30Twistianity

Appalling

…Contradicting God

3

Sha’uwl | Question Him

Dancing with the Devil…

Billions believe that Paul, a self-proclaimed Jewish rabbi born as Sha’uwl, a man who wrote under the Roman pseudonym, Paulos, was the principal agent chosen by “Jesus” after his death to communicate the precepts of their religion to the world. They refer to his message as “the Gospel of Grace” – using Paul’s invented terminology. This is surprising since there is only one, albeit inaccurate, citation from “Jesus” and not a single statement from the “Gospels” in the corpus of Paul’s fourteen letters.

In spite of this, or unaware of it, Christians believe that this lone wannabe Apostle, someone who had no interactions with the mythical “Jesus”, was authorized to denounce and discard Yahowah’s Torah (which is more accurately spelled Towrah and means Teaching and Guidance), replace His Covenant (from the Hebrew word Beryth | Family Relationship), dismiss His annual Feasts (called Miqra’ey | Invitations to be Called Out and Meet), and reject His Shabat – and even demean and discredit the actual Son of God and Messiah Dowd | David. On the surface, this appears preposterous, and yet no matter how illogical the presupposition required to accept Paul may be, it does not matter to believers.

The miracle which makes the resulting religion popular is performed in Sha’uwl’s / Paulos’ / Paul’s epistle to the Galatians – which serves as the blueprint for Pauline Doctrine. In its pages, a stream of arguments is presented against the Torah and on behalf of placing one’s faith in 31Paul’s “but I say...”

However, there is no plausible scenario under which Paul could have annulled and discarded the Towrah | Teaching and Guidance Yahowah called “perfect” and “eternal” and at the same time have been inspired by the God who made that statement. Nonetheless, Paul had the audacity to claim that God’s testimony was incapable of saving anyone. Therefore, according to Paul, this same inept “God” after communicating His message through prophets throughout the centuries, authorized him, and only him, to devise a new and different plan replacing the old failed one. On what planet is that possible?

Should we play make-believe, and pretend that a god inspired Paul to contradict him and negate his testimony, why would anyone trust either of them? If the god’s plan for his people was ineffective and, worse, if it were an enslaving curse, as Sha’uwl claimed, what would make Paul’s replacement credible since it is allegedly facilitated by the same inept god? And yet, unless this preposterous proposition is seen as plausible, then Paul’s every claim is invalid. As a result, there can be no question that Christianity was erected on the shifting sands of one man’s delusions rather than on the bedrock of Divine revelation.

In the end, it all comes down to Galatians – Paul’s first letter, as evidenced by the epistle itself. It is the first time where the Torah was assailed by someone claiming to speak for God. This realization is underscored by the fact that Paul’s letters were written and distributed decades before the earliest “Gospel” was penned. Without Galatians, there is no credible debate between observing the Torah, which is to examine its teaching, or faith, which is to believe in the unknown or uncertain. So while there are many critical passages in Paul’s other letters, and most especially in Romans, Galatians provides the most methodical approach to obfuscating God’s testimony and plan of reconciliation.

32Galatians is one of only two epistles in which the Shabat and Feasts are reputed, the other being Paul’s letter to the Colossians. It is one of only two letters where the concept of a “New Covenant” is presented, the other being Paulos’ letter to the Romans. Without Galatians, there is less justification for rejecting the message Yahowah (God’s one and only name) shared with us.

Galatians is the place where “faith,” which has become synonymous with “religion,” was first pitted against trusting God’s proven and prophetic testimony. This was accomplished by Paul mischaracterizing the Torah’s nature, implying that to observe it was to obey it and that God’s intent was to command rather than guide. As a result, a book filled with Yahowah’s teaching became known as “the law.”

Wanting to be free of “the law,” and thus “authorized” to establish his own “rules,” Sha’uwl strove to discredit and then discard Yahowah’s Torah in the second and third chapters of Galatians. He did this so that, in the fourth chapter, he could position his advocacy for an entirely new and different covenant, relegating the one scribed by Moses (actually Moseh, meaning to “draw out”) on Mount Sinai to “being of the flesh.” Paul’s argument was inane, however, inverting reality such that it serves as proof that he should never have been trusted.

Inverting reality in Gnostic fashion (as was the rage among Greeks and Romans), Paul claimed that the Torah’s Covenant was with Hagar and thus enslaved, condemning everyone. He would have you believe that God lied when He stated that Hagar and her son, Ishmael, were expressly excluded from the Covenant and banished because the truth didn’t suit Paul’s agenda. In the Towrah, Yahowah said that His Covenant was conveyed through ‘Abraham and Sarah’s son, Yitschaq | Isaac. He also said that His Beryth | Covenant was the means to eternal life, being perfected, adopted into His Family, enriched, enlightened, and 33empowered. So, who are you going to believe: Paul’s claims or God’s testimony since they are the antithesis of one another? They cannot both be true.

More than just being ground zero for Christianity’s disdain for all things Yahowah – His Name, His Word, His Torah, His Covenant, His Instructions, His Shabat, His Invitations to Meet, His Son, His Land, His Chosen People, and His Way – Galatians pits Paul’s new religion against the relationship Yahowah proposed by substituting the entity He hated most of all.

God was not Paul’s only adversary, however. In Galatians, the Disciple, Shim’own | Peter, was mercilessly condemned by Paul, and Ya’aqob | James and Yahowchanan | John were marginalized, dismissed, and demeaned. Moreover, almost everyone in Galatia came to rebuke Paul as was the case in Corinth and Thessalonica.

In this light, Galatians and the Book of Acts present conflicting accounts of the Jerusalem Summit – further isolating Paul from others. Based upon its timing and content, it is obvious that Galatians was Paul’s response, his rebuttal, to having had his message censured, his authority questioned, and his reputation besmirched by the Disciples in Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem (source from which guidance regarding reconciliation flows).

Paul’s summation of this meeting is found in the heart of his first epistle, along with Paul’s animosity toward the issues which prompted the summit – the purpose of the Torah and the merits of circumcision, which is the sign of the Covenant. These themes dominate Galatians, with Paul’s position consistently running in direct opposition to Yahowah, and therefore to the Word of God. In due time, we will juxtapose these texts, so, do not be concerned if you are currently unaware of this meeting or of the incompatible accounts of it.

