343Twistianity

Appalling

…Contradicting God

7

Poneros | Worthless

Tossing Out the Trash...

The author of the letter to the Galatians began his world-altering treatise by changing his name and then boldly announcing...well, actually, lying…

“Paulos (Paulos – of Latin origin, meaning lowly and little while sounding similar to Apollo), an apostle (apostolos – a messenger who is set forth, a prepared delegate who is dispatched; from stello, one who is set, placed, and prepared, and apo, to be separate), not (ouk) from (apo – separating) men (anthropon), not even (oude) by the means of (dia – through, by, or on behalf of) man (anthropou), but to the contrary (alla – certainly and emphatically) on behalf of (dia – through, by, and by means of) Iesou Christou (ΙΝΥ ΧΡΥ – placeholders used by early Christian scribes for Iesou Christou or Chrestou) and (kai) God (ΘΥ – placeholder for Theos | God), Father (ΠΡΑ – placeholder for Patera | Father) of the (tou) one having roused and awakened (egeiromai – having caused to stand, raising; from agora – to assemble people for a public debate, to vote, or to conduct business with) him (autos) out of (ek – from) a lifeless corpse (nekros – death, a useless, futile, and vain carcass, an ineffective, powerless, and deceased cadaver, a dead body having breathed its last breath; from nekus – a corpse, carcass, or cadaver),…” (Galatians 1:1)

It is interesting, indeed telling, that this man born Sha’uwl would choose to rename himself, discarding his Hebrew heritage in the process. The language of God’s 344revelation was rejected to select a Latin nom de plume. Sha’uwl, now Paulos, was thereby estranging himself from Yahowah’s testimony while reflecting his allegiance to Rome – to mankind’s most powerful kingdom. There was no place on earth more overtly religious, more aggressively political, more savagely militaristic, or more covetous than Rome. At this moment, no other nation was as morally bankrupt or ruthlessly oppressive. And it would be Rome that would forever earn Yahowah’s wrath for destroying His Covenant Home in 70 CE and His city in 133 CE. This change in identity and shifting allegiance should have been sufficient to motivate readers to “sha’uwl – question him.”

The opening line affirms that Paulos, using his replacement moniker, wanted his audience to believe that he was “an Apostle” and, thus, either on the same footing as or in a league of his own above the supposed disciples. He said that he had been “apostolos – prepared and placed as a delegate and messenger” of “Iesou Christou.” It is also telling that the translators of this statement correctly transliterated Paulos and Apostolos and yet could not accurately render the Hebrew name Iesou was replacing.

It is interesting, of course, that, in the Gospels, the character attributed to Jesus said no such thing. The title “Apostle” was not given to Sha’uwl | Paulos by Yahowah either. In fact, rather than speaking for God, God said that Sha’uwl | Paulos spoke presumptuously and deceitfully for himself. This is proof. Sha’uwl sought status he did not deserve or earn.

Paulos’ claim that his message was unrelated to any man or men is untrue. He, by his own admission, was trained to be a rabbi. And this, like every letter Paul wrote, reads like the Talmud, which is a collection of rabbinical arguments regarding the Torah which are designed to empower the words of men above those inspired by God.

It should also be noted that if he had written “ha 345Mashyach Yahowsha’” rather than “Iesou Christou,” even that would have been wrong. While Yahowsha’ is the Hebrew name Iesou seeks to replace, the only Yahowsha’ known to Yahowah was Yahowsha’ ben Nuwn, Moseh’s successor. Further, ha Mashyach | the Messiah title belongs to Dowd | David, along with Melek | King, Ra’ah | Shepherd, and Ben ‘Elohym | Son of God.

Yahowah’s testimony in this regard is comprehensive, consistent, and incontrovertible. Therefore, someone familiar with the Towrah wa Naby’ would never have misappropriated a title that had been given by God to His Beloved. And perhaps that is why even the myth attributed to Jesus in the Gospels is never recorded referring to himself as the Messiah or Son of God – repeatedly and exclusively calling himself instead: “the son of man.” Unfortunately, that title is from Ezekiel, and he was a false prophet. So it’s not looking good for the myth.

Please pause a moment and consider the gravity of these realizations. Had Paul respected Dowd’s proper designation, rather than recasting and misrepresenting his titles – there would have been no Christians, and Jews might have actually understood who he was and what he was doing.

There were two names changed in Sha’uwl’s opening salvo, both of which were originally Hebrew, with one, Sha’uwl, becoming Roman and the other becoming Iesou Christou, and thus rendered as if the mythical man were Greek. With the first stroke of his pen, Paul has revealed his magnum opus: Replacement Theology. All things Yahowah had promised to Abraham, Yitschaq, and Ya’aqob, to Dowd, and to Yisra’el and Yahuwdym throughout His Towrah and Naby’ were snatched away from them and awarded to the edifice Paul was creating: the Christian Church.

When we cast both men under their given names, the 346story is clear. Sha’uwl was trying to hide from the prophecies Yahowah had spoken to condemn him. And in the process Dowd’s name was replaced while Yahowah’s name was abolished. The actual Messiah’s second life as our Savior was obscured. This is the disingenuous foundation of Christendom – a religion whose very name is predicated upon an obvious fraud. And it is all evident to see in the first line of Paulos’ first letter.

Truth was the initial casualty. Life was the second. Had Dowd not fulfilled his role as ha Pesach ‘Ayil | the Passover Lamb, death would be the end of life for all of us. There is no other means to immortality. This is one of many truths Paul obfuscated, damning Christians.

Dowd knew who he was and what he was doing. It is Christians who have misidentified and miscast him in the form of another to promote their religion rather than the relationship he sacrificed himself to achieve. It is their loss.

Whether you concur with Yahowah and Dowd | David on this matter at this juncture is your choice. My job is to tell you the truth, to lay all of the words God revealed face up on the table and explain what they mean. So long as you are not disparaging Yahowah and Yahuwdym, what you decide is your business.

If properly identifying the characters in Yahowah’s story, beginning with God, Himself, and coming to appreciate the roles each play, is important to you, then mark this page and set this book down for the moment. Go to YadaYah.com and open Volume One of Coming Home, A Voice, and begin reading until you are satisfied. Then, if you are still curious as to the nature of the ploy Paul is presenting, return to Twistianity for the sake of the billions still beguiled by his deceit.

Other than the two speeches recorded by the ‘Ebownym and pilfered by Matthew, inclusive of the Instruction on the Mount and perhaps the Olivet Discourse, 347we know very little of what Dowd said during the second of his three lives. The only eyewitness reporting on the fulfillment of Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym was composed one thousand years in advance in first person by the lone participant – Dowd – in Mizmowr | Psalms 22 and 88. Although, they are more than sufficient in their gruesome and glorious detail.

There is a reason we have the words of Yahowah’s prophets accurately preserved, in the language God and they spoke, and nothing from Iesou Christus similarly maintained. Yahowah told His prophets, beginning with Moseh, to write every word down so that His testimony would be accurately preserved for future generations. We are the beneficiaries of God’s relentless insistence on recording everything He said in writing.

And yet, Iesou Christus (now called “Jesus Christ”), unlike the great liberator, Moseh | Moses, the articulate judge, Shamuw’el | Samuel, the brilliant lyricist Dowd | David, or any of the prophets such as Yasha’yah | Isaiah, Yirmayah | Jerimiah, and Zakaryah | Zachariah, did not scribe a single word. He did not even ask his supposed disciples to commit anything he said to writing.

There is only the remotest and most tortured of possibilities that one of them – John – may have done so on his own initiative. But even then, it would have been six decades later when he would have been ninety years old and hobbling around in Ephesus – too far removed in time and place to be remotely credible. And the evidence in favor of this exceedingly unlikely happenstance is triple hearsay clothed in incredulous religious fables.

We can bemoan this reality, but we cannot deny it. So perhaps we should seek to understand it. And in this regard, the answer is staring us in the face. Yahowah inspired His prophets to speak to us and His Son, our Messiah, Dowd, to act on our behalf. Yahowah’s words led to the Zarowa’s 348lives and lyrics.

Dowd was not here to provide additional prophecy or commentary, but instead to fulfill what he and other prophets had already written about him. We will find everything we need to know about the role and result of the Passover Lamb scribed in the Towrah, Naby’, wa Mizmowr – notably in Qara’ / Called Out / Leviticus and Yasha’yah / Yahowah Liberates and Saves / Isaiah, along with the Lamb’s eyewitness accounts in the 22^nd and 88^th Mizmowr / Psalms.

While that is a lot to digest, I would like to move on to other, albeit related, matters. Dowd spoke for himself and for Yahowah, but against religion. He did not predict the arrival of another nor sponsor a new faith. And since Dowd’s and Yahowah’s words are available to us in the language they conveyed them, we already know what Dowd would have said if asked about any of these things.

Further, for Sha’uwl | Paul to have claimed to have spoken for his fabled Iesou Christus, he would have had to have cited what he is alleged to have said in the Gospels. However, there isn’t a single accurate citation from Iesou Christus to be found anywhere within Paul’s fourteen letters. The closest he comes is to a misquote of his role as the Passover Lamb and its association with the Covenant – which by itself invalidates the imposter’s dependence on Replacement Theology. Any association between Passover and the Covenant completely obliterates Paul’s entire proposition.

To claim to speak for someone, to assert to have been chosen to represent them, and to never accurately quote anything that individual had to say is disrespectful and disingenuous. Simply stated: the self-proclaimed and wholly unsubstantiated assertion that Sha’uwl | Paul was chosen to speak for anyone other than himself, particularly Yahowah and His Messiah, is a lie. It is as obvious and 349simple as that. To deny this reality is to be either ignorant or irrational – or both. But I suppose that is why it takes “faith.”

I wonder if Christians have ever considered why Paul’s new name appeared first in his letter and Yahowah’s name was not mentioned. As a rabbinical student, Paul would have both known it and have been taught to avoid it. But without it, there is a zero percent chance that he spoke for Yahowah. Moreover, Sha’uwl would have known that everyone, without exception, inspired by Yahowah continually integrates Yahowah’s name throughout their testimony and never mentions any other name for God. But Sha’uwl | Paul did not, which means that his fraud was deliberate.

By failing to incorporate Yahowah’s name, like the rabbis after him, Paul conclusively demonstrated for all those familiar with the Towrah’s test for inspiration, that he was not a prophet and did not speak for God. The penalty is death. And while we have been over this before, it bears repeating…

“With absolute certainty (‘ak), the person who proclaims a message on behalf of a deity (ha naby’) who deliberately oversteps their bounds and speaks arrogantly and presumptuously, defiantly concocting a rebellious scheme (‘asher zyd) for the express purpose of conveying words (la dabar dabar) under My reputation and designation (ba shem ‘any) which (‘asher ‘eth) I have not expressly appointed, taught, authorized, nor directed him (lo’ tsawah huw’) to (la) convey (dabar), or (wa) who (‘asher) speaks (dabar) in the name (ba shem) of other and additional (‘acher) gods (‘elohym), then (wa) that prophet (ha naby’ ha huw’) is actually deadly (muwth). (Dabarym 18:20)

And if you say (wa ky ‘amar) using your best judgment (ba lebab ‘atah), ‘How (‘eykah) can we 350actually recognize and consistently know (yada’) the statements which (‘eth ha dabar ‘asher) Yahowah (Yahowah – transliterated as guided by His towrah | instructions on His hayah | existence and His role in our shalowm | reconciliation as ‘elowah | Almighty God), Himself (huw’), has not spoken (lo’ dabar huw’)?’ (Dabarym 18:21)

When a prophet speaks (‘asher dabar ha naby’) in the reputation and designation (ba shem) of Yahowah (YaHoWaH), and the matter discussed (ha dabar) has not occurred (lo’ hayah) or (wa) does not come to be (lo’ bow’), this is a message (huw’ ha dabar) that (‘asher) Yahowah (Yahowah – the proper pronunciation of YaHoWaH, our ‘elowah | God as directed in His ToWRaH | teaching regarding His HaYaH | existence and our ShaLoWM | restoration) has not spoken to him (lo’ dabar huw’). Such a prophet (naby’) has stated it (dabar huw’) arrogantly, presumptively, and independently of his own accord (ba zadown). You should not revere or respect him for having conspired to incite an alienating rebellion (lo’ guwr min huw’).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 18:22)

It is as if this was written explicitly to warn the world, especially Yisra’el, about Sha’uwl | Paul. Unlike Paul, neither Akiba nor Maimonides ventured into historical narratives or prophecy. And while Muhammad did both, he spoke of “Allah,” not the God of the Towrah. Moreover, he was so pathetic, we don’t need any help rejecting him.

And of course, Yahowah’s Test for inspiration, one Paul failed as miserably as would Muhammad after him, does not stand alone. Before it, we find Yahowah repudiating religion…

“Indeed, when (ky) you come upon (‘atah bow’ ‘el – you enter into, are led and return to, and are included within) the land which, for the benefit of the 351relationship (‘asher), Yahowah, your God (Yahowah ‘elohym ‘atah), is giving (nathan – is bestowing and entrusting) to you (la ‘atah), you should not accept, learn, teach, or imitate (lo’ lamad – you should not instruct, be trained in, or become accustomed to), such that you act upon and engage in (la ‘asah – you effect, attend to, commit, celebrate, profit from, bring about, ordain, institute, or perform), any semblance (ka – any derivative or similitude) of the disgusting religious rites and political practices (tow’ebah – abhorrent ceremonies, detestable idolatrous mythologies, repulsive and loathsome rituals, abominable festivals) of the Gentiles (ha gowym ha hem – of the people from different races, customs, and places). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 18:9)

There shall not be found (lo’ matsa’) among you (ba ‘atah) one causing his son or daughter to pass through and perish (‘abar ben huw’ wa bath huw’ – threatening them with entering a hellish inferno) in flames (ba ha ‘esh), someone predicting the future based upon pagan religious notions as a false prophet or conspiratorialist (qasam qasam), a person who obscures the truth and believes in spiritualism (wa ‘anan), or one who tempts and charms others (wa nachash), an individual who entices and seduces people to worship and pray (wa kashaph), (Dabarym 18:10) one who joins in and binds together by forming political or religious alliances (wa chabar cheber), one who is obsessed with ghosts, makes requests of saints, or speaks on behalf of dead souls (sha’al ‘owb), a con man who beguiles in association with demonic spirits (yida’ony), or one who causes the premature death of others in association with a destructive plague (wa darash ‘el ha muwth). (Dabarym 18:11) For indeed (ky), all who engage in and act upon (kol ‘asah) these things (‘eleh) are an abomination, considered abhorrent and detestable (tow’ebah) to Yahowah (YaHoWaH). And so as a consequence of this repulsive religious excrement and filthy idolatrous crap 352(wa ba galal tow’ebah ha ‘eleh), Yahowah (YaHoWaH), your God (‘elohym ‘atah), will drive them out, dispossess them, and then destroy them (yarash ‘eth hem) away from your presence (min paneh ‘atah).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 18:12)

This warning is directed at the most pervasive and destructive gentile religion in human history – Pauline Christianity. Avoid it like the plague that it has become.

