomy is especially relevant in the context of Paul repeatedly associating the Towrah with the flesh, and thus his list with the Towrah.

Turning to the translations, we find this in the NAMI: “…envies, drunkenness, carousing, and the like these that I say before to you just as I said before that the ones the such practicing kingdom of God not will inherit.” LV: “Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.” KJV: “Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” NLT: “envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other sins like these. Let me tell you again, as I have before, that anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God.” Just as Sha’uwl has repeatedly associated the Torah with “the flesh,” he has also disassociated “inheritance” from the Torah. His parting line was therefore designed to reinforce this aspect of his thesis: the Torah of the flesh (i.e., circumcision, Hagar, and slavery) precludes inheritance.

By comparison, God wants us to know that those who observe His Towrah, those who embrace the terms of His Covenant, those who attend His seven annual Invitations to Meet will be adopted into His Family and live with Him in Heaven. However, those who deceptively promote lifeless teachings, men who are not circumcised, and those who do not rely on Him to free them from the religious and political culture of man will be excluded from His home.

There is nothing on Paul’s list which will preclude entry to Heaven. Much of it, God does not even care about. With eight wives and ten concubines, Dowd would have been sexually promiscuous, and he is in heaven. He was 279also exceedingly quarrelsome and deeply passionate, as is God.

Before we move on to the spiritual side of Gnosticism, here is a review of the things Paulos says will restrict a believer’s entry into heaven:

“But (de) I say (lego) in spirit (pneumati), you are all commanded to advance (peripateisoe). Therefore (kai), the desire and passion (epithymia) of the flesh (sarx) you must deny (ou), lest (me) you may come to an end (teleo). (Galatians 5:16)

For indeed because (gar), the (e) body’s (sarx) desires and passions are forbidden because they against (epithumeo kata) the spirit (tou pneumatos). And so then (de) the spirit (to pneuma) is in opposition to (kata) the physical world and the physical body (tes sarx) because (gar) of these (houtos) one another (allelon) is hostile and adversarial (antikeimai) in order to (hina) negate (me) what (hos) conditionally (ean) you might presently propose and want, even enjoy (thelo) of these (houtos) potential behaviors and somehow doing an assigned task (poieomai). (Galatians 5:17)

However (de), if (ei) in spirit (pneumati) you are (eimi), you are not guided (ou ago) under the control of or subject to (hypo) the Towrah (nomon). (Galatians 5:18) So now (de) it is evident, clearly seen, and widely known (eimi phaneros) that the works and assigned tasks (ta ergon) of the flesh (used as a metaphor for the Towrah) (tes sarx) indeed (hostis) exist as (eimi) sexual promiscuity and fornication (porneia), being dirty (akatharsia), sensuality (aselgeia), (Galatians 5:19) the likeness of an outward appearance of what can be seen and perceived (eidololatria), the use and administering of medicines (pharmakeia), hostile antagonism, enmity and feuds (echthra), strife and dissension, even debate and quarreling (eris), devotion and jealousy (zelos), the 280desire to make sacrifices (thumos), selfish ambitions, running for an elective office, and rivalries (eritheia), discord and division, especially a second option (dichostasia), the freedom to choose for oneself (hairesis), (Galatians 5:20) corruption (phthonos), intoxication (methe), public partying or a festive assembly (komos), and (kai) that (ta) similar to (homoios) this (houtos) which (hos) I previously spoke (prolego) to you (umin) inasmuch as (kathos) I said before (proepo) that (oti) the likes of such (oi ta toioutos) carrying out and committing these practices (prasso), the reign and kingdom (basileia) of God (ΘΥ), they will not inherit (ou kleronomeo).” (Galatians 5:21)

NAMI: “I say but in spirit walk around and desire of flesh not not you might complete. The for flesh desires against the spirit the but spirit against the flesh these for one another lie against that not what if you might want these you might do.

Evident but are the works of the flesh which is sexual immorality, uncleanness, debauchery, idol service, magic, hostilities, strife, jealousy, furies, selfish ambitions, divisions, sects, envies, drunkenness, carousing, and the like these that I say before to you just as I said before that the ones the such practicing kingdom of God not will inherit.”