Especially relevant to this discussion is Shim’own’s 34(He Listens, but errantly called Peter’s) overall evaluation of Paul and, especially, his Galatians letter, in Shim’own | 2 Peter. The disciple bluntly criticizes the content and confusion inherent in Paul’s epistles. Then we are confronted with a statement which, at least when mistranslated and removed from its context, is commonly used to assert that Paul’s epistles should be afforded “Scriptural” status. But if this lone dubious “endorsement” falters, if it is not credible in context, or if this is not what Shim’own actually wrote, then the idea of a “New Testament,” comprised mostly of Paul’s letters and inspiration, being considered as having been “inspired by God,” vanishes.

Without misappropriating Shim’own’s | Peter’s position, support for Paul would be relegated to murk and myth – the realm of fables and religious traditions. Therefore, we will dissect Sha’uwl’s | Paul’s overt condemnation of Shim’own | Peter, just as we will study Shim’own’s direct and unabashed response to Sha’uwl under a linguistic microscope, contemplating the disciple’s perceptions of the self-proclaimed Apostle’s message and letters.

In this regard, there is no reason to believe that there were any disciples. Their story was projected back in time by hearsay accounts written long after the events would have played out. Therefore, as one might expect, there is much confusion regarding them. These include the myth that the author of the Gospel of Matthew was one of them, when the others present Levi as the tax collector, and since over ninety-percent of his book was plagiarized from Mark, Luke, and the testimony of the Ebonites between 90 and 100 CE. He wouldn’t have been born when the disciples were allegedly chosen.

Similarly, the accounts ascribed to John were initially committed to papyrus at the same time. In the unlikely event that he might have lived to 80 years old, he would 35have been a teenager when Dowd was crucified. And the other two assumed Gospel writers, Mark and Luke, never met the mythical Jesus and were not even present in Judaea at the time. Therefore, when I speak of disciples and of alleged meetings and debates, it is only to demonstrate the insanity of it all.

In this regard, Christian theologians side with Paul over Peter, even though they are eager to position “Saint Pete” as the first pope, holding the keys to the pearly gates. Therefore, when it came to the enormity of the dispute portrayed during the Jerusalem Summit, by siding with the Torahless One, theologians have established their religion in opposition to Yahowah and to the Word of God. In their view, Paul was right to equate the Torah with laws which must be obeyed, Yahowah’s Miqra’ey with Judaism, circumcision with the flesh, and the conditions of the Covenant with bondage. Methinks not, but that is because me thinks.

For Christians, as a result of Paul’s new covenant theory in the fourth chapter of Galatians, it is appropriate to divide their “Bibles” into two “Testaments” – one “Old” and the other “New,” one failed, vicious, and counterproductive with the other young, loving, and providing the hope of salvation by rejecting that old God’s plan and placing one’s faith in Paul’s “but I say.” For Christians, solely as a result of Paul’s epistles, hell awaits everyone who clings to the past by observing the Towrah, while heaven beckons those who place their faith in Paul’s Gospel of Grace – again using the terminology he coined.

With the stakes this high, with the credibility of the religion of Christianity resting upon one man’s agenda, with the salvation of billions of souls at stake, few things could be as important as considering the possibility that Paulos’ epistle to the Galatians might not be trustworthy. After all, he openly contradicted the God he purported to represent.

36However, should this world-renowned individual have pulled off this magical and irrational feat, if he managed to supersede something as fundamental to God’s approach to mankind as His Towrah, and if Paul supplanted it with something as nebulous as faith in his convoluted rhetoric, and convinced the world that he had done so without offending God, even with God’s blessing, Galatians would have to be the most brilliantly written thesis of all time. But alas, it is a muddled, incongruent, inaccurate, inarticulate, and irrational mess.

That notwithstanding, to determine once and for all if Sha’uwl | Paul’s bloody and anti-Semitic pen changed everything, including our understanding of God and His prophetic testimony, even the means to reconciliation, we are going to examine his words under the lens of the world’s most acclaimed lexicons while referencing the oldest extant manuscripts. Paul’s thoughts will be scrutinized by juxtaposing each proposal he made against Yahowah’s position on the same topic. We will leave nothing to chance or supposition. And while we are cognizant that billions of religious individuals believe that Galatians was divinely inspired, we will be honest, even if the result is judgmental and thus deemed offensive. Regardless of how many religious preconceptions succumb to the evidence, this pursuit of the truth will be relentlessly rational.

As I have shared previously, at the onset of this study I simply could not have imagined that Sha’uwl was the focus of God’s ire, becoming the single most-hated man in human history from Yahowah’s perspective. And yet, God’s testimony against Sha’uwl | Paul is unrelenting and unequivocal.

And yet, as I have stated before, it will be Sha’uwl’s | Paul’s words which will determine whether the most influential man in human history had the audacity to contradict God, to undermine His testimony, and to 37establish a “New Testament” in place of the one he sought to annul. If he did, and if he made his case, then Christianity is a miracle of the mind with a wholly irrational revised reality perceived as true. But if it wasn’t appropriate to demean and dissolve the Torah, if faith isn’t the answer, billions have been tragically misled, their souls extinguished as a consequence.

As a result, it is instructive to reinforce the fact that Paul’s given name was Sha’uwl. It is of Hebrew origin, and it means “he questions” and “question him” depending upon how the pronoun is accommodated. Therefore, “questioning him” as a result of what “he has questioned” is the path we have charted. And in this vein, you should also know that the name, Sha’uwl, is indistinguishable in Hebrew from She’owl, which is the “place of separation,” “the grave, pit, and realm of the dead” commonly known as Hell.

Further, the name Sha’uwl is shared with one of the most misguided and counterproductive individuals in Yisra’el’s history, King Sha’uwl | Saul. He was Dowd | David’s rival and mortal enemy – and as such, he was disowned by God. Then as a result of his revisionist portrayal of the Torah, he was demon-possessed. His life, as it transpired, was prophetic on all four accounts (opposition to Dowd, misappropriation of the Torah, estrangement from Yah, and demon possession) with his namesake, the wannabe Apostle Sha’uwl | Paul.