It was then that Yahowah revealed that we can be made right with Him. And the means to this ideal state of affairs is through Dowd. And that is why God shared this amazing prophecy regarding His Son and our Messiah and Savior…

“You can actually become completely and continually perfected by being consistently right, becoming acceptable (tamym hayah) with (‘im) Yahowah (YaHoWaH – an accurate presentation of the name of ‘elowah | God as guided by His towrah | instructions regarding His hayah | existence), your God (‘elohym ‘atah). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 18:13)

By comparison (ky), these people from different races and places (ha gowym ha ‘el leh – the gentiles and those from other nations), who you shall dispossess and remove (‘asher ‘atah yarash – who, for the benefit of the relationship, you will distance yourself from and disassociate with), they listen to (‘eth hem shama’ ‘el) false prophets who obscure the truth with myths (‘anan – spellbinders, spiritualists, and politicians blowing smoke, those who venerate saints and ancestors, often concealing their actual motives while clouding the issue and acting covertly) and believe in antiquated religious notions and invalid opinion makers (wa qasam – and respond to cultural and conspiratorial suggestions, forming invalid conclusions based upon ancestry).

But as for you (wa ‘atah), this is not the correct way 353(lo’ ken) Yahowah (YaHoWaH), your God (‘elohym ‘atah), has offered to you for you to approach (nathan la ‘atah). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 18:14)

A prophet (naby’ – a person who is inspired by Yahowah, who communicates and records the testimony of God, and who is accurate regarding past and future events) from among your midst (min qereb ‘atah), from your brethren (min ‘ach ‘atah – related to you), similar to me (kamow ‘any – in accord with me and who can be compared to me), Yahowah (Yahowah), your God (‘elohym ‘atah), will raise up and position to take a stand which establishes and affirms you (quwm la ‘atah – He will validate and confirm, elevating the status to encourage and restore you, enabling you to approach and rise). To him, I want you to actually and continually listen (‘el huw’ shama’). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 18:15)

This is consistent with everything (ka kol) which (‘asher) you requested while questioning (sha’al min ‘im) Yahowah (Yahowah), your God (‘elohym ‘atah), in Choreb (ba Choreb) during the day of the assembly (ba yowm ha qahal), when you said (la ‘amar – requesting), ‘Never again let me hear (lo’ yasaph la shama’ ‘eth) the voice (‘eth qowl) of Yahowah (YaHoWaH), my God (‘elohym ‘any). Nor let me see and witness (wa lo’ ra’ah) this intense fire (‘eth ha ‘esh ha gadowl ha zo’th) anymore (‘owd), lest I die (wa lo’ muwth).’ (Dabarym 18:16) Therefore (wa), Yahowah (YaHoWaH) said to me (‘amar ‘el ‘any), ‘That is actually better, and they have appropriately conveyed their preference (yatab ‘asher dabar – they have responded as expected under the circumstances, communicating what they want regarding the relationship and it is acceptable, even beneficial for such communication). (Dabarym 18:17)

I will raise up and establish (quwm – I will set up and confirm) a prophet (naby’ – a man I can inspire to accurately convey past and future events) for them (la 354hem) from among their brothers (min qereb ‘achy hem) similar to you (kemow ‘atah). And I will put (wa nathan) My words (dabarym ‘any – My message and testimony) in his mouth (ba peh huw’) and he will convey to them (wa dabar ‘el hem) everything which, for the benefit of the relationship (‘eth kol ‘asher), I instruct him (tsawah huw’). (Dabarym 18:18)

And it shall come to be (wa hayah) that an individual who (ha ‘iysh ‘asher) will not listen (lo’ shama’) to My words (‘el dabarym ‘any – My testimony), which he shall declare (‘asher dabar – which he will share to show the way to the benefits of the relationship and to get the most enjoyment out of life) in My name (ba shem ‘any), I, Myself, will seek it of him and hold him accountable for it, requiring it of him (‘anoky darash min ‘im huw’ – I will hold him responsible after conducting an investigation to see if he can present it).’” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 18:19)

Thank you Yahowah for making this so easy for us. But I must apologize for how poorly we have responded. You asked us not to be religious, and to be right with You instead. Then when Your people complained that they were uncomfortable in Your presence, You presented the ideal solution – Your beloved Son, Dowd. I am sorry that it has taken us so long to fully appreciate everything you have done for us. So it is long past time that we eradicate the viral plagues wrought by the likes of Paul, Akiba, and Muhammad so that, free of them, Your people might return to You.

It gets worse for the author of the Christian New Testament because by excluding Yahowah’s name from his letters and speeches, Sha’uwl | Paul committed the lone unforgivable crime against God and man. Recorded in the Third Statement on the First Tablet, the negation of Yahowah’s name is unforgivable – a crime for which there is no redemption. Having renounced it, and doing this so 355publicly and egregiously, we can be assured that Sha’uwl | Paul will endure an eternity in She’owl | Hell with ha Satan | the Adversary who inspired him.

While it is small barley compared to the mountain of garbage we have just considered, had Paulos been correct about Dowd being ha Mashyach in his letter, the pseudonym and title are reversed. And this is no “paulos – small” mistake. With “Iesou Christou,” the errant name and erroneous title are reversed, giving the false impression that the individual’s name was “Jesus Christ.” More on this in a moment.

Turning to the final mistake of Paul’s initial sentence, God did not die. God cannot die. He did not fall asleep, either. And with absolute certainty, we know that Dowd’s basar | corporeal body was destroyed after having served its purpose, consistent with the Towrah’s instructions. Therefore, his corpse was not resurrected. All of this is a lie, wholly inconsistent with Yahowah’s teaching and prophecy on the subject of the Passover Lamb.

By being tsadaq | right with Yahowah, Dowd represented the perfect Pesach ‘Ayil. Moments before His physical body was sacrificed on our behalf as the Pesach lamb, Yahowah’s Spirit left Him, something Dowd confirmed when he cried out, “My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?” (Mizmowr 22) And then his nepesh | soul, the very expression and essence of his life carried the guilt of the Covenant Family into She’owl. After which, Dowd’s soul was reunited with Yahowah’s Spirit as the Son reentered his Father’s Home.

The reason he made this declarative statement was twofold. First, he wanted to direct our attention to the lyrics he wrote in his own 22^nd Mizmowr | Psalm so that we might understand what was occurring. As a prophet, Dowd had already seen what he would endure and, as the lone eyewitness, wrote about his fulfillment of Passover, 356UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children.

The second reason that Dowd made this declaration is because it completely undermines the religion that would be used to mischaracterize him and misconstrue his sacrifice. Based upon this declaration, God did not die for anyone’s sins. Further, “Jesus Christ” never existed which would preclude the notion that he was God. With Dowd’s parting statement, there is nothing left of Christianity.

In his own words, as they were pronounced one thousand years in advance by the Messiah and Son of God, Dowd’s corporeal and beaten body was left on a Roman torture stake to die as the Passover Lamb. Please pause once again to consider the implications.

He sacrificed his body to nurture the family and promote eternal life. Had the Pesach ‘Ayil not been offered on this occasion in concert with the Towrah’s instructions, we would have been deprived of the opportunity to live. Yahowah had made this promise to Abraham when He was affirming the Covenant, saying that He would provide the ‘Ayil | Lamb.

This, of course, negates the foundation of Replacement Theology. According to Paul, Jews were condemned by his god because “they killed Jesus.” And while it was Rome, not Jews, who slew the Lamb, had the Jews been responsible for leading the Passover Lamb to the sacrifice, the world should be applauding them not hounding them.

Therefore, we can be assured that the Christian mythology underlying Replacement Theology is invalid. God could not be angry with His people for doing what He intended. Just because men are capricious and unreliable, does not mean that God turned away from Yisra’el, withdrawing every promise He had made on their behalf. He did not transfer these sworn oaths to the people who murdered the Lamb of God either – the Romans who 357became the Roman Catholic Church. The case for Christendom has quickly unraveled.

In accordance with the Towrah, the physical body of the Passover Lamb was offered so that we might live. His soul, however, did not die. It descended into She’owl, the place of separation from God, on the Miqra’ of Matsah, known as UnYeasted Bread, to remove the fungus of religious and political rebellion from our souls. It was the most horrid experience imaginable, and thus hardly a snooze.

The consequence of ignoring Pesach and Matsah, which is precisely what Paul did in his opening declaration, is life and death, salvation and damnation. Without Passover, we remain mortal. Without Matsah, we retain our faults. So while Bikuwrym | Firstborn Children warrants our attention, without Pesach and Matsah, there isn’t anything to celebrate.

Should you credit Paul with an indirect mention of the Passover Lamb, in that he acknowledged there was a “corpse,” there is something far worse than failing to capitalize on Pesach. It is why Pesach and Matsah are one contiguous event, one inseparable from the other. To benefit from Passover while ignoring UnYeasted Bread is to become eternally separated from God. He calls this outcome She’owl | Hell. It is synonymous with Sha’uwl | Paul because he has directed more souls there than any other.

There are deceptions big and small woven into the deceiver’s claim that “God, Father of the one having roused and awakened him out of a lifeless corpse (nekros – death, a useless, futile, and vain carcass, an ineffective, powerless, and deceased cadaver, a dead body having breathed its last breath; from nekus – a corpse, carcass, or cadaver).”

God did not “rouse” His beloved Son. The body of the 358Passover Lamb never comes back to life. The Pesach ‘Ayil restores our lives, not his own. There would have been no purpose to the sacrifice if Dowd’s body had been reanimated, rising from the dead.

Assuring that the observant individual would never make this mistake, Yahowah told us to incinerate the inedible portions of the Pesach ‘Ayil after being nourished by the meal. Therefore, the same evening the Messiah Dowd’s body served as the Lamb, his corpse was destroyed, incinerated by Yahowah’s light. (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 12:10) There could not have been a bodily resurrection because there was no longer a body.

For those who may protest, saying that the alleged disciples saw him, let’s keep it real. Even in the myths attributed to the misnomer Jesus, his mother and the women in his life mistook him for a gardener. The fellows on the road to Emmaus, who had been in Yaruwshalaim as these events were transpiring, were clueless as to who he was when he approached them later that day (Luke 24:13-18). And the same evening with his supposed followers, he not only passed through a wall – something a physical body cannot accomplish – even they did not recognize him. (John 20:19)

When his soul reunited with his Father’s Ruwach, Dowd was no longer using the tortured body that had served its purpose. If he made any appearance in our physical world, it would have been as the Covenant’s children will one day do, by transferring a small amount of his spiritual energy into matter as a result of Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children and being enriched and empowered by his Father.

That is a whole lot better than returning in the body the Romans had mutilated and distorted when they tortured him. It is why I am so disgusted, as is God, by the Christian propensity to worship “Jesus Christ” as a dead god on a 359stick and then claim that his ravaged body was resurrected.

Physical bodies are burdensome and limiting. They degrade over time. With a body, we cannot leave this solar system, much less explore the universe or enter heaven. Bodily resurrection is physically impossible and totally counterproductive. The miracle is a result of Chag Matsah, whereby the perfected become Yahowah’s children, empowered, enriched, and enlightened.

During those three days, Dowd’s regenerated body served as the Passover Lamb, and what was left of it after enduring Roman torture was incinerated, ceasing to exist, in harmony with the Towrah’s instructions. His soul entered She’owl on Matsah to unleaven souls. Then on the Miqra’ of Bikuwrym, known as Firstborn Children, the Messiah’s soul was reunited with the Set-Apart Spirit, becoming the firstborn of the Covenant. Thereby, the Towrah’s promise to make us immortal, to perfect and adopt us, was fulfilled.

Then as further evidence that a corpse was not reanimated or resurrected as Paul has written, the only common denominator amongst the three Gospel accounts was that no one recognized him.

In his opening statement, Paul got everything wrong: his name, his title, his status, his sponsor, his inspiration, Dowd’s name and title, Yahowah’s name, the relationship between Yahowah and His Son, all while promoting the myth that God died, fell asleep on the job, and was bodily resurrected from a corpse. It was not an auspicious beginning.

God, Himself, proves that each of the explanations I have laid before you is valid. In due time, we will consider Yahowah’s position on them because, without continually sharing God’s view, this book fails to live up to its potential. My goal is not to leave Christians floundering, but instead to replace the lies Paul has sown with the truth. 360I will take away nothing that is worthwhile, but for those who are receptive, I will provide you with a clear and correct path to God.

In this regard, Sha’uwl | Paul did not say, at least in his opening line, that he was speaking for “God, the Father.” That subtlety is lost on most Christians who have replaced Yahowah with their “Lord Jesus Christ,” in effect focusing on a myth as opposed to God.

This issue isn’t insignificant. Even if we were to play along and pretend there was a Jesus Christ, he could not have been equivalent to God. Even by the myth’s own admission, he is cited saying, “The Father is greater than I am.” (John 14:28)

All of God cannot fit into a human form, and the undiminished presence of God would consume our planet. This known, there is the possibility of a diminished manifestation of God. This is explained by Einstein’s famous equation E=mc². Since Yahowah is Spirit and describes Himself as Light, He is energy. Men are corporeal and thus matter. Einstein’s formula reveals that energy and matter are exactly the same thing, but they are not equivalent. He proved that matter is a substantially diminished form of energy.

If the mythical Jesus was the equivalent of Yahowah, what’s known as the “Lord’s” prayer (Matthew 6:9) becomes nonsensical, as it would have Jesus saying: “Pray to Me who is not in heaven, set apart is My name, My kingdom come, My will be done in earth as in heaven…” Recognizing that they were not the same, it is curious that Paul saw himself representing the mythical representative.

The Greek word that we transliterate “Apostle,” apostollo, when used correctly is important. It means “to be set apart, prepared, and equipped.” While Paulos was the furthest thing from this, even today far too many individuals go off pretending to be witnesses without first 361studying the Torah and Prophets. As a result, those who are inadequately and improperly enlightened do more harm than good.

Paul was also missing from what would have been the most important event recorded in Acts had it been true – the fulfillment of the fourth Invitation to be Called Out of Seven Shabats (what Christians have errantly named “Pentecost | Fifty”). Those fooled into believing that during the fourth Miqra’, the supposed disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-4), have a number of issues to overcome. First, Shabuw’ah is a Harvest, and there was none on this day. Second, those harvested must previously have benefited from the fulfillment of the first three Miqra’ey – all of which the New Testament denies. And third, the wheat harvest of Shabuw’ah is in our future, not our past. It will occur on May 22, 2026 – seven years prior to Dowd’s return with Yahowah.

Even in the Gospel fables, there were twelve disciples chosen by Jesus. Not one was religious, as was the case with Paul. They were said to have accompanied him and witnessed his every word and deed. And that is why they were referred to them as “disciples,” meaning “those who learn.” But from this introduction, as well as from the introductions Paulos wrote to the Corinthians, Romans, Colossians, and Ephesians, we know that Sha’uwl | Paul was too full of himself to be a “learner,” so he passed on the “Disciple” moniker altogether. It was beneath his ego. He would instead be the Teacher.

Still, Paul coveted a title that did not belong to him, by his craving to be seen as important and credible, he arrogantly and presumptuously overstepped his bounds. Moreover, he knew that every word of what he had written was a lie – one he would repeat many times.