LV: “I say then: Walk in the spirit: and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh: For these are contrary one to another: so that you do not the things that you would.

Now the works of the flesh are manifest: which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury,” idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects, envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not 281obtain the kingdom of God.”

KJV: “This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”

NASB: “But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the desire of the flesh is against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, in order to keep you from doing whatever you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: sexual immorality, impurity, indecent behavior, idolatry, witchcraft, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

NLT: “So I say, let the Holy Spirit guide your lives. Then you won’t be doing what your sinful nature craves. The sinful nature wants to do evil, which is just the opposite of what the Spirit wants. And the Spirit gives us desires that are the opposite of what the sinful nature desires. These two forces are constantly fighting each other, so you are not free to carry out your good intentions.

When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, the results are very clear: sexual immorality, impurity, lustful 282pleasures, idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division, envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other sins like these. Let me tell you again, as I have before, that anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God.”

The Sixteen Heaven-Foreclosing Sins of Pauline Christianity in the Greek text, from my literal translation, then the Latin Vulgate, the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear, the King James Version, the New American Standard Bible, and the New Living Translation, followed by an assessment of its validity, are…

Dichostasia – discord and division, especially a second option | quarrels and envies | divisions | seditions | dissensions | dissension | In the negative sense, this is the basis of Galatians. However, God is a proponent of division when we separate ourselves from the world and become set apart unto Him.

Kai ta homoios houtos prasso – and that similar to carrying out and committing these practices | and such like | and the like these | and such like | and things like these | and other sins like these | There was only one thing on this list that is genuinely troubling to God: idols in a religious setting. And yet Christianity celebrates and is known for its Dead God on a Stick (Crosses and Crucifixes), Baby in his Mommy’s Arms (Madonna and Child), and Living Room Bushes (Christmas Trees).

Basileia theos ou kleronomeo – the kingdom of Theos they will not inherit | shall not obtain the kingdom of God | kingdom of God not will inherit | shall not inherit the kingdom of God | will not inherit the kingdom of God | will not inherit the Kingdom of God | There is nothing on Paul’s list which would individually or collectively preclude entry into Heaven. Even being around idols, while bad, can be resolved by disassociating from them.

This reads like a list of projections because Paul is guilty of either committing or contesting most everything in the list. He is setting up a smokescreen by speaking out against his own vulnerabilities, so when rightfully accused, an apologist can dispense with the criticism by saying that Paul spoke against it. This is similar to Satan speaking out against Satan because he despised the “ha satan – adversary” designation in that it impedes his ambition of being worshiped as God.

But how can Paul’s list be valid if faith in his Gospel 285of Grace cures all ills? To be considered rational, Paul can either claim that our behavior is irrelevant to our salvation, as he has done previously, or claim that we are saved based upon it, as he is doing here, but cannot have it both ways.

With his almost entirely errant list of damning behaviors out of his system, Paul sponsors a list of attributes he associates with the spirit of his faith – one which must favor hypocrisy (at least based upon this letter).

“But (de) the (o) fruit (karpos – harvest and result) of the (toe) spirit (ΠΝΣ / pneumatos) is (estin): love (agape – an appreciative attitude resulting from a conscious evaluation and choice, familial affection and devotion, good will, benevolence, and fellowship festival feasts; from “agapao – welcoming and affectionate, entertaining and pleasing”), happiness (chara – gladness and joy), peace (eirene – harmony and tranquility), patience (makrothymia – forbearance and longsuffering), mercy from an upright implement (chrestotes – productive kindness, moral and upright goodness, and a useful and honest beneficial attempt to do what is right; from “chrestos – a fit and merciful implement”), being good through generosity (agathosyne – being pleasant and kind, being right and upright, being salutary and distinguished), faith and belief (pistis – originally conveyed “trust and reliance” but migrated over time as a result of Sha’uwl’s epistles to mean “belief and faith”),…” (Galatians 5:22)

Was it not Paul who told the Galatians that they should be as he was? And yet his attitude and mannerisms were the antitheses of the characteristics he attributes to his spirit.