Also relevant, Sha’uwl chose a different name, a Latin, moniker, to demonstrate his preference for Rome over Judea during the occupation. Paulos became this chameleon’s fictitious nom de plume on behalf of the empire that would ravage God’s people. He even devoted his most acclaimed letter – Romans – to the legions which God branded as the most vicious of beasts. And even though he likely chose the Paulos moniker due to its affinity with Apollos, the actual meaning of his new name, 38“lowly and little,” is something that will loom large in numerous prophecies before we are finished.

One of the surprising obstacles we will have to overcome along the way will become obvious in short order. Paul’s letter to the Galatians is poorly conceived, reflecting some of the worst writing found anywhere in texts comprising the Christian New Testament, none of which are particularly good. We will encounter a steady diet of linguistic malfeasance and worse, reminiscent of our journey through the Quran in God Damn Religion.

Many of Paul’s sentences are incomprehensible. His literacy is well beneath the dignity of God, even though this indisputable fact does not seem to matter to a religion hell-bent on distancing itself from Yahowah, from His Beryth | Covenant, Towrah | Guidance, Naby’ | Prophets, seven Miqra’ey – Invitations to be Called Out and Meet, people, Yisra’el | Individuals who Engage and Endure with God, and from His beloved Bakowr | Firstborn Son, the Mashyach | Anointed Messiah, Melek | King, and Zarowa’ | Sacrificial Lamb, our Yasha’ | Savior.

As we embark on this journey, there is something else you should know. There are some who would have us believe that Paulos did not write Galatians. They use pedantic ploys to imply that this epistle, along with 2^nd Corinthians, 1^st Thessalonians, Ephesians, and both personal letters to Timothy were foisted as a clever fraud, and then later attributed, unbeknownst, to Paul. In support of this argument, there is phraseology prevalent in Galatians that appears less frequently in the subsequent epistles claimed by this man.

My initial response was, “Since this is the Christian New Testament, why does it matter if it was written by someone under the alias Paulos or by someone intimately familiar with him?” The egomaniacal personality and the overt hostility toward Yahowah, His people and Towrah, 39remain the same.

But there are far bigger issues at play. For example, as mentioned previously, the book which claims to have been written by a disciple named “Matthew” was falsely attributed and written at a much later date because the charlatan who plagiarized 95% of his text from three earlier sources lived two generations removed from the events he falsely claimed to have observed as an eyewitness. The actual name of the person who cobbled “Matthew” together between 90 and 100 CE is not known.

Much of the same is true with the Gospel attributed to John as well as of the Book of Revelation. The only evidence for “John’s” authorship is from Polycarp. He was a 2^nd-century martyr, if one is to believe the fables Eusebius promoted about him. And while the alleged martyr is said to have garnished his reputation by having known John personally, the report comes by way of Irenaeus, a Greek bishop who was noted for expanding the influence of Christianity in present-day France. It was Irenaeus who claimed that Polycarp told him that John had written a book in Ephesus sometime before 95 CE, something Eusebius promoted 350 years thereafter. It is sort of like Santa Claus claiming that the Tooth Fairy told him that he saw the Easter Bunny lay an egg and a Leprechaun confirmed it, so we’re good.

This might also be a swell time to mention that the fable of Polycarp, as the lone attributor, is incredulous. Beyond the realization that the alleged conveyor of the account, Irenaeus, was born between 120 and 140 CE, and thus well after the fact, what little is known of him comes by way of the poisonous pen of the infamous Eusebius of Caesarea two centuries thereafter. Indeed, the resulting text of the Martyrdom of Polycarp is only known to us through the 4^th-century Ecclesiastical History written by this most nefarious individual, the one most responsible for the augmentation and canonization of the Christian New 40Testament. This very same Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, was the chief propagandist for Emperor Constantine and unheralded architect of the myths underlying the Christian religion. And his version of this story is akin to the Rabbinic and Quranic portrayals of the fire that was prevented from burning their version of Abraham.

Citing from it, we find, “Three days before he was arrested, while he was praying, he had a vision of the pillow under his head in flames. He said prophetically to those who were with him, ‘I will be burnt alive.’” But, alas, it turned out to be a false prophecy according to the legend.

“Those who were looking for him…could not find him, so they seized two young men from his own household and tortured them into confession. The sheriff, called Herod, was impatient to bring Polycarp to the stadium, so that he might fulfill his special role, to share the sufferings of Christ, which those who betrayed him would be punished like Judas.

The police and horsemen came with the young man at suppertime on the Friday with their usual weapons, as if coming out against a robber… He could have escaped but he refused… The men were astounded and many of them regretted coming to arrest such a godly and venerable an old man. When he finished praying, they put him on a donkey and took him into the city. As Polycarp was being taken into the arena, a voice came to him from heaven, ‘Be strong, Polycarp and play the man.’”

“‘Swear,’ urged the Proconsul, ‘reproach Christ and I will set you free.’ ‘Eighty-six years have I have served him,’ replied Polycarp, ‘and he has done me no wrong.’” That’s not much of an endorsement. It’s like someone supporting Stalin because he didn’t throw them into the gulag.

Then as if reciting a Quranic Suratun, Polycarp, states, “You threaten me with fire with burns for an hour, and is 41then extinguished, but you know nothing of the fire of the coming judgment and eternal punishment reserved for the ungodly.”

In keeping with the anti-Semitic nature of the emerging Church, we read, “The crowd collected wood and bundles of sticks from the shops and public baths. The Jews, as usual, were keen to help.” A good Christian, Eusebius never missed an opportunity to demonize Jews.

Demonstrating that the lone witness attributing the Gospel of John to John was a fable, we find, “Polycarp took off his outer clothes, undid his belt, and tried to take off his sandals – something he was not used to, as the faithful always raced to do it for him, each wanting to be the one to touch his skin – that is how good his life was.”

Then after talking the Romans out of using nails, “They simply bound him with his hands behind him like a distinguished ram chosen from a great flock for the sacrifice.” Again, as if providing fodder for the Quran and after touting the impossible and counterproductive notion of bodily resurrection, Polycarp [whose name means “Many Fruits]” asked to become “an acceptable sacrifice.”