One of the reasons we know that Paulos intended to convey “Apostle” as a title, rather than use apostolos as a 362descriptive term, is that, in his letters to Rome and Corinth, he writes “Paulos, called an Apostle.” The men and women he fooled called him by the title he craved.

Since Paul claimed to speak for God, it is our responsibility to consider his statements in light of the Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 13 and 18 tests established by God to evaluate the legitimacy and consequence of such assertions. While we will delve into the first of these in future chapters, suffice it to say for now, Yahowah revealed that the best way to recognize who is or isn’t speaking for Him is to recognize what He, Himself, has previously conveyed. To accomplish this, we must closely examine and carefully consider His Towrah – which is the approach we have used thus far.

Yahowah is clear, revealing that no one is authorized to add to or subtract from His Towrah. So if we witness the Towrah’s role in our lives being diminished by anyone, or if we find a writer adding something new, like a new covenant, we should be careful because such a person isn’t speaking for God.

In Dabarym 13, Yahowah reveals that if the prophet stands up and establishes himself, as Paulos has done, he is a false prophet. If he claims to have performed miracles, as Paulos will do, he is a false prophet. If he encourages his audience to go after other gods by other names, like the Roman Gratia or Greek Charis, whom Paulos sponsored, even the Iesous Christus, he is a false prophet. If he promotes religious worship, which is the result of Paulos’ letters, he is a false prophet. If his writings fail to affirm his love and respect for Yahowah, then he does not know Him. And that is a problem for Paulos because he implies that Yahowah is incompetent, impotent, and worse.

In addition, a man is a false prophet if he encourages anyone to disregard the terms and conditions of the Beryth or Miqra’ey, which comprise Yahowah’s Way. And of 363such false prophets, God says that they are in opposition to Him, both ruinous and deadly, so we should completely remove their disagreeable, displeasing, and evil corruptions from our midst.

Then in Dabarym 18, as we are now aware, Yahowah delineated the six signs of false prophets: they claim to speak for Him, they are arrogant, overstepping their bounds, their words are inconsistent with the Torah’s instructions, they recite the names of foreign gods, their historical presentations are inaccurate, and their prophetic promises fail to materialize. Sha’uwl | Paul failed every codicil of this test too.

In his opening salvo, Paul claimed that he did not represent any man or any human institution, and that would of course include the ekklesia, the Greek term which has been co-opted to represent the Christian Church. And that would have made Sha’uwl a freelance operator and an independent contractor had he not contradicted himself and referred to the ekklesia as his own.

The flip side of this admission is also problematic. If Sha’uwl | Paul did not write on behalf of what he learned from religious teachers in rabbinical school, then his ubiquitous references to the “nomos” must denote the Towrah as opposed to the Talmud. This being the case, the principal methodology used by those who are Torah observant, to reconcile Paul’s epistles with Yahowah’s Word, was torn asunder by his opening statement. The facts are evident and undeniable. There is no getting around the realization that the “nomos” is an object of scorn and ridicule in this epistle. And at no time does Sha’uwl associate the “nomos” with Rabbinic Law by citing Talmudic sources. Not once – ever. On the contrary, his examples and citations are all from the Torah, clearly identifying the document he is assailing.

Also convicting, if Paulos was speaking for Iesous, 364why didn’t he quote him? If he was Yahowah’s messenger, why is Yahowah’s Word discounted and never cited accurately? Why, if Paul was speaking for God, is his most repeated line, “But I, Paulos, say...” If Sha’uwl was Yahowah’s apostle, why do his letters contradict God?

Sha’uwl / Paulos / Paul proved that he was allergic to the truth, and therefore incongruent with Yahowah by his insistence that the Towrah | Teaching and Guidance was a set of binding laws and strict rules. This was the position held by the religious rulers of the day – the Pharisees – whom Yahowah’s prophets rebuked and refuted. So whether he was attacking the Oral Laws of the rabbis or the Torah, itself, his conclusions were all wrong – especially since he has told us that he isn’t speaking based upon what he learned while training to be a rabbi.

Based upon his opening stanza, Paul has positioned himself as an authority on God, as someone who spoke for God, but not ostensibly as the founder of a religion – albeit that is what he has become. His greeting displays neither religious qualifications nor an overt religious agenda. In fact, Sha’uwl only used the word religion twice, and both times it was called “the Jews’ religion.” (Galatians 1:13-14) That is a sobering thought if you are a “Christian.”

Paul would, however, contradict himself and establish all of the trappings for a new religion, replete with a paid and empowered clergy and a plethora of personal edicts – all of which he said had to be obeyed. Ironic for a man so steadfast against what he claimed were God’s rules. And he slyly perverted the Towrah and Prophets to make his assertions appear both reasonable and divine. (Read 1 Timothy 5:17-18, 1 Corinthians 9:1-11, and then 16:1-3 for evidence of this.)

I am aware that Christians have been led to believe that “Jesus Christ was the founder of the religion of Christianity,” and that “Paul spoke for him,” but those 365conclusions aren’t supportable. The institution of Christianity is founded on Paul’s writings, and Jesus Christ never existed. Moreover, the character presented in the Gospels was Torah observant. His teachings were derived from the Torah. Therefore, to follow the fable, the devotee would have to become Towrah-observant. And in so doing, he or she would cease to be a Christian.

To his credit, or shame, Sha’uwl was telling the truth up to a point. He wasn’t entirely inspired by men. In his second letter to the Corinthians, as we have already read, he claimed to be demon-possessed, guided and controlled by one of Satan’s messengers. But that is not to say that everything Paulos wrote was inaccurate. He correctly referred to God as the Father. But this statement of fact in a sea of lies only serves to make his deceptions appear credible.

For example, far too many people have been beguiled into believing that everything the Adversary inspires someone to say must be untrue. They even believe that in a satanic religion, Satan is worshiped overtly under his name and true identity. But this is not how he or his advocates deceive, and this is not what the Devil is trying to achieve. In actuality, Satan usurps Yahowah’s credibility to fool the unsuspecting to worship him, not as the Adversary, but as if he were God. Satan wants to be known by the title Yahowah gave him: “Lord.” It elicits bowing, control, servitude, ownership, and worship.

Continuing to expose Paul’s errant opening statement, it was the Ruwach Qodesh | Set-Apart Spirit who enabled the fulfillment of Bikuwrym while Dowd’s Father awaited His Son’s return. She (Ruwach is feminine) retrieved the Messiah’s nepesh | soul from She’owl, enveloping his consciousness in the embrace of Her loving, protective, and loving Maternal nature. And it was the Ruwach who brought Her Son Home to Yahowah.

366By contrast, however, since nekros is based upon nekus, meaning “corpse,” the conclusion of Sha’uwl’s statement actually reads as I have rendered it: “and God, Father of the one having roused and awakened, raising him out of being a lifeless corpse (nekros – death, a useless, futile, and vain carcass, an ineffective, powerless, and deceased cadaver, a dead body having breathed its last breath).” While “raising Him from the dead” sounds familiar to Christian ears, such was not the case. Only Dowd’s basar | physical body suffered the indignity of death, not his soul nor the Set-Apart Spirit. Further, he was not asleep and his corpse had been destroyed and thus did not rise.

This isn’t a small technical point. Passover is the door to Heaven and to eternal life. UnYeasted Bread serves as the means to perfect us by removing our guilt. Firstborn Children is the result, enabling our incorporation into our Heavenly Father’s Covenant family where we are enriched and empowered. If the returning Messiah didn’t enable these promises, if he slept on the job, if he was ineffective, or worse dead, then we all die estranged from God.

And while Passover is essential, UnYeasted Bread is vastly more important. That is why Paul’s premise of suggesting that nothing happened on Matsah, and that his Jesus slept through the unmentioned Shabat, or was dead at the time, completely negates Yahowah’s plan of reconciliation.

Moreover, Firstborn Children is symbolic of our souls being reborn Spiritually into our Heavenly Father’s Family – not of us retaining our flawed, limiting, and decaying physicality. This is one of several reasons that the Towrah teaches the following regarding the body of the Passover Lamb: “And do not leave it until morning, and what remains of it before morning, you are to burn with fire.” (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 12:10)

367Moving on to the deployment of the placeholders, they are often overlooked. Not one Christian in a million knows of their existence. And yet four of the most common names and titles in Christendom were represented by them in this greeting. ΙΝΥ represents “Iesou,” which became “Jesus” in the 17^th century after the invention of the letter “J.” ΧΡΥ was used to convey either “Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement,” not “ha Mashyach | the Messiah.” ΘΥ was used by early Christian scribes to write “Theos | God,” not “‘el or ‘elohym | the Almighty,” in Hebrew. And Yahowah’s favorite title, “‘ab | Father,” based upon the first word comprised of the first two letters in the Hebrew lexicon and alphabet, was misrepresented by ΠΡΑ, written Patera in Greek. Patera, transliterated as Papa in Latin, then became Pope, with men attempting to usurp Yahowah’s favorite title so that they could use it to rule over men as if wielding God’s authority.

Examples of placeholders not used in this particular statement, but ubiquitous throughout the rest of the Greek texts, and universally found in every 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, and early 4^th-century manuscript, direct us to the Greek interpretations of “spirit,” “lord,” “mother” and “son,” when used in reference to the Christian god.

While codices dating to the first three centuries vary considerably among themselves and differ substantially from those composed after the influence of General Constantine and his publicist, Bishop Eusebius, the use of placeholders is the lone exception to scribal variation among the early manuscripts. These Greek symbols for the Christian deification of “Jesus Christ,” the “Lord God,” and “Son” are universally found on every page of every extant codex written within 300 years of the misappropriation of Dowd’s mission to fulfill Chag Matsah. Nevertheless, they are universally ignored by Christian translators, writers, and preachers. Therefore, I am including them here in the text because it is incumbent 368upon us to expose and condemn 1,700 years of religious tampering and corruption.

The very fact that these placeholders are found on all of the manuscripts unearthed prior to the mid-4^th century tells us that it wasn’t a regional or scribal choice. Instead, they convey something both profoundly important and equally misguided because the deliberate intent throughout the oldest manuscripts was to deify “Jesus Christ,” the “Lord God,” and “Son.” Big mistake.

Therefore, the only constant among the earliest witnesses to the Christian New Testament is the one thing every translator has ignored. There isn’t even a footnote in any of the English translations indicating that these divine placeholders were universally depicted in all of the oldest manuscripts, including the codices, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. As a result, Christians do not know that these symbols existed, much less that they were later replaced by translators substituting the very names and titles which would have been written out by the original authors had they been intended.

Kappa Sigma and Kappa Upsilon, in capital letters with a line over them, were used in place of Yahowah’s name when citing a Towrah text in which it was included. This placeholder was also used with regard to the Christian misnomer, “Jesus.” Both uses are problematic because the placeholders were based upon Kurios or Kyrios, the Greek word for “Lord” which, according to God, is Satan’s title.

This obvious conclusion has been reaffirmed recently by the publication of early Septuagint manuscripts. In them, we find a transition from writing Yahowah’s name in paleo-Hebrew, in the midst of the Greek text throughout the 1^st and 2^nd centuries, to using the symbolism of Kappa Sigma to represent Yahowah’s name beginning in the 3^rd century – after the emergence of Christianity. It is, therefore, likely that the Placeholders ΚΣ and ΚΥ were 369initially used to designate Yahowah’s name in a language whose alphabet could not accurately replicate its pronunciation.

Also, by finding “Yahowah” written in paleo-Hebrew in the oldest Greek translations of the Hebrew Towrah and Prophets, especially in those dating to the 1^st and 2^nd centuries BCE and into the first two centuries CE, we have an interesting affirmation that my initial rationale regarding the placeholders was accurate. Yahowah’s name could not be accurately transliterated using the Greek alphabet so they didn’t try. To avoid a mispronunciation, the Hebrew alphabet was used. Then after Hebrew became less familiar, due in large part to the Romans murdering, enslaving, and exiling most Jews, Greek symbolism was substituted.

Moving on, the placeholders Iota Epsilon (ΙΕ), Iota Nu (ΙΝ), Iota Sigma (ΙΣ), and Iota Upsilon (ΙΥ) were used to convey the religion’s intent to deify Iesou, Iesous, or Iesoun, which became “Jesus” with the invention of the letter “J” in the early 17^th century CE. Rather than attempting to transliterate something akin to “Yahowsha’” in Greek, they introduced a moniker to suit Greek sensibilities and grammar.

And that means there is very little basis for the 17^th-century corruption written as “Jesus.” Beyond the fact that there was no “J” sound or letter in English prior to the 17^th century, and never in the Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, or Latin languages, “Jesus” is not an accurate transliteration of Iesou, Iesous, or Iesoun – which were conceived as a result of Greek gender and grammar rules. But most importantly, none of these names was ever written in the original Greek texts – not once, not ever. It is therefore inappropriate to transliterate something (to reproduce the pronunciation in the alphabet of a different language) which is not actually present. So the name “Jesus” is a fraud purposely promoted by religious leaders desirous of deifying their creation.

370The title “ha Mashyach | the Messiah” cannot be found on the imaginary lips of the unnamed Christian god-man. Throughout the Gospels, he never referred to himself as such. It is a title Yahowah ascribed and appointed to Dowd | David, by pronouncing and orchestrating his anointing on three occasions. By contrast, the Christian myth was never anointed.

Therefore, the placeholders represented by Chi Rho (ΧΡ), Chi Rho Sigma (ΧΡΣ), Chi Sigma (ΧΣ), Chi Upsilon (ΧΥ), Chi Rho Upsilon (ΧΡΥ), Chi Omega (ΧΩ), Chi Rho Omega (ΧΡΩ), and Chi Nu (ΧΝ) were used to ascribe a divine character to the Greek concepts of Christos | to administer drugs or Chrestos | depicting a useful implement. More on these placeholders in a moment.

The Hebrew ‘el and ‘elohym, meaning “Almighty,” but most often translated as “God,” were replaced using the Greek concept of “Theos – God” by using the placeholders Theta Sigma (ΘΣ), Theta Upsilon (ΘΥ), Theta Omega (ΘΩ), and Theta Nu (ΘΝ). And while God’s name and title are not interchangeable, there are times when these placeholders represent “Yahowah” instead of His title, “God,” in cited Hebrew texts.

Ruwach is the feminine Hebrew noun for “Spirit.” Without exception, references to the “Ruwach Qodesh – Set-Apart Spirit” are rendered under the Greek concept of “penuma – moving air, wind, breath, or breeze” using the placeholders Pi Nu Alpha (ΠΝΑ), Pi Nu Sigma (ΠΝΣ), and Pi Nu Iota (ΠΝΙ).

In addition to these two names and three titles, the noun and verb forms of “upright pole,” and “to affix to an upright pillar,” later changed to “crux – cross,” were rendered Sigma Rho Omega Sigma or Sigma Rho Omega followed by Mu Alpha Iota to indicate the verbal form – both with a line over them to signify divinity. Making sure that we wouldn’t miss the supposed divine connotation of 371the Christian “cross,” stauros was never written out in the Greek text. The placeholder was changed from “stauros – upright pole” to the Latin “crux,” and then became “cross” in English. This is how the image of a pagan “cross” was deified, becoming the symbol of the religion.