At the same point in his Instruction on the Mount where Yahowsha’ spoke of the “wolf in sheep’s clothing” who would lead many away from the Towrah, he presented an in-depth analysis of the nature of trees and the fruit they 286produce. And he was emphatic, especially unequivocal, saying that good fruit is never found on a bad tree, just as bad fruit never grows on a good tree. Therefore, the presence of the sixteen rotten lemons Sha’uwl has hung before us, thus far, precludes him from consideration as a worthy source. God does not grade on a curve. The presence of “love, happiness, and peace” in this second list does not exonerate him. The little he got right only serves only to make the bad fruit he has offered seem more appealing.

Chrestotes, translated, “mercy from an upright implement,” is a term that should give Christians shivers. It is based upon Chrestus, the title Shim’own Kephas and the three most credible Roman historians of this day associated with Yahowsha’, not Christos, which speaks of the “application of drugs.” The proper Greek translation of Yahowsha’s life’s work is “Chrestus – Merciful and Useful Implement.”

In this light, other attributes associated with chrestotes are instructive. It describes “a merciful, compassionate, kind, and forgiving attitude which is expressed honestly and morally by someone who is steadfastly upright.” Chrestotes speaks of someone who “as a tool or implement is engaged in that which is useful and beneficial because he or she is doing that which is right.” It “combines moral perfection and honesty with usefulness and effectiveness, all under the auspices of loving-kindness.” Chrestotes conveys the idea that the “Upright One’s mercy generously and fortuitously provides the gifts of redemption and reconciliation.” Even in common profane Greek, it was only used to “characterize persons who were “honest, upright, respectable, worthy, useful, kind, merciful, loving, and pure morally, and whose works were beneficial and productive.”

You may have noticed that the last two spiritual accouterments are listed prominently among Gnostic 287attributes as “generosity” and “faith.” But as is the case when we compare Yahowah’s list of the ten things He is most concerned about with Sha’uwl’s, there is no commonality. Moreover, God has no interest in “faith.” He wants us to “know.”

But if we are to believe that these attributes systematically represent the Spirit of God, then based upon Galatians, we can be certain Paul did not represent the same Spirit. And while that may sound harsh, even judgmental, there is no denying that Paul’s letter is hateful, not loving. He is unhappy, not glad. His words are divisive, not tranquil. He is impatient, as opposed to being calm or restrained. Most of Paul’s words have not been useful or beneficial, but instead debilitating and destructive. His false testimony regarding the Torah has been the antithesis of being upright, especially in his portrayal of the Covenant. As a result, what we have read cannot be trusted or relied upon. Simply stated, Paul was the antithesis of what he presented as being good.

But as we noted a moment ago, not everything he wrote was totally misleading. For example, agape’s etymology helps illuminate the path to the “beryth – familial covenant relationship” Yahowah seeks to establish with us. Agape denotes “an appreciative attitude in the context of familial affection and devotion which results from making a choice following a conscious process of evaluation.”

But for there to be love, there must be choice. And for choice to be genuine, not compelled or capricious, there must be options and evidence to evaluate. And that is why freewill remains mankind’s most inalienable God-given right, and why the Towrah is God’s most valuable gift. It is also the reason that God did not stop Paul from writing, or Christians from immortalizing him.

But Paul has this backward. The attitude and choice 288inherent in true love are what comes before the Spirit enters our lives. Using the evidence Yahowah has provided in His Towrah, we are encouraged to revere and respect Yahowah sufficiently to want to become part of His family, and ultimately love Him as our Father. That is why the Great Instruction reads: “And you should choose to love Yahowah, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might. And these words, which I am instructing you today, they should be part of your inner nature. And you should teach them to your sons and talk of them in your homes.” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 6:5-7)

This known, neither Yahowah nor the Set-Apart Spirit are all loving. God hates and so should we. Until we know what and how to hate, we cannot truly love. Empathy and compassion dictate that we come to despise rape and rapists, pedophilia and pedophiles, murder and murderers, terror and terrorists, politics and political leaders, religions and their scriptures. However, our disdain must be expressed in words, relying upon evidence and reason, never fists or weapons.