“Then the fire was lit, and the flames blazed furiously. We who were privileged to witness it saw a great miracle, and this is why we have been preserved to tell the story. The fire shaped itself into the form of an arch, like the sail of a ship when filled with the wind and formed a circle around the body of the martyr. Inside it, he looked not like flesh that is burnt, but like bread that is baked, or gold and silver glowing in a furnace. And we smelt a sweet scent, like frankincense.

Eventually, when those wicked men saw that his body could not be consumed by the fire, they commanded an executioner to pierce him with a dagger.” No one bothered to say how the executioner braved the futile flames and stabbed him with his knife, but nonetheless, “a dove flew 42out and a great quantity of blood flowed that the fire was extinguished.” Believable, right?

Returning to the ilk of Quranic rhetoric, “The crowd were amazed at the difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom the great Polycarp was surely one as the apostolic and prophetic teacher and bishop of the Catholic Church.” Should you be curious, I cited this excerpt from The Martyrdom of Polycarp as it was translated by J.B. Lightfoot, abridged and modernized by Stephen Tomkins, and edited and prepared by Dan Graves. I wanted them credited for this incredulous religious tale of derring-do initially published in the 4^th century by Eusebius the Duplicitous – as all things come full circle in Christendom. And the more we know, the worse it gets.

Staying on the theme of “John” for a moment longer, if we were to pretend that someone named “Jesus Christ” existed and chose unlettered fishermen to tell his story, rather than actually writing it himself like a real prophet, why would he have chosen Jews to translate the words he spoke in Hebrew into Greek? If we were to play along, should the alleged “John” have been twenty years old when he surrendered his boat and net, giving up his day job to hang around a dead-man-walking as a groupie, why didn’t he write anything down concurrently? Why would he have waited six decades, moved closer to Rome, and then conveyed the narrative in an entirely different language when he would have been eighty – twice the average lifespan at the time? It would be like listening to Joe Biden recount in Portuguese the story of how he, as the first female Black vice president, slew Adolf Hitler with a slingshot while creepily sniffing children’s hair.

It gets even worse with the letters that have become known as the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. They are not internally attributed to anyone. It wasn’t until later in the lives of the two most nefarious characters in the editing, canonization, translating, and transmission of the 43Christian New Testament, Eusebios tes Kaisareias, aka, Eusebius of Caesarea (circa 265 – 339 CE) and Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus, aka, Jerome (circa 345 – 420 CE), that these horrible individuals shaped both accounts to their liking in the 4^th century. It was then that Luke and Acts were attributed to a “healer” mentioned by Sha’uwl / Paulos in his letter to the Colossians. And even if it were true, his accounts are hearsay. And it should be noted that neither the man responsible for syncretizing the text, blending and amalgamating the disparate accounts together while augmenting the message to serve their Roman overlords, nor the man responsible for destroying every early Greek manuscript he could find so that he could imprison the text in Latin to be controlled by the Roman Church, could articulate a rational argument for attributing either book to Luke. But more on these infamous individuals later as they are far more responsible for the text of the New Testament than was the mythical misnomer Jesus.

It doesn’t get any better with Mark, because he is a shadowy character, too. Initially, we hear that he hung around “Peter,” perhaps as a translator, but then was recruited by Paul when the two heavyweights of Christendom went to war against one another. Sha’uwl told his posse to recruit Mark because he had plans for him – and that plan turned out to be the Book of Mark, which should more correctly be called the “Gospel According to Paul.” Therein, Paul’s Gospel concludes with the disappearance of “Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified” because “he would rise” through Paul. The fact that Jesus was never seen or heard from again, or that there was no one by this name, nor even a town of “Nazareth” at the time, is only bothersome if one prefers evidence to fables.

Even with the books attributed to “Peter,” no one by that name was associated with the mythology of “Jesus Christ” either. The character’s name was “Shim’own,” and 44he was not rebranded as the “Petra | Rock” until the aforementioned Eusebius of Caesarea added the incredulous diatribe to the aforementioned “Matthew” in the 4^th century. What is now found in the 16^th and 17^th verses of the 16^th chapter is not included in any earlier manuscripts and is as preposterous as it is essential to the myth of Christ. Because without Peter’s alleged statement, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Jesus is without a title and a last name. So, rest assured, we will examine Eusebius’ sleight of hand in subsequent chapters. But for now, realize that immediately after this contrived pronouncement, the Jesus character, turned to the rebranded “Rock” and said, “Get behind me, Satan.” No matter where one looks, Christianity appears to be the product of a gaggle of goons. Now, if only we could get another endorsement from Joe Biden, who was likely there at the time. (Just kidding.)

In support of Galatians being scribed by the infamous character known as Paul, recognize that the book of Acts revealed that Saul / Paul had the kind of contentious relationship with the Galatians which is actually reflected in the epistle. We are told that the Galatians went from believing that Paulos was the incarnation of a Greek god (validating my conclusions regarding his choice of names) to wanting to stone him for his caustic rhetoric.

Second, Shim’own / Peter, in his second letter, evaluates an epistle Sha’uwl / Paul had written to this particular audience – one that we learn from his greeting in 1^st Peter has to be in Galatia because it is the only place where the addressees overlap. Therefore, based on the Peter’s letter, we know that Paul wrote an epistle to Galatia. And if not this letter, then the authentic document has been lost. But more than that, the language Shim’own (He Listens) used to describe Galatians adroitly reflects the contents we find in the surviving copy.

Third, the issues raised at the Jerusalem Summit serve 45as the centerpiece of the Galatian epistle. After reading what was presumed to be Luke’s (from the Latin Lucas) testimony in Acts, it becomes obvious that Galatians was Paulos’ response to his critics at this meeting. Status was paramount to Sha’uwl, and therefore, Galatians chronicles his desire to position himself as favorably as possible, especially vis a vis the disciples whom he routinely slights.

Additionally, based on the disparaging language, it is likely that the letter was written immediately after that meeting, long before tempers cooled. And that means that Paulos would have had thirteen subsequent opportunities to distance himself from the letter scribed to the Galatians had it been a fraud because his open letters to the Thessalonians, Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians, as well as the personal notes to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, in addition to Hebrews, all came later – as did most of his testimony in Acts. Never once is he heard denouncing the authenticity of this epistle to the Galatians but is instead found building his case against the Towrah and its Covenant upon the foundation he laid therein.