The cross was a common religious symbol used throughout antiquity in Babylon, Egypt, Greece, and Rome to signify the intersection of the constellation Taurus with the sun during the Vernal Equinox. The closest “Sun”-day to this event was called Easter (named after the Babylonian goddess Astarte who became known as Ishtar) by these pagans who believed that the Sun impregnated Mother Earth on this day, giving birth nine months later on the Winter Solstice (then December 25^th) to the Son of the Sun. Solar worship, known as Sol Invictus (the Unconquerable Son) was thereby incorporated into Constantine’s religious preference from his deadly legions – where it remains imbedded to this day. This process began with his vision of a flaming cross superimposed on the sun, which was his god, along with the edict: “In this sign conquer.” Pagan myths became Christian lore.

Among the most debilitating Christian misappropriations in this regard is their affinity for “Christ.” A placeholder potentially referring to this improper title underlies English translations of the Galatians 1:1 passage. But as it turns out, the overscored Greek symbols Chi Rho (ΧΡ), Chi Rho Sigma (ΧΡΣ), Chi Sigma (ΧΣ), Chi Upsilon (ΧΥ), Chi Rho Upsilon (ΧΡΥ), Chi Omega (ΧΩ), Chi Rho Omega (ΧΡΩ), and Chi Nu (ΧΝ), weren’t initially based upon Christos, Christou, Christo, or Christon but, instead, upon Chrestos – an entirely different word.

Christos means “drugged.” As I have demonstrated, the one time its defining verbal root was written out in the Greek text, it was used to say that the Laodicean assembly should apply a manmade drug, an ointment in this case, to 372their eyes. Chrestus (which is related to chrestos) on the other hand means “useful implement,” even “upright servant,” as well as “merciful one.” It was used to “depict the good and beneficial work of a moral servant.” This is somewhat similar to the implications of the Hebrew, Ma’aseyah, which is the Implement Doing the Work of Yahowah. As such, it is useful for you to know that “ha Mashyach – the Messiah” was never written as a title in conjunction with the Christian Jesus and that “Christian” should have been Chrestusian, which is an entirely different name with an entirely different meaning.

With the basis of Jesus, Christ, Christian, and Cross already destroyed, it’s not looking very good for the religion. But it gets far worse because the Daniel 9:21-6 citations, which stand alone in presenting the future arrival of a Messiah, and thus are essential to the Christian myth, are among the most errantly translated and misinterpreted in the entire Christian Bible. So let’s turn to it now.

To begin, Daniel became the recipient of these prophecies because he was the only one at the time willing and able to read the revelations of the prophets and apply the lessons. He could write, he was in Babel, and there wasn’t a better option. So while he was neither a prophet nor even a historian, his ability to read and write was enough for God to use him and for us to benefit from Dowd’s visit with him. Yes, you read that correctly; the only actual prophet in the Book attributed to Daniel was Gabry’el – who is Dowd. Turns out, he was speaking about himself. And as a result, we were offered a brief history of the world, the story of the succession of Beasts, and now are witnesses to the final solution to mankind’s errant ways.

“While I was continuing to communicate (wa ‘owd ‘any dabar) with the intent of being distinct and different (‘el taphilah – either praying or desirous of being set apart as discriminating and special; from ta’ab – to 373desire and palah – pleading to be set apart as special while thinking about the future, asking questions and contemplating the answers), then (wa) Gabry’el | God’s Most Confident and Capable, Courageous and Combative Man (wa Gabry’el – the Almighty’s exceptionally proficient and powerful defender, an exemplar of character who confirms the truth; a compound of ‘any – I am a geber – particularly strong and resolute human being, a capable and authorized individual, an aggressive and confrontational person, a fighter, defender, and protector who prevails with ‘el – Almighty God; from gabar – exceptionally proficient, absolutely assured, resolutely corroborative, tremendously powerful and great), the individual man (ha ‘iysh – the person and human being who is a champion, supporter, and defender), whom, to reveal the proper path (‘asher – to show the benefits of the relationship), I had seen (ra’ah – I had witnessed, observed, perceived, inspected, and considered) during the initial prophetic revelation (ba ha chazown ba ha tachilah – in the earlier communication during the beginning vision of the future which I was able to see), offering advice while preoccupied with the destruction of existing militaries (ya’aph ba ya’aph – providing counsel and addressing the purpose of what is occurring while appearing wearied, or perhaps exasperated, moving swiftly between battles, from ya’ats – to offer advice and counsel regarding the purpose of the plan), reached out to make contact with me (naga’ ‘el ‘any – extended himself to reach out to me) around the time of the evening (ka ‘eth ‘ereb – according to the right season of the year at sunset) offering (minchah – apportionment which is bestowed as a present or gift).” (Dany’el / Daniel 9:21)

Not only was Gabry’el correctly identified as an ‘iysh | man, a human male, but the identity of ‘el | God’s gibowr is readily verified as Dowd from Yasha’yah / Isaiah 9 where, as a son, he was given to us. The Messiah is the lone individual who fits this title. And there is no better news 374than this because apart from Yahowah, no one in Heaven or on Earth knew as much about the events he was going to address and personally fulfill. He had predicted them, describing them in excruciating detail in his Songs, and he, himself, would endure them. Further, with Dany’el failing to meet the standard of a prophet, Dowd arrived as the most prolific of them.

Dowd, as the only man destined to live three lives spanning these eras, was the ideal prophet to provide the sweeping prophetic history of the world. Moreover, he had arrived in Babel | Babylon, the birthplace of the Beast – the realm from which Satan would arise and build the very institutions he would ultimately destroy. Whether as a prophet or from his throne in Shamaym, he would witness Babylon become Persia and then watch as the Greeks prevailed over them. The bestiality of Rome was no secret to him as he would experience their savage brutality personally. Additionally, Dowd would have been familiar with his mortal enemy – the final Beast – the Roman Catholic Church – which grew out of Imperial Rome to obfuscate the heroic sacrifices he would make on behalf of his people while persecuting them.

While Moseh may have been his equal in this regard, no one else has ever been better at providing accurate advice regarding God. And no one surpassed Dowd in the destruction of Yisra’el’s foes, having engaged 66 times without ever losing a battle in defense of God’s people and land. Further, Dowd’s greatest gift to the Covenant Family was offering to serve as the Pesach ‘Ayil and then endure the long night of Matsah in the darkness of She’owl.

Now that Gabry’el | God’s Most Competent Man, Dowd, has returned, and has been properly introduced and identified, we are told that he has been ya’aph ba ya’aph | offering advice while preoccupied with the destruction of existing militaries – which means that he has returned to the past from our immediate future. Dowd returned to 375provide counsel regarding the purpose of what will be occurring while moving swiftly between battles. Yisra’el’s great defender will soon be doing what he does naturally.

At this future date, Yowm Kipurym | the Day of Reconciliations in the 120^th Yowbel year of 6000 Yah at sunset in his city, October 2^nd, 2033, Dowd’s first order of business will be to anoint the Kaporeth | Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant so that Yahowah can reconcile His relationship with Yisra’el. Then he will defend the remaining remnant of Yahuwdym from the Muslims, Christians, Communists, and Progressives who have come to annihilate them. All the while, he will serve as our Shepherd and Counselor, Messiah and King.

The realization that the Mashyach | Messiah has been called away from these essential responsibilities during Yowm Kipurym to provide insights relative to his fulfillment of Chag Matsah as the mashach | anointed is poetic, prophetic, and profound. Considering the source of these insights, labeling “Jesus” the “Christ,” rather than acknowledging Dowd, isn’t just ignorant and irrational – it is insulting and disgusting.

Dowd | David is the ultimate Prophet and Counselor, Shepherd and Lamb, Messiah and High Priest, Son of God and King. He is the exemplar of the Covenant, the embodiment of Yisra’el, and the Son who fulfilled the Invitations to Meet with God. To say otherwise is to be wrong.

Moving on to the next statement, we are reminded that God works through curious souls because He realizes that those who question everything find a resolution. They not only grow in understanding but, also, in confidence. I suspect that Yahowah chose His final messenger with this in mind, recognizing His Son’s appreciation of how yada’ would result in byn…

“So (wa) he made the connections to encourage 376understanding (byn – he pursued comprehension by being discriminating and perceptive to facilitate discernment through careful consideration). He spoke with me (wa dabar ‘im ‘any), and he said (wa ‘amar), ‘Dany’el (Dany’el – My God Judges, Condemns, and Vindicates; from dyn – to decide with ‘el – God), now at this time (‘atah – so then in the sequence of things), I have come forth (yatsa’ – I have descended to extend) to provide insights and instruction which, if you are circumspect and considerate, will promote (la sakal ‘atah – to teach the prudent to pay attention, and you through contemplation to gain) understanding through discernment (bynah – enabling comprehension through diligence and reason).’” (Dany’el / Daniel 9:22)

Gabry’el | God’s Most Competent and Confrontational Man, Dowd | the Beloved, is the living embodiment of byn | understanding, particularly of the dabar | word of God. This is his ‘atah | time when he will lead his people on yet another yatsa’ | exodus – this time out of Babel | Being Confused by the Lord. By listening to Dowd throughout his Mizmowr and Mashal, we revel in his sakal | insights and grow in bynah | understanding. This is why Yahowah so loved his Son and then supported his desire to fulfill these roles so that we could learn from his example and benefit from his sacrifice.

It is wonderful to see God’s Son, our Messiah and King, speak to Dany’el. This is encouraging for the rest of us, especially when we consider the difference between Dowd’s intellect and standing with God relative to our own. Last time they met, Dany’el had done a nose plant. So now, by asking him to think it through, Dowd forestalled more of the same. He is brilliant after all…

“In the beginning, the sickening and inappropriate (ba tachilah – initially, while common to the point of being profane; from chalah – to be a sorrowful and sickening beggar, a wearisome infected and diseased malcontent and 377chalal – to profane and desecrate through common and defiling religious practices) matter (dabar – the message and word) of your desire for favors and your pleading for mercy (tachanuwn ‘atah – your longing for love and compassion, your constant petitions; from a compound of ta’ab | to desire and ta’ah | to point out, with chanan | mercy, kindness, forgiveness, and favor) was brought up (yatsa’ – it came out). So, I, myself, have returned (wa ‘any bow’ – therefore, I have arrived, having come) to conspicuously report an informative announcement and make this known (la nagad – to provide the message in a straightforward fashion, making this declaration) because (ky) you are so needy (chamadowth ‘atah – you delight in and value such things).

Therefore (wa), you will want to be considerate and strive to understand, being diligent and systematic in your evaluation (byn – by choosing to be perceptive, discerning, and discriminating, you will comprehend (qal imperative)) of this message (ba ha dabar – through this statement), choosing to make the connections needed to comprehend (wa byn – by being perceptive and circumspect to understand), what is being revealed (ba ha mar’eh – what is witnessed).” (Dany’el / Daniel 9:23)

While true, this was a slap in the face to a man who needed it. With all of his pleading, Dany’el had become irritating. God does not want us begging Him to do as He has already promised or to request what He will never provide. We cannot go wrong when listening to God and are often err when pleading with Him to do as we desire.

As a compound word based upon chalah | to be a sickening and sorrowful beggar, a wearisome malcontent, tachilah presents Daniel as I had cast him throughout Babel ~ Beast, my dissertation on the Book now bearing his name. Frankly, it was obvious – which was the point and the reason for Dowd’s astute assessment. Moreover, since tachilah is also shaded by chalal, which addresses the 378commonality and profanity of religious and political corruption, Dany’el is exactly as I had surmised. He was prophetic of the corrupting influence of politicized religion. His life was used as a foil upon which to expose and condemn the emergence and spread of the weeds we know as Rabbinic Judaism and Roman Christianity. I say this because in all due consideration, the first six chapters of Daniel are rubbish. It wasn’t until Dowd arrived as Gabry’el | God’s Most Competent Man, that the narrative gained purpose and meaning.

Personally, I am grateful to our Messiah and Shepherd for confirming that my radically different interpretation of Daniel was accurate. Never once during the nearly 2,600 years since the book was written has anyone dared to present this man from the perspective overtly displayed throughout Babel ~ Beast. Fortunately, it turns out I was not alone because Dowd returned from the future to make the same assessment in our past, sharing Yahowah’s disdain for religion and politics.

For those who have not yet read the Beast volume of Babel in Yada Yahowah, you may not yet know that the narrative found within the first six chapters of Daniel is as irritating as it is insightful, while symbolically presenting the disgusting consequence of religious and political indoctrination – particularly Judaism and Christianity. The stench is sickening and debilitating to mankind and irritating to God. The opening chapters serve as an exposé on why God hates Babylon and why men and women must leave its toxic influence to be with Him.

Try as he might to distance himself from this horrible stain on his soul and the stigma on his life, Dany’el was still plagued by his childhood programming and by being indoctrinated at the height of Babylon’s deplorable culture. It did not matter what he ate or said, because he had swallowed the poison and it had profaned and corrupted him. His contribution to this story is that he could read and 379write and was sufficiently curious to do both. Beyond that, he is the embodiment of all that is wrong with Babel, of associating with the Lord, and of integrating religion and politics. The Dany’el depicted in the opening chapters of the Book bearing his name was a spawn of the Beast. As such, he portrays the emergence of Judaism and Christianity, leading to Islam.

Now that Gabry’el has been properly introduced, and the purpose of this revelation has been established, it is time to consider the prophecy which has been misappropriated to create the myth of Jesus Christ when it should have been received as a celebration of the Messiah’s second and third lives. What follows provides the blueprint for redemption and adoption, reconciliation and everlasting life. And you’ll note that it is focused upon “your people” and “your city” – Yahuwdym and Yaruwshalaim, the City of Dowd. Christians can tune out now since none of this applies to you, but as for Jews, please pay attention…

“The many promises associated with Shabuw’ah and the Shabat, along with the vows pertaining to the things Seven represents, even seventy sevens (shabuwa’ym shib’iym) are determined and decreed (chathak – He has planned, divided out, and marked) on behalf of your people, the extended family (‘al ‘am ‘atah – for your kin) and upon your set-apart city and its distinctly uncommon inhabitants (wa ‘al ‘iyr qodesh ‘atah – over your special and separated population center, including those who are separated and distinct and, thus, not religious) to bring an end to the religious rebellion, eliminating the revolting communal defiance and contrarian views (la kalah ha pesha’ – for the abolition and complete purging of revolting opposition, pervasive transgression, being at fault, and guilty of being contrarians who have defected from the relationship), to affix the signature which seals up the guilt associated with having missed the way, precluding ever being wrong 380again (wa la chatham chata’owth – to affirming the authenticity of that which constrains and prevents everything associated with going astray), to provide reconciliation for religious error, purging the perverse corruptions and twisted perversions (wa la kaphar ‘awon – to cover over by atoning, ransoming and annulling distortions), to arrive with and bring that which is eternally right, always correct, forever accurate and honest, thereby attaining everlasting deliverance and vindication (wa la bow’ tsedeq ‘owlam – to come with ongoing and perpetual justice and deliverance, innocence and prosperity, returning to pursue enduring righteousness), to provide a personal seal and signature to revelation, confirming and completing these communications (wa la chatham chazown wa naby’ – to confirm and complete the visual communication from God about the future) and to prophecy (wa naby’ – to the prophet), while also anointing the Most Set Apart (wa la mashach qodesh qodesh – and to consecrate, dedicate, and prepare the separated, special, distinctly different, and uniquely uncommon – speaking of Dowd).” (Dany’el / Daniel 9:24)

This is Dowd’s story from beginning to end. He has explained why he was willing and able to fulfill the decree Yahowah had made to his people through the seven Miqra’ey | Invitations. With his arrival in Yaruwshalaim in advance of Passover and then again on Kipurym forty Yowbel thereafter, he has and will remove the guilt associated with religious rebellion and contrarian views.