If we were to summarize Yahowah’s instruction regarding the fruit of the Set-Apart Spirit, Her influence in our lives would include: providing spiritual birth from above into God’s family on Bikuwrym following Pesach and Matsah. This enables us to become our Heavenly Father’s children, live in His home, and inherit all that is His to give. Our Spiritual Mother adorns us in Her Garment of Light which shelters and protects us from the sting of death and the consequence of sin. Her Garment of Light makes us appear perfect in Yahowah’s eyes and enables us to exist in His presence. The Set-Apart Spirit enlightens us by nourishing us in the Word of God, interpreting it for us so that we might know our Father better. The Ruwach Qodesh is responsible for empowering us, enabling us to be effective and courageous, convincing witnesses on 289behalf of Yahowah and His message. And our Spiritual Mother facilitates our communication with our Heavenly Father, turning our humble pleadings into a compelling stream of consciousness before God.

“Chara – happiness” is not a product of the Spirit, but instead the result of coming to know Yahowah and being part of His family. Also, the Set-Apart Spirit does not bring “eirene – peace” between men, as is implied in Paul’s list. She, like Yahowsha’, brings division.

Pistis has served as the fulcrum of Paul’s deception. While it originally meant “trust and reliance,” it was translated “faith and belief” in Galatians 5:22 because the content of Paul’s epistles and his legacy allow no other rational option. And since nothing is required for “pistis – faith and belief,” it can operate in the vacuum of reason and evidence that we find in this epistle.

As it relates to this verse, these four translations aren’t so much inaccurate as incomplete. NAMI: “The but fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, long temper, kindness, goodness, trust,…” LV: “But the fruit of the Spirit is, charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity,” KJV: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,” NLT: “But the Holy Spirit produces this kind of fruit in our lives: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,”

It is hard not to shout “hypocrite” when Paul, of all people, promotes a word most often translated as “meekness and humility.” But nonetheless, Sha’uwl’s list of spiritual fruit continues with:

“…gentleness, meekness, and humility (prautes – considerate friendliness), self-control over one’s sexual appetite (egkrateia – temperance, being self-sufficient relative to controlling passions), with regard to (kata – down from, in accord with, and against) the such (ton 290toioutos) there is no (ouk estin – there exists no) Towrah (nomos – the nourishing allotment which leads to an inheritance).” (Galatians 5:23)

Sha’uwl is saying that the “fruit of the spirit” is incompatible with the Towrah. And so long as you recognize the demonic nature of Paul’s spirit, he is right.

But there is a benefit of Sha’uwl coming full circle once again and returning to the Towrah. He began listing derogatory insults to slander the Towrah and now has said that everything he considers spiritual, and thus good, is in opposition to the Towrah. He has, in essence, cast Yahowah’s Towrah in the corrupt material role of the Gnostic Demiurge while associating his Faith with the Gnostic “One.”

At some point, inadequacy becomes errancy. Consider the NAMI: “…gentleness, inner strength against the such not there is law.” LV: “Mildness, faith, modesty, consistency, chastity. Against such there is no law.” KJV: “Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.” NLT: “gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against these things!”

The lesson to be learned from Paul’s list is that if they are right, then Paul is wrong. His letters ooze the “activities of the flesh,” and they seldom reflect the “fruit of the spirit.” So regardless of the fact that his categorization of attributes is overwhelmingly wrong, the only unassailable conclusion is that Paul is a fraud on a massive scale – quite similar to Muhammad.

His summation of spiritual Gnosticism, therefore, reads:

“But the fruit of the spirit is: love, happiness, peace, patience, mercy from an upright implement, being good through generosity, faith, (5:22) gentleness, meekness, and humility, self-control over one’s sexual appetite, 291with regard to such there is no Towrah.” (Galatians 5:23)

The oldest witness of Sha’uwl’s next statement expressly differentiates the Towrah from Christou, confirming this heinous, albeit obvious, aspect of Pauline Doctrine.