Fourth, Galatians is all about Sha’uwl becoming Paulos, about his childhood, his religious education as a rabbi, his questionable calling, his self-proclaimed mission, his adversarial preaching, his suspect credibility, his personal trials and tribulations, and his sacrifices as the replacement for Christ. Within its text, we find Paul referring to himself as the parent of his faithful children, as the perfect example to follow, as a person who can do no wrong, as someone who cannot lie, and as the one who was making painful sacrifices for the salvation of the faithful. If Paul didn’t write it, Galatians was either scribed by his publicist or by someone who spent the better part of his life polishing Paul’s sandals.

Fifth, the oldest extant codex containing Paul’s epistles, Papyrus 46, places Galatians in the midst of the 46other letters claimed by and attributed to Paulos. In order of their appearance in the codex, these epistles include: Romans, Hebrews, 1^st and 2^nd Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1^st Thessalonians. And since P46 is dated between 85 and 125 CE, we know that one of the earliest collectors of Greek manuscripts believed that Paul had penned this letter. As did Marcion in the 2^nd century, a man who plays a starring role in this saga.

Sixth, Paulos had a propensity to sign his letters so that his audience would have some assurance that he was the author. But with Galatians, he did more than just sign his name. He personally attests to having written the conclusion with his own hand using really big letters.

Seventh, Paul’s signature term is charis, the name of the Greek goddesses of hospitality and merriment. This name was transliterated into English as “Grace” as a result of the Roman moniker for these same goddesses, the Gratia. Apart from Paulos’ letters, the use of charis can only be attested in one other place in an ancient Greek manuscript. Therefore, the frequency of deploying the name of the Greek goddesses of charity and licentiousness in all of these letters strongly suggests that this troubling and pagan aspect of Christianity came from Paul, as did Galatians.

And eighth, 666 years prior to the 52 CE scribal date of Galatians by Sha’uwl, Yahowah condemned Sha’uwl by name, calling him the “Plague of Death” for having written this Towrah-forsaken, Dowd-replacing trash through His prophet Chabaquwq | Habakkuk in 615 BCE. That alone is sufficient for me.

I suppose that someone might propose a highly unlikely alternative, that Paul was the author, but that he should have tossed it in the trash rather than circulating it. He was clearly angry and may well have dashed off an 47emotional response that, from a more sober perspective, he would have wadded up and thrown away. Most of us have written letters like this; and many have had the good sense to hold on to them long enough to temper them once our passions have subsided. But if this is the case, what does it say about the credibility of the rest of the testimony this man also claims was inspired by God, indeed, what does it suggest about the veracity of the Christian New Testament as a whole?

The only benefit of distancing this epistle from Paul is that it would not tarnish the remainder of the letters attributed to him. But even then, the potential benefit would be fraught with peril, in that it would open the floodgates to questioning the appropriateness of everything originally written in Greek and not Hebrew. Christianity’s entire foundation would be torn asunder. Worse, because the Galatians epistle was written in first person, and because it is based upon the life of the self-proclaimed Apostle Paulos, if it is a counterfeit, not only does the authority of much of the “Christian New Testament” become suspect, the religion is deprived of doctrine. I say this because Paul’s attaché is credited with writing Luke and Acts and two of his devotees are assumed to have written Mark and Matthew, as well as Hebrews – should it not be from Paul, himself. His influence on these texts explains why they are anti-Semitic, historically inaccurate, and contradictory – the same problems that permeate Paul’s letters.

As we will discover throughout this review, in substance, there is very little difference between Galatians and everything else Paul wrote and influenced. It is readily apparent that the same individual authored them, one that was promoting himself and his own message in his own inimitable way.

Ultimately, however, the only question which really matters is whether or not Galatians is errant to the point of 48being unredeemable. We know that it isn’t the inspired Word of God because, like the rest of the Christian New Testament, it fails every aspect of the Dabarym | Deuteronomy 18 test to determine if Yahowah inspired the author. And since it isn’t from God, no matter how erroneous, the world’s most popular religion is brought down with it.

This conclusion is inescapable because Galatians, even more than Paul’s other letters, is devoted to systematically demeaning, dismantling, and demoting the Torah and its Covenant. This would include the recognition that Yahowah is God’s only name, something Paul never mentions. Without Galatians, there would be no way to explain Christianity’s opposition to Yahowah’s seven Miqra’ey – Invitations to be Called Out and Meet – as they would still delineate the path to eternal life, perfection, adoption, enrichment, empowerment, and reconciliation, leading to living with God as His children. Without Galatians, Romans, and Hebrews, there would only be one Covenant, a familial accord which has yet to be renewed. There would be no room for a “New Testament,” a “Gospel of Grace,” or a faith-based religion.

Without Galatians, Yahowah’s Towrah, as it is affirmed throughout the Psalms and Prophets, remains the sole means to liberate humankind from religious and political oppression. But with Galatians, the Torah is mankind’s greatest foe, the path to enslavement and condemnation.

Without Galatians, the “Gospel of Grace” would be stillborn, invalidated by Yahowah’s promise to heal His people through the Towrah – with its entirely different, yet overtly beneficial message. Without Galatians, our association with God would be based exclusively upon the Towrah’s everlasting Covenant, upon knowing Yahowah and relying upon God’s Guidance, not Paul’s.

49Without Galatians, admission to heaven would be predicated upon responding to Yahowah’s Invitations to Meet with Him as this seven-step path is articulated in the heart of the Towrah and fulfilled by Dowd. Without Galatians, “faith” becomes irrelevant, as does the religion of Christianity, because the God who authored the Towrah can be known through it.

In this regard, you should know that faith is the opposite of trust. Trust emerges from a discerning evaluation of the evidence, while faith thrives in the absence of information and reason.

So, while there may be some lingering debate among a few individuals regarding the authenticity of this epistle, we will proceed as if Galatians was scribed by Paul. After all, there is vastly better evidence for this attribution than to attribute Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to the men who are now accredited for writing them. Moreover, billions of people accept it as having been written by Paul, a man they believe was inspired by God.