With the Messiah and Son of God having volunteered to serve as our lamb and our shepherd, a remnant of God’s people will never stray again. With our souls perfected and the relationship reconciled on these occasions, Yisra’el’s surviving assembly will be right forevermore, becoming eternally vindicated. This is the summation of all prophecy. The fruition of God’s promises occurs as Dowd anoints the 381Mercy Seat of the Covenant within the Qodesh Qodesh of God’s Home on Yowm Kipurym so that we can celebrate Sukah.

This pronouncement pertains to the Shabat and the promises associated with the Harvest of Shabuw’ah and then the Gleaning on Taruw’ah. It is for Dany’el’s people and Covenant family and, thus, for Jews and Gentiles, and for Dowd’s city, which is Yaruwshalaim | the Source of Guidance on Reconciliation. So, since it is all designed to eliminate religious and political guilt, one would have to be foolish to believe any of this pertained to a gentile religion vehemently opposed to all of this. As such, this prophecy cannot be predictive of the anti-Semitic Christian Christ or the contradictory New Testament. Moreover, Dowd’s performance as the Messiah brought an end to prophecy, precluding any additional revelation from God after 33 CE. And that is why you are reading the words of an observant Witness sharing the revelations of previous prophets rather than those of a modern prophet.

Dowd’s pronouncement reveals when he would, has, and will come to fulfill the Mow’edym. And yet since these events are woven into an even broader timeline, it is germane to know that when we account for the generations from ‘Adam to ‘Abraham, we find that forty Yowbel, or 2,000 years, separate them. Additionally, another forty Yowbel transpire from ‘Abraham’s experience on Mount Mowryah to Dowd’s Passover sacrifice in this same place. And that means that a pattern has emerged from which we can date the fulfillment of the Miqra’ey, past and future.

Two thousand years after ‘Adam’s and Chawah’s expulsion from the Garden of Eden, God confirmed the Covenant in 1968 BCE (year 2000 Yah) with ‘Abraham, Sarah, and Yitschaq so that we could return to it and join Him there. Then to provide the resulting rewards, including immortality, perfection, adoption, enrichment, and empowerment, God’s attention returned to Mowryah forty 382Yowbel thereafter in year 4000 Yah (33 CE), with His Son walking out of the pages of the Towrah to fulfill Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children.

But that would not be the end of God’s story. Seven years shy of forty Yowbel later, the Covenant Family would be withdrawn at the beginning of the Time of Israel’s Troubles during the Shabuw’ah | Sevens Harvest of standing grain – a Shabat at sunset, Friday, May 22, 2026 as the Two-State Dissolution is imposed on Israel, setting the nation up for a thousand-fold reenactment of 10.07.23 thirteen months thereafter as illusions of solutions devolve into genocidal rage.

Just ten days from the conclusion of Israel’s Troubles, on the first day of the seventh month, during Taruw’ah, occurring on the Shabat of September 23^rd, 2033, the final gleaning of Yahuwdym and Yisra’elites will transpire. Dowd and Yahowah will return during the Miqra’ of Kipurym this same year of 6000 Yah (Sunset in Jerusalem on October 2^nd, 2033). Father and Son will reconcile their relationship with Yisra’el and Yahuwdym, restoring the Covenant by integrating the Towrah into the lives of Yah’s Children. Five days later as we celebrate Sukah | Shelters, enjoying a thousand years of camping out with our Heavenly Father through year 7000 Yah. Thereafter, many new and untold beginnings await.

For our Jewish friends, you should know that there is no justification or excuse for the random dating Maimonides thrust upon an ignorant and unsuspecting audience. Here in the early summer, with this year’s observance of Shabuw’ah behind us in 2024, we are living in year 5991 Yah – with just 9 years remaining before Yahowah’s return on Yowm Kipurym in year 6000 Yah – sunset in Jerusalem, 6:22 PM local time, on October 2^nd, 2033.

The Rambam was wrong on all accounts. Creation 383occurred 14 billion years ago, not in 3759 BCE as he claimed. Further, the expulsion from Gan ‘Eden, in year 0 Yah, transpired in 3968 BCE. A new year begins on the 1^st of ‘Abyb, in the Spring, not when the Babylonians observed Rosh Hashanah. But since the rabbi was more impressed with his own calculations than the genealogies established in the Towrah for this purpose, his Sanctification of the Moon scheme has led Jews astray for over 800 years. Please don’t continue to be lost among them. And for added verification of our place in Yahowah’s world, consider the Timeline presented under Resources at YadaYah.com.

When Yahowah inspires one of His prophets to say ‘am ‘anah | for your people, He is almost always addressing Yisra’el and Yahuwdym. Not only is this affirmed by the constant references to ‘am throughout the Towrah, ‘am also means “family.” Therefore, the plan Yahowah was unfurling through His Son was designed in support of the Covenant He established with Yisra’el beginning with ‘Abraham and Sarah.

Yahowah’s focus is on Yaruwshalaim | the Source of Guidance on Reconciliation. The ‘iyr qodesh | set-apart city, therefore, not only denotes the location where these prophecies would be fulfilled but, also, for whom. It is the most qodesh | set-apart place on Earth. It is in Jerusalem that Yahowah made it possible for us to be separated from the pesha’, chata’ah, and ‘awon of man and be tsedeq regarding Him.

Qodesh is among the most revealing and least understood terms in the Hebrew lexicon. It means “to be set apart.” It affirms that God wants us to be like Him, distinct from the ways of man and, thus, uncommon. So, when we consider the two most pervasive and popular human agencies, to be qodesh means that we should not be religious or political. To be set apart unto Yahowah is to be separated from such things.

384Moving on, I suspect that you will be surprised by what follows….

“Therefore (wa), know (yada’ – it is beneficial for you to be aware by coming to possess the information required to recognize) and gain the insights to understand (wa sakal – realizing that the best option is for you to be prudent after learning, succeeding and prospering by being attentive, properly educated, intelligent, and wise, perceiving) that from (min) the going forth of the word (mowtsa’ dabar – the stage being set to begin the process in accord with the message) to return to restore (shuwb – to bring back to its original state), rebuilding (wa la banah – and reestablishing) Yaruwshalaim (Yaruwshalaim – the Source of Teaching and Guidance on Reconciliation), until the restoring testimony and eternal witness (‘ad – up to, as far as, for an extension of time to become victorious and receive the spoils evidenced by the witness) of the Son of the Sovereign who is conspicuously making this known, and who is providing the leadership and counsel (nagyd – of the one who has officially obtained the status of being properly appointed, and who has expounded upon, announced, and proclaimed the message) of the Mashyach | the anointed Messiah (mashyach – the one who is set apart, anointed, and prepared to serve as authorized) are seven sevens, and thus seven promises and fulfilled vows (shabuwa’ym shiba’ah – contractual oaths fulfilled in harmony with the promises of Shabuw’ah over seven periods of seven weeks).

Therefore (wa), in sixty-two weeks (shabuwa’ym sheshym wa shanaym – based upon the promise of seven, in sixty and two weeks), she will be restored (shuwb – she will return and recover), and rebuilt to reestablish and fortify (wa banah – she will develop) the way to grow and expand (rachob – opening the way by expanding where people can congregate; from rachab – to grow larger and expand) by being diligent and decisive (wa charuwts – by 385becoming sharper, more determined, increasingly judgmental, separated and defensive) in a troubled time of oppression (wa ba tsowq ha ‘ets – during a period of anguishing subjugation, restrictions, constraints, and persecution, being harassed and pushed into a corner; from tsuwq – to constrain and oppress).” (Daniel / Daniel 9:25)

Then after (wa ‘achar) the sixty-two weeks (ha shabuwa’ym sheshym wa shanaym), the Anointed Messiah (Mashyach) will be cut off and separated (karath) but not for himself (wa ‘ayn la huw’).” (Daniel / Daniel 9:26 in part)

Gabry’el | God’s Most Confident and Capable, Courageous and Combative Man, prefaced his prophecy with yada’ and shakal. That is to say, by prudently processing this information, we will gain the insights needed to understand. He is the thinking man’s prophet.

When he repeatedly indicates that to figure this out, we need to be discerning, learning by processing the information which he is providing in an intelligent manner, experience dictates that we follow his advice. In other words, we should consider how the pieces of the puzzle he has provided fit together as opposed to plucking the mashyach references out of context to promote an agenda contrary to everything else he revealed as Christians have done throughout the centuries.

Dowd is predicting that there will be a public decree issued regarding the liberation of Yahuwdym | Jews from Babel | Commingling which Confuses in Babylon. Therefore, it is worth considering the similarity between this and the decree to leave Mitsraym | the Crucibles of Religious and Political Oppression during Pesach at the outset of the Yatsa’ | Exodus. Yahowah introduced Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym to physically liberate the Children of Yisra’el from religious and political oppression, and then Shabuw’ah to share His Towrah | Teaching. The 386process would continue with Yahowah explaining the Miqra’ey to Moseh, which would ultimately lead God’s people to the Promised Land.

The proclamation Dowd is currently addressing is similar. This time, Yahuwdym will be liberated from religious and political subjugation in Babel – the birthplace of the Beast, which would evolve from Imperial Rome to Roman Catholicism and then reemerge as Islam. Not only would they be physically freed, Yahuwdym would be able to rebuild Yaruwshalaim | the Source of Guidance on Reconciliation and the City of Dowd.

After the passage of the specified time, Dowd’s nepesh | soul would return to his city within a basar | body reconstructed from his DNA to serve his people by fulfilling Pesach and Matsah leading to Bikuwrym. This would enable the enrichment and empowerment of the Covenant’s Children as they are withdrawn on Shabuw’ah. In so doing, the nepesh | souls of God’s Family will come home, surviving the tyranny of Progressives and the terrorism of Islam.

When we identify the timing of this decree and do the math from the ‘Abyb 1, 444 BCE starting date, we must add 7 weeks of years (7x7=49 prophetic years) until Yaruwshalaim would be rebuilt. Then there would be another 62 weeks (62x7=434 prophetic years) for a total of 483 years until he would enter Yaruwshalaim to fulfill Pesach.

To calculate his arrival, we must multiply 483 (49 + 434) years by the 360 days in the Towrah’s prophetic calendar. This equals 173,880 days, or 476 solar years plus an additional 20 days (when divided by 365.25), which we should then add to our starting date of Nissan 1 in 444 BCE – twenty years after Artaxerxes I secured the throne. Although, that’s not easy. The solar-lunar calendar used at the time by the Hebrews and Babylonians featured a 354-387day year with the addition of 29.5 days for an additional lunar month 7 out of every 19 years. There was no Julian calendar at the time and the concept of a leap day to properly adjust the solar-lunar calendar wouldn’t be conceived until halfway through this period. That is all to say, Dowd’s intent with the prophecy was to get the thoughtful reader to realize that when he adds 476 years from Nisan in 444 BCE they would arrive in ‘Abyb in the Yowbel year of 4000 Yah. That is to say, in late April or early May 33 CE (realizing that there was no year zero in the Julian or Gregorian calendars). The rest was simple.

In 33 CE, the Vernal Equinox was on March 22^nd. The nearest emerging lunar crescent was on March 19^th. And therefore, 476 years and 20 days from the first day of the new year in 444 BCE brings us to the midpoint of Chag Matsah in 33 CE when the Messiah was cut off from the living on our behalf.

It would have been hard to miss in year 4000 Yah since there was a total solar eclipse on the first day of ‘Abyb. And by Pesach on April 3^rd | ‘Abyb 14, there was a lunar eclipse. Therefore, speaking in the 6^th century BCE, Dowd foretold his service to fulfill Chag Matsah to the very week he did so in year 4000 Yah | 33 CE. Impressive.

Since Dowd had witnessed his future and written about it in his Mizmowr one thousand years in advance of fulfilling Chag Matsah, and since he returns from his future fulfillment of Yowm Kipurym in 2033 CE to provide this prophetic report circa 550 to 600 BCE, he was fully aware of what would occur and when it would transpire.

What has been lost on so many is how exquisitely the detail of the prophecy matched its fulfillment. Dowd’s entry into Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem coincided with the day the paschal lamb would have been brought into the household, on the tenth day of ‘Abyb, when, just as they had in Chazaqyah | Hezekiah’s time, when large crowds 388had gathered in Yaruwshalaim | the Source of Guidance on Reconciliation. He lived and walked among the people. They got to know him. And as the sun set, and the fourteenth day of ‘Abyb began, he observed the Passover feast, expecting us to remember and respect the role he played in fulfilling the promise.

Dowd’s sacrifice corresponded perfectly with the designated time of Passover. It was just before sunset on the fourteenth day of ‘Abyb that his nepesh | soul surrendered his mortal basar | body and Yahowah’s Ruwach | Spirit. The prophecy of the first Miqra’ | Invitation to be Called Out and Meet of Pesach | Passover was fulfilled literally, right down to the last detail. There should have been no mistaking what he had done – at least for those who “darash – consistently seek to know” Yahowah, who read the Towrah to find the way to Him, and who ponder the implications of the relationship He intended by diligently studying the Prophets.

Nearly 40 Yowbel thereafter, we are using Taruw’ah to call a remnant of Yisra’el and Yahuwdah home, back to the Promised Land, to their Messiah, and to Yahowah. This reunion will occur during Dowd’s return on Kipurym | Reconciliations, which leads to Sukah | Camping Out with our Father and His Family forevermore.

In this way, with the proclamation to leave Babel | Babylon and restore Yaruwshalaim | the Source of Guidance on Reconciliation, one event foreshadows the next, becoming a harbinger of what follows, each step liberating us from religious influence and political control so that we can come home and live as family.

In conjunction with the redemption of his people, the Nagyd | Son of the Sovereign, by nagyd | publicly revealing what would occur, explaining how it would transpire, and then demonstrating the character and courage to bring this to fruition, is the one who is providing leadership and 389counsel as ha Mashyach | the Messiah. He is fulfilling his vows and those of his Father over the course of the seven Mow’ed.

Recognizing that Dowd’s gruesome and heroic portrayal of his soul’s fulfillment of Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym in the 22^nd Mizmowr depicts what would happen to him more than 400 years prior to this proclamation, this pronouncement may be the most cathartic ever conveyed. His portrayal is so awe-inspiring, courageous, and compassionate, that it is hard to properly convey the enormity of this moment. And in this way, it was appropriate for Dowd to be the one who revealed his future and that of his people.