“But (de) the ones (oi) of the (toe) Christou (ΧΥ – Divine Placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement to usurp the Septuagint’s credibility and infer Divinity) the (ten) flesh (sarx – the physical nature) has been crucified (ΕΣΤΑΝ) with (syn) the (tois) sufferings and passions (pathema – misfortunes and impulses, calamities and afflictions) and (kai) the (tais) deep desires and longings (epithymai – lusts and cravings, coveting and angry responses).” (Galatians 5:24)

This would be news to Yahowsha’ because he saw himself as the living embodiment of the Towrah. He is the Towrah in the flesh.

Yahowsha’s crucifixion was irrelevant apart from him serving as the Passover Lamb, thereby enabling the Towrah’s promise to make us immortal. And his sacrifice on this day had nothing whatsoever to do with our sufferings, our passions, our misfortunes, our impulses, our desires, or our longings. Not only are passions, desires, and longings considered appropriate in a loving family, the only suffering that mattered on Passover was that of the Lamb of God.

Paul’s statement in Galatians is understood similarly to the one he made in Colossians 2:14, which is cited by Christians to infer that “the Torah (represented by the flesh) was nailed to the cross.”

Since Sha’uwl’s proclamation suffers from some linguistic inadequacies, let’s see how the Nestle-Aland 292McReynolds Interlinear renders it. “The ones but of the Christ Jesus the flesh crucified with the sufferings and the desires.” The placeholder ΧΥ was written instead of Χριστοῦ/Christou, and Ἰησοῦ/Iesoe isn’t found in the text of the oldest witness, not even by way of a placeholder. Further ἐσταύρωσαν/estaerosan was rendered ΕΣΤΑΝ.

In this regard, the King James is actually more accurate than the Nestle-Aland. They got one of these three things right. KJV: “And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.” But it was only because the Protestants copied the Catholic Vulgate: “And they that are Christi have crucifixerunt / crucified their flesh, with the vices and concupiscences.” Should you have wondered how English bibles came upon the word “crucifixion,” now you know. As for “concupiscences,” you are on your own.

Having published a handful of books on the oldest Greek manuscripts, Phil Comfort ignored them when he authored the NLT: “Those who belong to Christ Jesus have nailed the passions and desires of their sinful nature to his cross and crucified them there.” There is no reference to “Christ Jesus” or “cross” in the Greek manuscripts scribed before the rise of Constantine – and he knows it.

Of course, it is true that Yahowsha’s flesh had been affixed to the “Upright Pillar” to honor the promise of Passover, but that was not remotely close to what Sha’uwl was saying. And the fulfillment of Passover only opened the door to eternal life. Our perversions, religious and political rebellion, were actually redeemed the following day, during the Miqra’ of Matsah. Yahowah’s soul went to She’owl to pay the penalty so that we might receive Yah’s gift of perfection – all in accord with the Towrah and its Covenant.

Contrary to what Sha’uwl wrote, our “flesh” still exists. Our mortal bodies still suffer pain, and we all endure 293misfortune. While our “deep desires,” “longings,” and “angry responses,” when appropriate, are good things, even our cravings persist. Therefore, if the New American Standard Bible’s rendition of this verse is accurate, then Paul is wrong once again: “Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.”