But how is that possible? How could the God who created the universe, who conceived life, who authored the Towrah, who nurtured the Covenant, who freed a nation from slavery, and who enlightened the world while proving His existence and verifying His witness through prophecy have contributed to a book which presents Him as incompetent and impotent?

Fortunately, that question can be resolved since it is impossible. So long as we are willing to invest the time required to consider the evidence with an open mind, so long as we are willing to evaluate the facts rationally, not religiously, together we will determine with absolute certainty that Galatians, and the whole corpus of Pauline literature, indeed, the entire New Testament, is a colossal fraud. And in the end, that is all this study strives to demonstrate.

50There are some far-reaching implications associated with that determination. And that is because the religion of Christianity was established as an extension of the paradigm Paulos proposed in his first public address and epistle.

The Pauline “Jesus Christ” was touted as a new and improved, more tolerant and accepting, nicer and more loving version of the jealous and wrathful God of the oppressive Law, a God out of touch with Greek and Roman sensibilities. The perception of Dowd as the Passover Lamb would be lost in the fog of myth. The realization that even the fables attributed to the mythos of Jesus reveal that he was Towrah-observant, would be convoluted, twisted and inverted, with Christians, as a direct result of Paul’s opening salvo, believing that their “Jesus” had come to annul the old god’s arcane and dreadful “Law,” freeing them from its judgmental nature.

With Yahowah’s name forgotten and replaced, and with Dowd’s substituted, the Christian Savior would become known as “Jesus Christ,” jettisoning all association with Yahowah, His Son and Messiah. In this way, the entirety of Yahowah’s testimony, His role as Creator, Father, and God would be discounted and then dismissed, as would His Torah and His Covenant. Christians would not speak of Him or pray to Him, preferring to focus on their religious caricature.

The Pauline “Jesus Christ” would become an object to be painted with the impressions and opinions of believers, with even the spurious accounts of his words ignored because most everything he is attributed saying was now in conflict with the belief system Paul was foisting on an accepting world. The Christian baby god would be portrayed as a helpless infant cradled in his mother’s arms and then as a dead god on a stick. High praise, indeed.

As a result of what this new paradigm wrought, should 51Paul’s epistle to the Galatians prove to be unreliable for any reason, to be in conflict with Yahowah, the foundational assumptions of the Christian religion fall apart with it, as they could neither be inspired nor be accurate. It is that simple, that clear cut. The fate of the faithful rests in the balance, as does their religion.



Since Paul provides him ample lip service, I understand that Christians believe that “Jesus Christ” was the founder of their religion, but that is not accurate. I understand that Christians believe that it is appropriate to address God as “the Lord,” but that is inadvisable. I understand that Christians believe that “Jesus” is the second person of a Trinity, and represents the totality of God, but that is not possible.

I understand that Christians believe that God died for their sins, but that is an absurdity. I understand that Christians believe that God’s purpose is to save us, but that is unrealistic. I understand that Christians believe that salvation requires nothing of them and that it is a product of faith, but that is ridiculous. I understand that Christians believe that all souls go either to heaven or to hell, but that is irrational.

I understand that Christians believe that “Jesus” was born on Christmas Day, but that is not credible. I understand that Christians believe that Easter commemorates God’s bodily resurrection from the dead, but that would have been counterproductive. I understand that Christians believe that the Covenant’s renewal is depicted in their “New Testament,” making it possible to ignore everything in the Torah, but that is blasphemous. I understand that Christians believe that their “Bible” is the inerrant Word of God, but that is exceedingly ignorant.

52I understand that Christians believe that Paul met with “Jesus” on the road to Damascus, that he had a conversion experience, that he was transformed from being a murderer to serving as an apostle, someone chosen and inspired by God to share the Gospel of Grace with the world, but that is inane. I understand that Christians believe that the Torah was written exclusively for Jews, that it was comprised of old-fashioned laws that no one can obey, and that “Jesus” came to free us from that Law, but that is wholly incongruous with the evidence.

It is an irrefutable fact that no one named “Jesus Christ” lived in the 1^st century of the Common Era. The name “Jesus” was initially conceived in the 17^th century, shortly after the letter “J” was invented. The actual individual who fulfilled Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym was assuredly not Greek, and therefore, he had a very well-known Hebrew name, not a Greek one.

And besides all of this, “Jesus” is not an accurate transliteration of Iesou, Iesous, or Iesoun as the Greek name appears in the Greek text. More incriminating still, these variations of the Greek name were never written on any page of any pre-Constantine codex of the so-called “Christian New Testament.” Following the example of the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Hebrew Towrah and later Prophets, Psalms, and Writing), a two- or three-letter Placeholder was universally deployed to represent this name without actually writing it.

Furthermore, a man named “Jesus” could not have come in His Father’s name. So since the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, and cannot even get his name right, what else might be untrue? And now that you know that “Jesus” isn’t accurate, are you going to start using the actual name of the man who Yahowah delivered to fulfill the Miqra’ey – Dowd?

53“Christ” is not a last name, as in “Jesus Christ.” Since neither the misnomer “Jesus” nor Dowd were Greek, it would be silly to ascribe a Greek title to either of them. Also, a title should never follow a name but instead precede it. And when a title is conveyed, it should be accompanied by the definite article. For example, the Son of God, the Prophet, and our Savior is ha Mashyach | the Anointed Messiah Dowd | David.

Making matters worse, “Christos,” the alleged basis of “Christ,” is derived from the Greek verb, chrio, and speaks of the “application of drugs.” “Christos” is not an accurate translation of “Mashyach,” which is the only Hebrew word which can be transliterated as “Messiah.” And according to Yahowah, He anointed Dowd | David the Mashyach, doing so three times, representing each of his three lives. There is no reference to anointing “Jesus.” Therefore, “Christ” is a misnomer, attributing a title that does not fit and does not belong.

Even then, placeholders were used to present the alleged title on every page of every Greek manuscript scribed in the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, and early 4^th centuries CE. Also, a thorough investigation of the historical evidence demonstrates that the placeholders for this corrupt variation of an essential Hebrew title were based upon Chrestus, a variation of chrestos (Strong’s G5543), not christos (Strong’s G5547), with the former meaning “fit for use and virtuous.” It would have been appropriate and correct in that Dowd volunteered to be a “Useful Implement.” Such is the nature of the Passover Lamb.