Clearly, Dowd knew what was going to happen to himself and to Yisra’el. As Gabry’el, he was his own basar | herald providing the best and worst news, all of which Yahuwdym ignored and Gowym pilfered and twisted…

“Then (wa) the people, the nation, and the army (‘am – the individuals and institutions) of the commanding officer and supreme leader who is making copious announcements and prolific declarations (nagyd – the absolute ruler conspicuously avowing, publishing, and confessing his message in your face) who is to come (ha bow’ – who will arrive) will attempt to corrupt, ravage, and destroy (shachath – will seek to ruin and render useless, castrate and cast off, annihilating) the city (ha ‘iyr – the largest population center) and the Set Apart and the Sanctuary (wa ha qodesh – those who and that which are separated and distinct, uncommon and devoted, both as individuals and as a Sanctuary).

And (wa) his demise, when he is cast off at the conclusion of this duration of time (qets huw’ – this completion of a period to be chopped down and torn asunder (note: ‘iyr, qodesh, ‘am, and nagyd are all masculine singular and could be addressed by huw’)) will 390be overwhelming and outrageous, especially intense with an overpowering of force (ha sheteph – manifesting an overbearing nature so as to be inundated) so that up to the very last moment in the end (wa ‘ad qets – as far as the completion of this duration of time to chop off and tear asunder), war (milchamah – a state of constant and continuous fighting) will be decreed, quickly decided upon and pronounced (charats – it will be determined, spoken about and certain) which will be devastating and desolating, appalling and horrifying (shamem – destructive and ruinous, wasteful and astonishing).” (Dany’el / Daniel 9:26)

Should you venture into the Abominable and Venomous volumes of the Babel series, you will come to realize that Dowd’s adversary has always been ha Satan – Sha’uwl’s inspiration and the un-god of Islam. Therefore, we should be expecting to see the Devil incarnate enter Jerusalem to foil Dowd’s agenda and God’s reunion with His on the 1^st of ‘Abyb, April 4^th, 2030, concurrent with the arrival of the two Witnesses.

Since Dowd will have been victimized by those affiliated with the Adversary during and following Chag Matsah, with the Romans torturing him and then religious Christians, Jews, and Muslims disavowing and discrediting his achievements thereafter, there is a continuity between those who destroyed the city and sanctuary in 70 CE, and again in 133 CE, even those who would abuse the Set-Apart People thereafter, and desecrate the Temple Mount with a mosque and shrine to Satan.

It is apparent that Dowd’s evil opposite will flail and then fail before being sent off to She’owl in the fleeting moments of the 6^th millennia of man. Upon his arrival, he will be bombastic, an outrageous character with an overwhelming presence and imposing manner. This Last Days Tour de Force will approach under the guise of a peacemaker, but he will quickly decide to rally the world 391against Israel, promoting a war that will be devastating and desolating. This is akin to Allah claiming he is merciful while commanding Muslims to kill Jews.

As we discovered in the previous statement, at a time certain, 62 weeks of years after Yaruwshalaim is rebuilt, taking us forward in time to year 4000 Yah, or 33 CE, the Messiah restored and reestablished the means for his people to thrive should they be diligent and decisive while being oppressed by Imperial Rome. He did so by fulfilling the first three Mow’ed Miqra’ey, providing the benefits of the Covenant.

Sadly and inexcusably, after this time, the Roman Church, based upon Paul’s letters, would replace the Anointed Messiah to establish a new covenant. They would position the misnomer “Jesus Christ” as the Son of God and the “Christ” instead of Dowd | David, the man Yahowah decreed both titles. Christianity’s New Testament is the result. Six hundred years thereafter, Islam would position Satan as God.

Therefore, rather than announcing the arrival of a Christian Messiah or Muslim Messenger, who would die, but not for himself, this says just the opposite. The actual Mashyach had this temporal existence cut short and then was separated from his Father to save his people. The greatest life ever lived, Gabry’el | God’s Most Capable and Confident Individual, would perform the most heroic and compassionate act, but it would be tossed aside in the wake of three repulsive religions.

The lone justification for calling “Jesus” the “Christ” was negated seven centuries before this infuriating replacement occurred. And thereby, Dowd obliterated the claims made by Christians and the denials that propelled Judaism’s emergence and led to Islam. As a result, the world will be engulfed in war, devastating and desolating conflict. It will be so destructive and ruinous, indeed, 392astonishing and appalling that the prophet is predicting nuclear conflagration.

In this way, the Messiah is using the past to prepare His people for the future. Just as Yahuwdym were given the opportunity to recognize the Passover Lamb and the fulfillment of Chag Matsah during a troublesome time, so it will be in the end. Yahuwdym are being afforded a final opportunity to accept what Dowd and his Father have done for them when they arrive together to enable the promise of Kipurym during the conclusion of the Time of Trouble.

In the interim, seven years before the world goes up in smoke, this monstrous and demonic beast under the ruse of peacemaker will gabar beryth | confirm and strengthen a prevailing agreement, affirming his covenant ha rabym | with a great many, including plenty of rabbis, the preponderance of the populous, and numerous among the elite. This is an ode to the “Two-State Solution” or, as I refer to it, “The Final Solution.” It will be imposed, thereby encouraging Israel’s destruction.

What follows affirms what we have long known. While the Time of Ya’aqob’s Troubles began on October 7^th, 2023, it will intensify in 2026 with the forfeiture of Israeli land to Islamic terrorists, ushering in a horrific week of years for Jews following the imposition of a Fakestinian State. Things will degrade quickly, with Israel enduring a constant state of war beginning in June 2028, with their troubles escalating during the last 3½ years – starting with the 1^st of ‘Abyb in year 5997, April 3^rd or 4^th, 2030.

The Shabat will be outlawed, Pesach corrupted, and Matsah relegated to an ingredient. There will be no Kipurym for the Towrahless, putting God’s gift out of reach. And Yahowah’s Miqra’ey will be replaced with the likes of the Feast of the Beast where Dowd’s body and blood are featured on the Adversary’s menu. There will be a No Moon Day, a Do Nothing Festival, and All Stupid 393Day for the faithful – each endorsed by Ezekiel’s Lord, now known as Allah.

It is the most abhorrent of abominations, a monstrous religious edict designed to stun and stupefy people far and wide. Robbed of their ability to be perceptive and think critically, the preponderance of people will die. And it will all happen quickly and decisively, paralyzing a world too traumatized to respond appropriately.

“And therefore (wa), he, as an exceedingly influential person, will vault himself into prominence by arrogantly confirming and imposing (gabar – he will strengthen and empower, then triumph by imposing a self-aggrandizing and overbearing) a treaty, a covenant agreement and arrangement (beryth – an international contractual compact and binding pledge) with a great many, including plenty of rabbis, the preponderance of people, especially the elitists (la ha rabym – including plenty of rabbis, the preponderance of the populous, and with numerous among the elite) either for one week, based upon a single promise, or during a particular Shabuw’ah (‘echad shabuwa’).” (Dany’el / Daniel 9:27)

The implication is that Satan’s Advocate will vault himself into prominence by convincing Progressive and Orthodox Israelis that they will achieve peace by breaking their nation into pieces and giving them to him to administer an Islamic state, with Israel retreating to her 1967 borders. The last time Muslims and Jews were in this position, the Arabs schemed to destroy Israel.

The supposition that it will be different this time is ludicrous. With Israel defenseless and vulnerable, “Peace Now” will rapidly devolve into a final and horrifying battle for control of what remains. This is Satan’s last-ditch effort to forestall Dowd’s homecoming on Kipurym by exterminating Jews. With no one to turn to for support, the carnage will be considerable. And if not for Dowd’s return 394to defend his people, all would be lost.

Immediately after his fulfillment of Chag Matsah, Dowd turned his sights upon his and his people’s Adversary. For him, it will seem as if going from one day to the next, progressing through the Miqra’ey.

After giving Yisra’el an extension on life and redeeming his people during Pesach and Matsah, Dowd became Yahowah’s Firstborn on Bikuwrym, tangibly showing the way home for those poised to be withdrawn during the Shabuw’ah Harvest. Then with Dowd’s homecoming to defend Yahuwdym proclaimed through Taruw’ah, he will return on Kipurym to bring an end to Yisra’el’s Adversaries.

Yahowah will repair the damage and restore the war-ravaged Earth for Dowd to reign as King of Sukah. That is the plan as presented by Gabry’el | God’s Most Capable and Combative Man – the very individual responsible for achieving it.

“But halfway through the week (wa chatsy shabuwa’ – at the midpoint of the seven years), he will stop the observance of the Shabat and seek to forestall the benefit of the sacrifice which had been freely offered as a gift (shabath zebach wa minchah).

The most extreme aspect (wa ‘al kanaph – upon a flight to the far extremity of being separated and distant, this wing) of this vile and abhorrent action of repulsive religious idolatry (shiquwtsym – of vile and repulsive edicts, detestable and abhorrent acts) will devastate, desolate, and incapacitate (shamem – stun and stupefy) up to the very end, bringing destruction and annihilation, along with the conclusion of the restoring witness (wa ‘ad kalah – a great longing with all-encompassing anxiety, ushering in complete and utter destruction while many die).

It will occur quickly and decisively, with 395determination and decrees (wa charats – it is certain and decided) profusely poured out (natak – being brought forth and expressed without restraint) upon the deserted, desolated, and destroyed who are astonished and stupefied and who will perish because they are too stunned to respond (‘al shamem – upon the devastated and destitute, the estranged and ravaged who are horrified and dismayed).” (Dany’el / Daniel 9:27)

And on that sour Islamic note, we conclude the 9^th chapter of Dany’el. It is as bad as bad ever gets. Although now, the truth is evident: Dowd was speaking to us of his return to fulfill Chag Matsah and then again on Yowm Kipurym to save and reconcile his people from Christianity, Judaism, and especially Islam – from conspiratorialists, progressives, and communists, as well those who will prevail against Israel and Jews during the final seven years of Ya’aqob’s Troubles, commencing May 22^nd, 2026 on Shabuw’ah.

As we discovered when examining the Adversary’s playbook in Ezekiel, for Satan to prevail in his quest to rise above Yahowah in Yisra’el, he must negate what Dowd has achieved and forestall his return. Satan’s influence with Sha’uwl | Paul and Shim’own | Peter in the creation of the New Testament, Imperial Rome and Roman Catholicism to impose their toxin on the world, Rabbi Akiba and the institutionalizing of Rabbinic Judaism to lead Jews away from the truth, and then Muhammad, through whom Allah, as Satan, ushered in unmitigated anti-Semitism through Allahu-Akbar, has managed to negate Dowd’s sacrifice for the preponderance of people.

Therefore, in his attempt to forestall Dowd’s return, Satan must either persuade every remaining Jew to choose him over Yahowah or kill them all such that there is no one left to reconcile. This is part of what was explained in Daniel 9:27, which is among the reasons I shared it. But of course, the other reason was to prove that there was no 396justification for misappropriating Daniel 9 to create the false pretense that Iesous was a Christou in very late and very odd readings of Matthew 16:13-20 and Mark 8:27-30 which are unattested until Eusebius’ amalgamation and augmentation of the text of the New Testament in the 4^th century. Even stranger, both supplements conclude with an exceedingly bizarre request: “Then diesteilato tois mathetais | he gave the disciples orders that to no one they should say that he is the Christos,” and “So he epetimesen autois | rebuked and sternly admonished them, forbidding them that no one they should tell concerning Him.” (Matthew 16:20 and Mark 8:30) So, why did they allegedly do so against their Christ’s rebuke and orders not to convey this errant opinion? Isn’t calling oneself a “Christian” in direct violation of this order? And this aside, isn’t it suspicious that the line most responsible for turning “Jesus” into “the Christ” and establishing the religion of “Christianity” isn’t attested in any of the pre-Constantine (early 4^th century) codices of the New Testament? And without it, the entire edifice disintegrates.

There is also the realization that the earliest extant texts of the New Testament after the elimination of the placeholders, and thus those orchestrated by Eusebius, presented Chrestus, not Christos. It would actually have been a reasonably close Greek allegory to Ma’aseyah, the Work of Yah. However, this can’t be distinguished one way or the other from the late 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd, or early 4^th century Greek placeholders because Chi Rho, Chi Rho Sigma, and Chi Sigma represent both words equally well. But, that isn’t to say that there isn’t a textual affirmation for Chrestus because there is. In all three depictions of the epithet used to describe the first followers of The Way, in Acts 11:26, 26:28, and in 1 Peter 4:16, the Codex Sinaiticus (orchestrated by Eusebius in the 4^th century) reveals that Crestuaneos was penned initially, not Christianous. The same is true with the Codex Vaticanus (also produced at the direction of Eusebius). Sometime thereafter, in the late 3974^th century when textual freedom led to wholesale alterations, Crestuaneos, meaning “useful tools and upright servants,” was replaced by Christianous, transliterated as “Christian” today, but literally meaning “those who are drugged.” If you are a Christian reading this, please take the time to not only verify the accuracy of this realization but, also, to consider its implications.

But there is more. The Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27^th Edition reveals that Chrestus (χρηστὸς) was scribed in 1 Peter 2:3, not Christos. Their references for this include Papyrus 72 (very late 3^rd- or early 4^th-century copy of portions of Jude and 1-2 Peter) and the Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest extant witnesses of Shim’own Kephas’ | Peter’s letter.

In 1 Peter, which was attested by both manuscripts, the alleged disciple wrote: “As a newborn child, true to our real nature (logikos – be genuine, reasonable, rational, and sensible), earnestly desire and lovingly pursue (epipotheo – long for and crave, showing great affection while yearning for) the pure and unadulterated (adolos – that which is completely devoid of dishonest intent, deceit, or deception) milk in order to grow in respect to salvation, since we have experienced (geuomai – partaken and tasted, have been nourished by and perceived) the Lord (ΚΣ) as the Useful Implement and Upright Servant (Chrestus – the Upright One who is a superior, merciful, gracious, kind, and good tool).” (1 Peter 2:2-3)

With the realization that Chrestus was written in the Codex Sinaiticus, and the placeholder ΧΡΣ written in P72 in the same place in this passage, we have another affirmation that the placeholder was based upon the Greek Chrestus and may have thus conveyed the meaning behind Ma’aseyah. However, the Alexandrian text-type on Papyrus 72 is very close to Codex Vaticanus and was likely scribed in the same order and at the same time, making it the product of Eusebius edicts and edits.

398While there may be no merit to any of this, I am nonetheless motivated to share that the related Greek term, chrestos, means: “kind,” “good,” “useful,” “benevolent,” “virtuous,” and “moral,” as in the sense of “being upright.” Words directly related to chrestos and chrestus speak of “integrity” in the sense of being trustworthy and reliable, “receiving the benefit of a payment,” as in providing recompense and restitution, of “fulfilling one’s duty,” as in being a loyal servant, “doing what is beneficial” in the sense of healing us, “transacting business,” as in fulfilling one’s mission, “providing a divine message and response,” “being fit for use,” as in being an implement, and “conveying a beneficial and trustworthy message which produces a good result,” which is synonymous with “euangelizo – which is to convey the healing and beneficial message.”

Writing about the great fire of Rome circa 64 CE, the accredited Roman historian, Tacitus (the classical world’s most authoritative voice regarding this time and place), in Annals 15.44.2-8, wrote: “All human efforts…and propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the fire was the result of an order [from Nero]. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Chrestuaneos by the populace. Chrestus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate.”