Moving on to Sha’uwl’s next statement, since “kai – and or also” is omitted from P46, since Paul did not write “en – in” once, much less twice, since the placeholders for Ruwach are side by side, and since “στοιχωμεν – stoichomen – advances in a line” was rendered in the plural, present, active tense, the Nestle-Aland Interlinear isn’t even remotely accurate. “If we live in spirit in spirit also we might walk.” Therefore, while admittedly less unintelligible, this is at least a little more consistent with the original text:

“If (ei) we live (zao) for spirit (ΠΝΙ / pneumati), for spirit (ΠΝΙ / pneumati) we march in a line (stoichomen – we proceed to advance in a row, and we live in conformity, and we behave by imitating).” (Galatians 5:25)

The use of stoichomen, a cognate of stoicheion, in this context is a concern. First, it speaks of “soldiers following their leader in a militaristic regimen, never stepping out of line,” which is reminiscent of “Onward Christian Soldiers marching off to war.” And while that depicts the submit and obey realm of religion which is devoid of freewill, it also represents the command and control structure a spiritual envoy like Satan would have known. Yahowah’s spiritual envoys, messengers, and representatives follow orders in a militaristic regimen devoid of freewill. But this is not the realm man was designed to live in nor similar to the realm to which we are headed. Yahowah gave us the gift of freewill, one that we all currently enjoy. And even with the presence of the Set-Apart Spirit, we do not live in conformity, but still enjoy the full benefits of freewill.

294And even if we were to jettison all of stoichomen’s inappropriate baggage, and consider it to mean “live in conformity,” we have to ask ourselves: conformity to what? And the answer, according to Paul, is to “behave by imitating” him.

Also troubling, stoicheion was used twice in Galatians and once in Colossians to describe the “demonic powers associated with the fundamental elements of religious mythology,” so this is conflicting, taking believers to that which Paul has condemned.

Jerome’s conclusion as manifest in the King James reads: “If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.” The LV clearly supplied the text: “If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.” And the NLT simply marched the thought a little farther down the field: “Since we are living by the Spirit, let us follow the Spirit’s leading in every part of our lives.”

Thankfully, we have arrived at the last verse of the fifth chapter. Now if only this were the last chapter and last of his letters.

“Not (me) we might come to exist (ginomeoa) vainly boastful (kenodoxos – glorifying ourselves without reason, being conceited, while sharing opinions which are baseless), one another (allelous) provoking and irritating (prokaleomai – calling forth to challenge others to combat), each other (allelous) jealous and envying (phthonoentes – corrupt and defiled).” (Galatians 5:26)

Kenodoxos is a tough word to translate. It is comprised of kenos, meaning “empty and vain,” which either means “failed or egotistical,” and also “devoid of truth,” and doxa which conveys “opinions, conclusions, and judgments,” but also “brilliant splendor” and “praise.” So, does it mean “failed judgment,” “devoid of light,” “undeserved egotistical appraisal,” or “baseless opinions?” Our lexicons suggest that kenodoxos means “proud or glorifying without 295reason, conceited, arrogant, or falsely enlightened.” In that it defines “a person who is void of real worth but who wants to be admired by others,” it is hard not to see the self-absorbed author of Galatians in kenodoxos. So why is he opposed to it?

After all, it would be hard to find a letter containing more “irritating,” more “combative,” or more “provocative” rants than Galatians. So if these things no longer exist for those who “live in the spirit,” this epistle does not conform either.

Not that I understand it any better, even so, the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear suggests Paul said: “No we might become empty splendor one another provoking one another envying.”

If the KJV is right, based upon his letter, Paul would be the poster child for wrong: “Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.” But it’s not the Protestant’s fault; they just copied the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate: “Let us not be made desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.” NLT: “Let us not become conceited, or provoke one another, or be jealous of one another.” In other words, let’s not act like Paul.

As is our custom, let’s give Sha’uwl the last word:

“This freedom and liberty of ours by becoming Christos, it freed and released. So, you all are directed to stand firm. Therefore, also, never again associate with the yoke of subservience and slavery. You were held based upon a grudge against you all, controlling you and forcing you to surrender to someone who bears ill-will, is resentful, violent, and quarrelsome. (Galatians 5:1)

You pay attention. I, Paulos, myself say to you all that if on the condition that you may be circumcised, 296Christos is totally worthless and completely meaningless, not in the least bit helpful or useful for you. (Galatians 5:2)

Then, furthermore, repeating myself, I testify, insisting and protesting to every man being circumcised that he actually is obligated to do and perform the entire and complete Towrah. (Galatians 5:3)