Sadly for Christians, however, Christos | Christ was a very poor choice. The only time the misnomer Jesus is translated and recorded using “christos” or its verbal root, “chrio” (Strong’s G5548), is in Revelation 3:18. There, a mal’ak | spiritual messenger of sorts is heard recommending that the Laodiceans symbolically “apply (chrio) to your eyes an eye salve (which was a 54pharmaceutical or drug) so that you may see.”

Chrio, the actionable root of christos, was used correctly because it spoke of “the application of drugs.” The community was famous at the time for manufacturing and promoting an eye balm to improve vision. The implication was that the Laodiceans’ vision was occluded and that if they wanted to recognize who had been standing beside the door and knocking, thereby associating Dowd with Passover, he recommended they become observant.

But by this errant use, it is implied that “Christ” was a drug dealer and that “Christians” were drugged. Replacing the Hebrew Mashyach | Messiah with Christos | Christ was a very poor decision fraught with peril.

Since the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, and can’t even get the title which became the name of their religion right, what else might be untrue? And now that you know that “Christ” isn’t remotely accurate, and does not apply, are you going to start referring to Dowd as the Messiah rather than wrongly stating that Jesus was a Christ?

The character of Jesus emphatically stated that he did not come to replace or to annul any aspect of the Torah, but instead to be the living embodiment of it. Therefore, by upholding the existing standard, he could not be the founder of a new religion. Gospel Jesus was Torah-observant. And this is likely because he served as a replacement for the actual Son of God and Messiah, our Savior Dowd. And since Dowd not only honored the Towrah with Mizmowr | Psalms like the aforementioned 19^th and the grandest of them – the 119^th Song to the Towrah, but also came to fulfill it, the Jesus character modeled the man his myth replaced.

This is why Dowd arrived to serve as the Passover Lamb in year 4000 Yah | 33 CE. This would have been without purpose apart from the Towrah. And yet, the 55moment a person becomes Torah-observant, they cease to be a Christian, which is why believers have replaced almost everything Dowd did and said.

Since the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And now that you know that Dowd was sent because he was Torah-observant, are you going to follow his example?

Throughout the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, God ascribes the title “Lord” to Satan. The Adversary is called “ha Ba’al – the Lord,” because he wants to control the beneficiaries of freewill. The Adversary’s prime objective is for mankind to bow down to him, worshiping him as if the Lord were God. But the actual God has a name, and He has no interest in control or a desire to be worshiped. His name, Yahowah, is pronounced as easily as any of the many thousands of other words and names written throughout His witness: Y-aH-oW-aH.

Based upon the Hebrew verb, “hayah,” “to exist,” Yahowah is found 7000 times in His Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. He not only encouraged us to use this name but said that the replacing of His name with the title, “Lord,” was the most devastating thing humankind has ever done. It opens the door to mischaracterizing His nature and to the acceptance of false gods by any other name.

Further, learning someone’s name is the first step in initiating a relationship. And Yahowah wants us to relate to Him as children would to a father. The proper perspective is to see our Heavenly Father on His knees, offering to lift us up. And as the Author of freewill, God is opposed to lording over anyone. So since the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And now that you know that God’s name is pronounced “Yahowah,” are you going to use it instead of Lord?

56The Trinity is a Babylonian religious concept. This notion was part and parcel of the pagan mythology of the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans. Yahowah never once mentions anything even remotely akin to a Trinity. He not only says that He is singular in nature, but expressly asks us not to accept religious customs such as this. Further, the entirety of God would not fit into our solar system, much less into the body of a physical being.

Also in this regard, Yahowah’s Spirit is set apart from Him. Her title, Ruwach Qodesh, which means “Set-Apart Spirit,” affirms this reality. Representing the Maternal aspects of Yahowah’s nature, She serves as our Spiritual Mother, thereby completing the symbolism of the Covenant Family – the very family we are invited to join. And now that you know that God is one, are you going to start focusing your attention on getting to know Yahowah instead of the “Holy Ghost?”

Yahowah is immortal. He cannot die. Man cannot kill God. Therefore, God could not die for your sins. Yahowah explained this, but Christians seldom listen to Him. As the Passover Lamb, Dowd cited the opening line of his 22^nd Psalm, telling us that the Spirit of God had departed, allowing his physical body to die while his soul went to She’owl to redeem us on UnYeasted Bread. The Psalm explains all of this, including the service Dowd’s soul provided for us on the Qodesh | Set Apart Miqra’ | Invitation to be Called Out and Meet of Matsah | UnYeasted Bread.

Therefore, according to Yahowah, He did not die. As for Dowd’s physical body, the remains of the Passover Lamb were incinerated that same night in accordance with the Towrah’s instructions. So there was no body and no physical resurrection. And this may well explain why, in all three encounters on Firstborn Children, according to the gospel accounts, no one recognized Dowd. He was the same soul, now reunited with the same Spirit, but he was 57only partly corporeal.

Recognizing the relationship between energy and matter, one realizes that being corporeal would be a liability, which is why there is no such thing as bodily resurrection into the spiritual realm. Since the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And now that you know that God could not die for your sins, are you going to follow Dowd’s example and celebrate Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children with him – appreciative of his sacrifice?

Speaking of the first three Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God, they collectively depict the Way Yahowah has provided to perfect us. But saving us isn’t His priority. Yahowah is committed to His Covenant. Salvation is only afforded to its children.

It would be irrational for Yahowah to save souls who do not know Him, who do not care what He has to say, who don’t appreciate what He is offering, and who have worshiped a god of man’s making. Therefore, before a soul can be saved, that individual must first come to know, understand, accept, and then engage in the Covenant based upon the conditions articulated in the Towrah.

The first of these is to walk away from religion and politics, from all things associated with Babylon. We are encouraged to rely on Yahowah instead, walking along a path which makes us immortal and perfect children who are prepared to be adopted into our Heavenly Father’s family, enabling His Spirit to enrich us and empower us. Therefore, salvation is the byproduct of participating in the Covenant and attending the Miqra’ey.

Since the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And now that you know that God has established a handful of conditions that must be met to 58participate in this relationship, are you going to seek to understand them and then respond to God based on what He is actually offering?