Also, the Roman historian, Suetonius (69 to 122 CE), makes reference to Chrestus in his Lives of the Twelve Caesars. A statement in Divus Claudius 25 reads: “He expelled from Rome the Iudaeos / Yahuwdym / Jews constantly making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus.” And then in summary, he wrote: “Since the Iudaeos constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.” This event is 399dated by Suetonius to 49 CE. The historian also wrote in Nero 16: “Nero issued a public order calling for the punishment of Chrestuaneos in the year of the Great Fire of Rome due to the superstition associated with Chrestus.”

These two more credible secular sources, in addition to Pliny, who used the same spelling, providing additional and convincing evidence in favor of Chrestus over Christos, of “the Useful and Merciful Servant,” over “the Drugged One,” and Chrestuaneos over Christianios, “those who are useful and merciful servants,” over “those who are drugged.”

The placeholders are errantly called “nomina sacra” by theologians, which is Latin for “sacred names.” This moniker is wrong on three accounts. First, only two of the ten placeholders designate a name, while seven convey titles. One represents a thing, in this case, an “upright pole,” and the other speaks of how the pole came to matter.

Second, there is nothing “sacred” in the company of God, only individuals and things which are set apart. The human term “sacred” is religious (meaning “devoted to the worship of a deity in a religious service and worthy of religious veneration”), while the divine designation “set apart” is relational. It explains the association between Yahowah and the Set-Apart Spirit, for example.

Third, at best, the Greek text would have been hearsay translations of Hebrew conversations as well as Hebrew citations from the Towrah and Prophets. Therefore, adding the Latin nomina sacra designation is another step in the wrong direction.

Christian scholars use the same hypocritical sleight of hand to explain the universal presence of the placeholders in the Greek texts that Rabbis have deployed to justify their removal of Yahowah’s name from the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. They suggest that the “names were considered too sacred to write.” But if that were true, if the earliest 400Christian scribes followed in rabbinical footsteps believing that their ten special names and titles were “too sacred to write,” then why are they written today? If it was wrong then, it cannot be right now.

Anyone who has spent fifteen minutes reading any portion of the Towrah wa Naby’ from any one of the hundreds of Qumran manuscripts recognizes that the “too sacred to write” notion is in complete discord with Yahowah’s approach to every name and title in the Towrah and Prophets including His own. Moreover, God, in the midst of criticizing and rebuking religious clerics, said:

“Their plan is for (ha hasab – considering everything, their calculation and decision is to derive an account revealing that they are determined for) My people (‘am – My family) to overlook, to forget, and to cease to properly value (sakah – to ignore, to be unmindful of, to lose sight of the significance of, and to no longer respond to) My personal and proper name (shem) by way of (ba) the revelations and communications (ha halowm – the claims to inspired insights) which (‘asher) they recount to (saphar – they proclaim, record, and write to) mankind (‘iysh), to their fellow countrymen and associates (la rea’ – to others in their race and company), just as when in a relationship with (ka ‘asher ‘eth ba – similarly as when engaged in the same relationship with) the Lord Ba’al (ha Ba’al), their fathers (‘ab – their forefathers and ancestors) overlooked, ignored, and forgot (sakah – were not mindful of and ceased to appreciate the significance of) My personal and proper name (shem).” (Yirmayahuw / Yah Lifts Up / Jeremiah 23:27)

We know that these clerical copyedits began much earlier because Yahowah is recorded in His Towrah warning that the crime of diminishing the use of His name was punishable by death and separation (in Qara’ / Called Out / Leviticus 24:9-16). The rabbis, however, took the opposite approach and said that the use of Yahowah’s 401name was a crime punishable by death. It is why religious Jews replaced Yahowah’s name with “‘adony – my Lord,” under the guise that it was “too sacred to say.” Affirming this, the publishers in the preface of popular English Bible translations openly admit that they replaced God’s name with “the LORD” because of religious traditions. They are in essence admitting that rabbinical instigation provided them with a license to misrepresent, replace, and deceive.

Do you suppose that this same rabbinical mindset was shared by the disciples who were allegedly reprimanded and rebuked for associating the Greek title “Christos” with Iesous, and then told to never convey the association that underpins the religion with anyone? And since this would have been the opposite approach pursued by the God who conveyed the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, surely, they would not have been speaking for Him. After all, Yahowah wasn’t the least bit shy calling Dowd ha Mashyach or referring to him as His Son.

It is curious, of course, that not one in a thousand pastors, priests, religious teachers, or scholars ever mentions the universal application of the ten placeholders found on every page of every manuscript written within three centuries of the fulfillment of Chag Matsah in year 4000 Yah | 33 CE. And yet, if any portion of the Greek text was to be considered inspired by God, then these ten placeholders would have been designated by God. It is as simple as that. Ignoring them would then be in direct opposition to God’s will if He intended them, and proof that He did not inspire the text if they were subject to our interpretation.

I am convinced that there is only one rational reason for Yahowah to write out His name 7,000 times in the Hebrew Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. He wants us to know Him by name. Yahowah’s name, and all of God’s titles, convey essential truths in Hebrew which are lost in translation and are discarded when replaced.

402The most positive spin that can be placed upon the “nomina sacra” is that the sounds produced by the 22 Hebrew letters differ somewhat from the sounds represented by the 24 letters in the Greek alphabet. Of particular interest, there is no Y, W, soft H, or SH in Greek, the letters which comprise Yahowah’s or Yahowsha’s, if this had been the original basis of Iesous. And since names don’t change from one language to another, and always sound the same, there was simply no way to transliterate Yahowah precisely using the Greek alphabet. So rather than change His name, or misrepresent it, the translators of the Septuagint began the tradition of using placeholders. New Testament scribes simply followed suit.

I am not the first to recognize this predicament, or the first to deal with it. As I mentioned a moment ago, every extant 1^st and 2^nd century BCE and 1^st and 2^nd century CE copy of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, inserts Yahowah’s name into the Greek text using paleo- or Babylonian Hebrew letters. It was only after the scribes were no longer conversant in Hebrew that the Greek placeholders were used to convey God’s name.

A prominent early manuscript scholar offered a different, albeit uninformed, comparison between the Greek placeholders and the presentation of God’s name found in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, of which you should be aware. He claimed that the Hebrew letters YHWH represented a contraction similar to what is found in the early Greek texts. But if that were true, every single word in the Hebrew text would be a contraction. Said another way, Yahowah’s name isn’t written differently than any other Hebrew word or name used in the Towrah and Prophets or throughout Yisra’el. And the reason that this isn’t a problem is that the letters that comprise Yahowah’s name represent three of the five Hebrew vowels – with the Aleph and Ayin representing the other 403two. Using these vowels, every Hebrew name, title, and word is pronounceable.

The inclusion of these placeholders tells a story, one undermined when Greek words, titles, and errant transliterations were substituted for them. If you were to read the Textus Receptus or the more modern Nestle-Aland, you wouldn’t even know that these symbols ever existed. The same is true with every popular English translation. Potentially useful information pertinent to the credibility of the text and religion was discarded in the process.

Therefore, to the Christian, Yahowah’s name was changed to “Lord,” and the mythical misnomer, Iesous, became “Jesus.” As for a “Christ,” that’s a can of worms all on its own.

The truth is: “Lord” is Satan’s title. That is because the concept of lord represents the Adversary’s agenda and ambition. At best, “Jesus” is meaningless, and at worst, it is the name of the savior of the Druid religion (Gesus), where the Horned One is god. Recognizing that Constantine’s initial share of the Empire consisted of Britain, Gaul, and Spain, where the Druid religion flourished, the selection of Gesus could well have been politically expedient, as was incorporating almost every pagan holiday into the new religion.

Worse still, as I have previously mentioned, “christos” means “drugged” in Greek. In fact, it is from the rubbing on of medicinal ointments that the anointed connotation of christos was actually derived. The Rx or Rho Chi symbolism associated with today’s drug stores is a legacy of the first two letters in christos.

All of this known, after dedicating the time to properly critique Sha’uwl’s letters, I do not think the amanuenses he employed used the placeholders that are now found in the oldest manuscripts – all of which were scribed in Egypt. It 404would have been awkward in dictation and would have served no purpose. And if he did use them, it would have been because these same placeholders were found throughout the Septuagint. He would have wanted his epistles to look like “Scripture.” But the thing he did not want was for his mythical misnomer Iesoun, Iesous, and Iesou to be associated with Yahowah. Doing so would have completely undermined his thesis. So, just as Sha’uwl changed his own name, jettisoning its Hebrew meaning, he most assuredly discarded the message conveyed by these purloined Hebrew titles and names.

However, Sha’uwl, now Paulos, did not want anyone to realize this. As proof, he never once explained the meaning behind or pronunciation of God’s name or His Son’s titles to his Greek and Roman audiences. As a result, in every translation of Galatians, I am going to make the most reasonable and informed assumption: that a scribe in Egypt harmonized Paulos’ epistles with copies of the Septuagint, thereby adding the placeholders which were never intended by Paulos. Moreover, as a former rabbi, he would have been duty-bound to avoid all things “Yah.”

As I contemplated their intent, I became convinced that the function of the placeholders evolved to the point that, once they had served their function, they were eliminated. Originally, Hebrew letters written within Greek translations of the Towrah were designed to properly attest to the fact that every name and title associated with Yahowah and His people were Hebrew, not Greek. But then when Greek proxies were substituted from the Hebrew letters, the “nomina sacra” took on divine connotations within the Greek nomenclature. And it was this sense of divinity that the early Christian authorities employing the first scribes wanted to associate with their Iesou, with their Christu, their Kurios and Theos, even their Crux. So, the nomina sacra were deployed to give the new religion a Godly veneer.

405Speaking of religious malfeasance, since Galatians is the principal text used to undermine the Towrah’s authority, and since it is cited to negate Dowd’s repeated affirmations that he did not come to annul the Torah, but instead to fulfill it, it’s important that we consider the troubadour of the Christian justification: the King James Bible, as well as the Latin Vulgate upon which this revision was ultimately based. Therefore, recognizing that the Greek text reads, “Paulos, an apostle or delegate, not separating men, not even by the means of man, but to the contrary and emphatically on behalf of Iesou Christou and God, Father of the one having roused and awakened him for public debate, raising Him out of a dead corpse...,” here is the KJV rendition of Galatians 1:1: “Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)”

It reflects its source, the Latin Vulgate: “Paulus, Apostolus, not from men and not through man, but through Iesum Christum, and Deum the Father, who raised him from the dead.”

In that credulity is important, here is how the most highly respected text, that of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27^th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear, reads: “Paul delegate not from men but not through man but through Jesus Christ and God father of the one having raised him from the dead...”

Sadly, the most recent rendition of Paulos’ letter simply reiterated all of the same mistakes. Consider the New Living Translation’s regurgitation of prior prose: “This letter is from Paul, an apostle. I was not appointed by any group of people or any human authority, but by Jesus Christ himself and by God the Father, who raised Jesus from the dead.”

What is particularly regrettable is that the New Living 406Translation’s “New Testament” coordinator was none other than Philip Comfort. And yet every book Professor Comfort has published on the extant early Greek manuscripts acknowledges the consistent presence of the placeholders. He is not ignorant of them, and therefore, he is without excuse.

Before we move on, please notice that all three translations transliterated apostolos, rather than translating its meaning. They all ignored the four placeholders found in the Greek manuscripts, and then improperly conveyed their mythical god’s name and title – the one he disavowed and told no one to repeat. Further, egeiromai, meaning “to awaken, rouse from sleep, and get out of bed” was translated based upon a tertiary definition in all three cases, as was nekros.



It is a natural, albeit annoying tendency in spoken communication to use dependent clauses. But in the written word there is no excuse for run-on sentences, some of which comprise a paragraph or more.

Paulos’ first sentence of his first letter began, “Paulos, an apostle or delegate, not separating men, not even by the means of man, but to the contrary and emphatically on behalf of Iesou Christou and Theos | God, Patera | Father of the one having roused and awakened him for public debate, raising him out of a dead corpse,…” and then continued: “…and (kai) all (pas) the (oi) brothers (adelphos) with (sym) me (emoi) to the (tais) called out (ekklesia – out called; from ek – out of or from and kaleo – to call) of the (tes) Galatias (Galatias – the Roman province of Galatia in Asia Minor, bounded on the north by Bithynia and Paphlagonia, on the east by Pontus, on the south by Cappadocia and Lycaonia, and on the west by 407Phrygia)…” (Galatians 1:2)

First, Paul had a posse. Like all religious founders, he sought followers. Although, as we read deeper into his letter, he and they were not in agreement on much of anything. Sha’uwl will rebuke the Galatians just as he would attack the Corinthians and Thessalonians, even his alleged coconspirators: Peter, James, and John. Turns out, apart from his lover, Timothy, Paul rubbed everyone else the wrong way.

Second, there is no basis for anything remotely related to a “church” in the Greek texts. Ekklesia is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Miqra’ey because those who are Called Out are able to separate themselves from human institutions and join Yahowah’s Covenant family by responding to the Towrah’s “Miqra’ey – Invitations to be Called Out and Meet” with God. Second only to the spurious origins of Jesus and Christ, the replacement of ekklesia with “church” is among the most dubious copyedits found in the so-called “Christian New Testament.”

Third, the “book” of Galatians is actually an open letter or epistle. Paulos was responding to a myriad of opponents who had openly criticized his preaching in Galatia. We are witnesses, however, to only one side of this debate – in similar fashion to the never-ending argument which permeates Muhammad’s Quran. And in our quest for accuracy, the proper pronunciation of the name ascribed to this audience is Gal·at·ee·ah.

Unlike what we find in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, where Yahowah is seen dictating His message to a prophet or scribe who then writes down what he has heard in his native Hebrew tongue, Sha’uwl’s letters are the result of dictating a stream of consciousness to one of his devotees, to someone who was not a professional scribe, in Greek, a language foreign to him, rather than his native 408Hebrew, Aramaic, or Latin. Further, Paulos’ continued focus on himself and his repetitive use of “but I say,” where “I” represents Paul, not God, differentiates this self-proclaimed Apostle’s epistles from Yahowah’s testimony. It also positions Paulos as the lead candidate for the wolf in sheep’s clothing who would come in his own name and still be popularly received.

As a result of this stylistic choice, Sha’uwl’s letters contain some of the most difficult passages to translate. There are many missing words, and Paul’s epistles are famous for their run-on sentences. Moreover, in Galatians, Sha’uwl is being attacked, and he is clearly on the defensive, trying to justify his persona, authority, and edicts, especially those in conflict with the Torah of the God he falsely claimed to be representing. His assertion that he was an “Apostle” was being questioned, because he was not a witness to what had transpired in Yaruwshalaim during the fulfillment of Chag Matsah in 33 CE – not that any of these other clowns were either.

Galatia, itself, was a Roman province in Asia Minor that extended to the Black Sea. The Galatians were originally Gauls who moved down the Rhine to mingle with Greeks and Jews. They were known for their quick temper, prompt action, inconsistency, and malleability. Sha’uwl knew them well, as he grew up south of them and later traveled throughout their land in the pursuit of his mission.