You have invalidated and rendered inoperative, abolishing the purpose of the separation of Christou, whosoever is in unison with the Towrah. You having been declared righteous, and having been vindicated with the Charis / Gratia / Graces, have fallen away and have been forsaken. (Galatians 5:4)

Because indeed, we in spirit out of faith hope. Righteousness we await patiently. (Galatians 5:5)

In Christo Iesou neither circumcision is someone capable, nor is the uttermost part of the penis. On the contrary through faith love operating. (Galatians 5:6)

You were trying, running, and progressing well, in a fine way that was pleasing. What prevented and impeded you from the truth, such that you are no longer persuaded or obedient, following along faithfully? (Galatians 5:7)

The enticing persuasion and soliciting inducement, was it not from the one providing a name to you all? (Galatians 5:8)

A little yeast, the whole of the batch it yeasts. (Galatians 5:9)

I have been persuaded to coax and convince you, winning you over with the Lord because nothing different other than this may you regard or ponder, potentially holding as a belief. So now, the one stirring you up and causing you great distress, confusing, 297bewildering, and mystifying you, he will undergo and endure the judgment, be condemned and punished, no matter who this individual might be. (Galatians 5:10)

But now, brothers, if I, nevertheless myself preach circumcision, why and for what then am I pursued and persecuted? As a result of this offending trap and scandalous stumbling block invalidates the crucifixion. (Galatians 5:11)

And also how I wish and pray for a malicious curse, that they might castrate and emasculate themselves, suffering amputation of their penis and testicles, those troublemakers among you who stir you up to rebel by disseminating religious error and political seditions. (Galatians 5:12)

For you, upon freedom you were named and were called brothers. Only not in the liberty to the point of the starting point of the original violent attack of the flesh. To the contrary, by the love you all are slaves of each other. (Galatians 5:13)

Because of this then all the Towrah in one word has come to an end and is finished in you loving of the nearby neighbor as yourself. (Galatians 5:14)

But if each other you all bite and you devour, but watch out for not under one another you might be consumed. (Galatians 5:15)

But I say in spirit, you are all commanded to advance. Therefore, the desire and passion of the flesh you must deny, lest you may come to an end. (Galatians 5:16)

For indeed because, the body’s desires and passions are forbidden because they against the spirit. And so then the spirit is in opposition to the physical world and the physical body because of these one another is hostile and adversarial in order to negate what conditionally 298you might presently propose and want, even enjoy of these potential behaviors and somehow doing an assigned task. (Galatians 5:17)

However, if in spirit you are, you are not guided under the control of or subject to the Towrah. (Galatians 5:18)

So now it is evident, clearly seen, and widely known that the works and assigned tasks of the flesh (used as a metaphor for the Towrah) indeed exist as sexual promiscuity and fornication, being dirty, sensuality, (5:19) the likeness of an outward appearance of what can be seen and perceived, the use and administering of medicines, hostile antagonism, enmity and feuds, strife and dissension, even debate and quarreling, devotion and jealousy, the desire to make sacrifices, selfish ambitions, running for an elective office, and rivalries, discord and division, especially a second option, the freedom to choose for oneself, (5:20) corruption, intoxication, public partying or a festive assembly, and that similar to this which I previously spoke to you inasmuch as I said before that the likes of such carrying out and committing these practices, the reign and kingdom of God, they will not inherit. (Galatians 5:21)

But the fruit of the spirit is: love, happiness, peace, patience, mercy from an upright implement, being good through generosity, faith, (5:22) gentleness, meekness, and humility, self-control over one’s sexual appetite, with regard to such there is no Towrah. (Galatians 5:23)

But the ones of the Christou, the flesh has been crucified with the sufferings, the deep desires, and longings. (Galatians 5:24)

If we live for spirit, for spirit we march in a line, living in conformity. (Galatians 5:25)

Not that we might come to exist vainly boastful 299sharing opinions which are baseless, one another provoking and irritating, each other jealous and envying.” (Galatians 5:26)