If God said, “Love me or I will send you to hell to be tortured,” He would not only be unlovable, He would be sadistic. Because of this scenario, there is a serious problem with the Christian god. However, the real God, Yahowah, said no such thing. According to His testimony, most souls simply cease to exist upon their mortal demise. They do not know God. God does not know them. There is nothing more. No reward. No punishment.

Yahowah provided each of us with the gift of a soul so that we could be observant, giving us freewill so that we could choose to know, ignore, or reject Him, and the benefit of a conscience so that we could exercise good judgment during our lives. The relatively few souls who use these gifts and get to know Yahowah as He revealed Himself in His Towrah, who understand and accept the conditions of His Covenant, and who answer the Invitations to walk to Him live forever with God in His home.

Those souls who are beguiled by religion, or who just have no interest in God, cease to exist. And those who oppose Yahowah, promoting anything that leads others away from God, His Towrah or His Covenant, will spend eternity incarcerated in She’owl, something akin to a black hole.

Since the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And now that you know that most souls do not end up in heaven or hell, are you going to start questioning those who have tried to deceive you, promising heaven to you if you place your faith in them and their religion?

God is immortal. He was not born on any day, much 59less on the Winter Solstice, Christmas Day, when the Son of the Sun was born in virtually every pagan religion – nine months, of course, after the celebration of Easter. Yahowah consistently asks us to reject the religious mythology of pagan cultures, and yet Christians incorporated Babylon’s two holiest days into their faith. This does not please God; it angers Him, especially since Christians celebrate these pagan holidays while ignoring, even rejecting, every one of His Meetings.

This is especially disappointing because Dowd’s purpose was to enable the promises Yahowah had made regarding Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children, enabling the Harvest of Seven Shabats. And after the Trumpets Harvest of Yahuwdym, He will fulfill Reconciliations and Shelters upon His return with His Son.

Since the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And now that you know that God hates Christmas and Easter, are you going to answer His Invitations on the days He designated?

The lone presentation of the Covenant’s renewal is detailed in Yirmayah / Jeremiah 31. And there, Yahowah reveals that this still future restoration of His relationship will be with Yahuwdah and Yisra’el, not with a Gentile church. In the same discussion, He reveals that the only difference between the existing Covenant and its reaffirmation is that upon His return He will personally place a complete copy of His towrah | guidance inside of us. This is significant because God would not have created a New Testament repudiating His Towrah, only to return to the original plan. Nor would He have replaced Yisra’el with a Church, Yahuwdym with Gowym, only to return to comfort His people.

At this moment, at the conclusion of the Time of Israel’s Troubles in 2033, with the Towrah woven into the 60very fabric of our nature, we will reach the point when Yahowah’s Instructions can no longer be corrupted or rejected. All memory of Paul, his letters, and his religion will be wiped out as a result.

So since the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And now that you know that God has only one Covenant, that it has not yet been renewed, and that its restoration is predicated upon the incorporation of His Towrah into our lives, are you going to consider reading it and integrating its guidance into your life?

The evidence is ubiquitous and irrefutable: the Christian New Testament isn’t even remotely reliable. To pretend that it is the inerrant word of God is absurd. There are over 300,000 known differences between the oldest manuscripts and the texts that support legacy and modern translations. No two codices agree on which words were originally written, and that is just the beginning of the problems. No words representing church, cross, holy, saint, Christian, Jesus, Christ, Lord, God, Ghost, Christmas, Easter, communion, Last Supper, Trinity, or Gospel can be found in any ancient manuscript, making all of these things religious corruptions. There are whole sections of books that are not attested in the older witnesses, such as the discussion with the adulterous woman in the 8^th chapter of Yahowchanan | John, the concluding chapter of Mark, or the essential announcement in Matthew 16 that Jesus was the Christ.

Even if we were to assume that these were their correct names, there is no possibility that Mark, Matthew, or Luke were eyewitnesses. At best, these “gospels” are comprised of hearsay. Paul’s fourteen letters, combined with his starring role in Acts, present doctrines that are diametrically opposed to Yahowah’s Towrah and Dowd’s life and lyrics and thus cannot have been inspired by the same God. And then adding to the breadth of problems, we 61have to confront the issue of invalid, incomplete, and misleading translations, something everyone will more fully appreciate by the time we have completed our analysis.

So since the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And now that you know that you cannot rely on the Christian New Testament, where are you going to turn for answers? Ha Towrah, Naby’, wa Mizmowr, perhaps?

Ironically, according to the testimony of the Jesus character during the Olivet Discourse, Paul could not have seen him on the road to Damascus. He told us not to believe anyone who made such a claim. So if Sha’uwl saw a light, it was not that of Gospel Jesus.

Make no mistake, Paul’s message was his own. He never accurately quoted anything Yahowah had a prophet write or that the Gospel’s Jesus said. Paul’s testimony is not only incongruent with the Towrah, it is contrary to all of the prophets. Even Paul’s preaching was the antithesis of every credible witness.

If God can be relied upon, then Paul is a liar. You can either believe Paul or trust God, but no one can accept both. By comparing their words, this book will prove this point beyond any doubt. You will hate Paul before we are through.

The issues that have been raised here should encourage Jews and Christians to begin questioning some of the many myths that have been woven into the fabric of this religion. Moreover, irrefutable evidence to support every conclusion is provided in the volumes of Yada Yahowah, An Introduction to God, Observations, and Coming Home.

Before you consider these, there was a reason for the 62questions. If you are not going to change your thinking when confronted with evidence that undermines your beliefs, then nothing matters. This book, any book, even God’s book cannot influence a closed or irrational mind.

And there are so many more Pauline deceptions to be addressed. I understand that on one hand, Christians, as a direct result of Paul’s letter to the Galatians, have been led to believe that the Torah was written exclusively for Jews, that it was comprised of old-fashioned laws and arcane concepts that are impossible to obey, and that “Jesus” came to free the world from it. Then on the other, Paul has convinced them that all of the Towrah’s promises to these same people still apply, but that they have been miraculously transferred to them. And this juxtaposition of unattested absurdities may be the most inane aspect of the Christian religion.

And now, since the purpose of this book is to address these Pauline propositions, let’s consider the evidence.