Now as we will do throughout this review of Galatians, here are the Nestle-Aland, the Latin Vulgate, and the King James renditions of the second verse. The NA reveals: “and the with me all brothers to the assemblies of the Galatia.” Next, the LV conveys: “and all the brothers who are with me: to the ecclesiis Galatiæ.” Of which, the KJV published: “And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:” In this case, the most egregious error cannot be blamed on the Latin Vulgate.

409It is worth restating that few things in Christendom have been as harmful as changing the ekklesia, which means “called out,” to “church.” It created the impression that mythical “Jesus” who was erroneously labeled as a “Christ” to his chagrin, conceived a new Christian institution to replace the Chosen People. It further and falsely implies that this religious construct was somehow unrelated to Yahowah’s seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with Him, or even the Sabbath. And that led to the notion that the Feasts were nothing more than quaint “Jewish holidays.” But now, at least you know who to blame for this devastating corruption of the text. The Rosicrucian Francis Bacon, serving the political interests of King Iames | James, was the first to perpetrate this grievous and damning corruption. His predecessors, such as John Wycliffe, either transliterated ekklesia or wrote “assembly.”

In their desire to be politically correct, the revisionary paraphrase known as the NLT suggested: “All the brothers and sisters here join me in sending this letter to the churches of Galatia.” There is no Greek textual basis for “and sisters,” “here,” “join me,” “in sending,” or “this letter.” And ekklesia means “called out,” not “churches.” Equally misleading, the NLT created a new sentence, replete with a verb, to make it appear as if Paulos wasn’t engaged in a long-winded diatribe.

Also worth noting, of Sha’uwl’s first five letters, only Galatians went out under his name alone. First and Second Thessalonians were sent from “Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy.” First Corinthians was from Paul and Sosthenes, while the immensely troublesome, indeed demonic, epistle of 2^nd Corinthians bears Timothy’s name in addition to Paul’s. In today’s vernacular, Sha’uwl wrote Galatians before his posse was popular.

The evidence suggests that this letter was dictated in haste immediately after the Yaruwshalaim Summit, 410immediately before Paul befriended Timothy. Equally telling is that while Sha’uwl will acknowledge Barnabas in this epistle, since the two severed their relationship in the immediate aftermath of the Yaruwshalaim Summit, he was excluded from the greeting and demeaned in the midst of a rather mean-spirited rant.

This next dependent clause is a great example of why it is so difficult to determine what Paulos was trying to say, and for us to ascertain why he chose to be so provocative. At issue here: there is no verb, and Charis (Greek) and Gratia (Latin) serve as the name of the popular trio of pagan goddesses.

“…Grace (charis – the name of the lovely and lascivious Greek goddesses of merriment, known to the Romans as the Gratia, from which “Grace” is derived) to you (humeis) and (kai) peace (eirene – harmony and tranquility, freedom from worry) from (apo) God (ΘΥ – a placeholder for Theos | God), Father (pater) of us (emon), and (kai) Lord (ΚΥ – a placeholder used to convey kurios, giving the Greek word for lord and master a Divine sheen), Iesou (ΙΗΥ – a Placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Iesou which became “Jesus” in the 17^th century after the invention of the letter “J”) Christou (ΧΡΥ – a placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement)…” (Galatians 1:3)

It is curious that charis is not found in the earliest book, which is Mark or even in Matthew which, along with John and Revelations, was not written until around 95 CE. Nevertheless, the Christian fixation on Charis, and its Roman manifestation, Gratia, is therefore a direct result of Paul – because he obviously instigated the concept and brought this pagan terminology into his replacement testament. The Gratia serve as Paul’s rendition of Muhammad’s Satanic Verses, in which three goddesses – al-Lat, Manat, and al-Uzza were added to the Quran at Satan’s insistence. Charis appears 107 times in the self-411proclaimed Apostle’s letters, and another 14 times in Acts, a book written mostly about Paul and for Paul.

The only other mentions of charis in the Greek texts appear after the publication of Paul’s epistles. We find charis used in just one conversation in John (1:14-17). It is found four times in Luke, a book written from Paul’s perspective (of which there is no 1^st-, 2^nd-, or 3^rd-century manuscript to verify these inclusions). Of the remaining 16 occurrences, we find all but two sprinkled in the poorest attested books. Ten are found in Peter’s letters (of which there are no reliable 1^st-, 2^nd-, or 3^rd-century manuscripts (the very late 3^rd- to early 4^th-century Papyrus 72 is extremely free (meaning imprecise and subject to substantial alterations), which suggests that it was heavily influenced by Marcion and/or Eusebius)). Charis appears twice in Ya’aqob | James (of which there is no pre-Constantine manuscript of the 4:6 passage in which it appears), once in 2^nd John (of which there is no pre-Constantine manuscript), and once in Jude (but P78 does not include Charis in the 4^th verse indicating that it was added later by a scribe whose agenda was other than accuracy).

The first use of charis in Revelation (1:4) is attested only by a fragment too small to validate. It was written by an untrained and unprofessional scribe (as determined by his penmanship) in the early 4^th century on Papyrus 18. It is therefore unreliable. The second purported inclusion of charis is found in Revelation 22:21, but no pre-Constantine manuscript covers anything past the beginning of the 17^th chapter, so it cannot be validated. Therefore, apart from the one poorly attested inclusion, there is no verification that charis was used by anyone other than Paul prior to the early 4^th century when the Roman Catholic Constantine bootlicker, Eusebius had his way with the text and became the author of the New Testament as we know it today.

The reason that this is an issue is because Charis is the 412name of the three Greek Graces, known as the Charities (Charites). The English word “charity” is a transliteration of their name. These pagan goddesses of charm, splendor, and beauty were often depicted in mythology celebrating nature and fertility. They were overtly erotic. Collectively they make four appearances in Homer’s Iliad and three in The Odyssey. In the order of their appearances, they are depicted offering bedroom attire to Aphrodite, participating in a ruse to trick Zeus, and serving to lure Hypnos astray with promises of sex such that he would mislead the father of the gods. They are seen as objects of beauty when splattered with blood, as the source of feminine attractiveness for handmaidens, as those who pampered Aphrodite after she was caught being unfaithful to her husband, and finally as a means to enchant through erotic dancing. And in the case of Aphrodite, the Graces “bathed her, anointed her with ambrosial oil, and dressed her in delightful apparel so that she might resume her loving duties” after having been caught in “the loving embrace of Ares,” the God of War. As such, Homer used the enchanting lure of the Graces to depict what he called, “the beauty of war.”

Some accounts attest that the Graces were the daughters of Zeus. Others claim that Charis were the daughters of Dionysus and Aphrodite. And that is particularly troubling because Paul claims to hear one of Dionysus’ most famous quotes during his conversion experience on the road to Damascus. And as it would transpire, Paul’s faith came to mirror the Dionysus cult (Bacchus in Roman mythology), which is one of the reasons why so many aspects of Pauline Christianity are pagan. (These troubling associations are detailed for your consideration in the “Kataginosko – Convicted” chapter of Twistianity.)

The Graces were associated with the underworld and with the Eleusinian Mysteries. Their naked form stands at 413the entrance of the Acropolis in Athens. Naked frescoes of the Charites adorn homes in Pompeii, Italy which means that they transcended the Greek religion and influenced Rome where they became known as the Gratia. Their appeal, beyond their beauty, gaiety, and sensual form, is that they held mysteries known only to religious initiates. Francis Bacon, as the founder of the Rosicrucians (a blend of Christianity, the Occult references, and Qabalistic illusions, melded into a political movement exposing a new world order) was particularly fond of them.

At issue here, and the reason that I bring this to your attention, is that Yahowah tells us in the Towrah that the names of pagan gods and goddesses should not be memorialized in this way. “Do not bring to mind (zakar – remember or recall so as to memorialize) the name of other (‘acher – or different) gods (‘elohym); neither let them be heard coming out of your mouth.” (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 23:13)

And: “I will remove and reject the names of the Lords and false gods (ba’alym) out of your mouth, and they shall not be brought to mind and memorialized (lo’ zakar – remembered, recalled, and mentioned) by their name anymore (‘owd shem).” (Howsha’ / Salvation / Hosea 2:17)

And yet the name of the Greek goddesses, Charis, is the operative term of Galatians – one which puts Sha’uwl | Paul in opposition to the Towrah | Teaching and God condemning their inclusion. Simply stated: the “Gospel of Grace” is a pagan concept. It is literally “Gott’s spell of Gratia.”

In ancient languages, it’s often difficult to determine if the name of a god or goddess became a word, or if an existing descriptive term later became a name. But we know that Greek goddesses, like those in Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, and Rome, bore names that described their 414mythological natures and ambitions. Such is the case with the Charites. They came to embody many of the things the word, charis, has come to represent: “rejoicing, pleasure, loveliness, charming speech, and delightful experiences,” in addition to “licentiousness, sensuality, hedonism, merriment, and eroticism,” although the latter are typically censored from religious lexicons as unchristian. So while we can’t be certain if the name, Charis, was based on the verb, chairo, or whether the verb was based upon the name, we know that it conveys all of these things, both good and bad – albeit completely unnecessary.

There is a Hebrew equivalent to positive aspects of this term – one used in its collective forms 193 times in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. It is chen, from the verb, chanan. As a noun, it means “favor and acceptance by way of an unearned gift,” which is why it is often mistranslated as “grace” in English Bibles. To be chanan is “to be merciful, demonstrating unmerited favor,” and as such chanan is errantly rendered as “to be gracious.”

Delving deeper into the run-on sentence, for the second time in a row, Paulos has reversed the proper order of the erroneous title and name, and I suspect to imply that “Iesou’s last name was “Christou,” a ruse Christians have swallowed as if the poison was laced with Kool-Aid. But this is like writing “Francis Pope” rather than “Pope Francis.” It is akin to saying “George King” instead of “King George.” So even if the title “Christou” was accurate, and it is not, even if he was the Messiah and Greek, and He was not, writing Iesou Christou would be wrong on every account.

Worse, now that Satan’s title, “Lord,” has been associated with Iesou Christou, those who are cognizant of the Adversary’s agenda see his demonic influence on this letter. Satan could not dissuade Dowd from fulfilling his role as the Passover Lamb, so ha Satan did the next worse thing: he inspired Sha’uwl to contravene his purpose such 415that the Christian Christ could be used to advance the Lord’s agenda.

Beyond this, absolutely no attempt was made in any English Bible to translate or transliterate the Hebrew basis of the Hebrew name that would have served as the basis for the Greek replacement, or even the title they were trying to ascribe to him. And yet, the Greek charis, which is used as if it were a title in the phrase “Gospel of Grace” throughout Paul’s letters, was neither translated nor transliterated from the Greek, but instead was conveyed by replicating the name of the Roman version of the Greek goddesses’ names, and therefore as “Grace.” Inconsistencies like this are troubling because they prove that the translators cannot be trusted. The mention of Grace serves to demonstrate the influence of the Latin Vulgate, the Roman Church, and Greco-Roman mythology.

While it is a smaller distinction, Yahowah uses “shalowm,” which speaks of “reconciliation.” It is deployed to describe the “restoration of a relationship.” Paulos, on the other hand, speaks of “eirene – peace,” which is the absence of war. They aren’t the same.

Continuing our review of the sources of Christian corruption, the NA reads: “favor to you and peace from God father of us and Master Jesus Christ.” Next, the KJV begins verse 1:3 by offering the pagan goddesses to the Galatians: “Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ.” This time, their inspiration was the Latin Vulgate, which reads: “Gratia and peace to you from the Father, our Domino, Iesu Christo.”

I am always interested in knowing how pagan terms enter into the religious vernacular. In this case, we just learned that “Grace” comes to us by way of the Roman Catholic Vulgate. Gratia was the Latin name for the Greek Charis. And that is why they are known as the “Graces” in 416English.

In Pagan Rome, the three Gratia, or Graces, served as replacements for the Greek Charis. So all Christendom has done is transliterate the Roman name into English, and then base a religious mantra, “the Gospel of Grace,” upon pagan deities two times over.

This is deeply troubling. It is a scar on the credibility of the texts. It is a mortal wound to Paul’s epistles, and it is an irresolvable deathblow to Christendom.

In the NLT, rather than Paulos offering the Galatians “Grace,” the Father and Son are depicted doing so. “May God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ give you grace and peace.”

All three translations got one name right, that of the pagan goddesses, “Grace.” The other name and titles, they got wrong. In fact, throughout this review, you will find that all of the most important names and titles – Yahowah, Mashyach, Towrah, and ‘Edown | Upright One – are always rendered errantly while all of the made-up or less meaningful names and titles are transliterated accurately in English Bible translations. And that is incriminating. Even Satan’s name and title are consistently rendered accurately, just not God’s.

Sha’uwl’s rambling introductory sentence continues with:

“…the one (tou) having given (didomi – having produced and allowed) himself (heautou) on account of (peri – concerning and regarding) the (ton) sins (hamartia – wrong doings, wanderings away, and errors) of us (emon), so that (hopos – somehow, as a marker of indefinite means) he might possibly gouge or tear out (exaireo – he might choose to pick, pluck, root, or take out (in the aorist tense this depicts a moment in time, in the middle voice, he, not we, is affected by his actions, and in 417the subjunctive mood, this is a mere possibility)) us (emas) from (ek) the (tou) past inflexible and unrelenting circumstances of the old system (aionos – the previous era, the long period of time in history operating as a universal or worldly system, something that was existent in the earliest or prior times that continued over a long period of time; from aei – circumstances which are incessant, unremitting, relentless, invariable, and inflexible) which (tou) had been in place (enistamai – had occurred in the past but was influencing the present circumstances in which we had been placed, depicting from where we had come, and now found ourselves, presently threatened by a previous edit (in the perfect tense this is being used to describe a completed action in the past which still influences the present state of affairs, in the active voice the subject is performing the action, and as a participle in the genitive, the circumstance into which we have been placed is being presented as a verbal adjective which is being described by the following)) 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 (in the genitive, this adjective is modifying the previous genitive participle)) in opposition to and against (kata – extending downward from, with regard to, and opposed to) the desire and will (to thelema – the wish, inclination, intent, choice, pleasure, and decision) of the (tou) God (ΘΥ – placeholder for Theos | God) and (kai) Father (ΠΡΣ – placeholder for Paters | Father which became the basis of Pope) of us (ego)…” (Galatians 1:4)

While it is a fairly small copyedit, modern Greek texts use hyper between “giving himself,” and “us missing the mark,” but on Papyrus 46, we find peri, instead. While these words convey similar thoughts, hyper, meaning “for the sake of and in place of,” makes a stronger case, which 418is why scribes may have replaced peri with it.

This known, there are some insights to be gleaned from this declaration – all of which are horrendous. First, once we come to understand that the misnomer Iesous, Iesoun, Iesou was not the Messiah, Son of God, or Passover Lamb we immediately recognize that something nefarious is afoot in Paul’s epistles. However, when these clauses are joined, we find Paulos claiming that the “Lord Iesou Christou,” was “the one having given himself.” This is not a small distinction. It defies the very purpose and nature of God. This error in perception is akin to calling our Father “Lord,” and thus Satanic.

Paul expressly denounces this connection with hopos, which is a “marker of indefinite means.” By including it, this introductory statement implies that Paul said that the methods deployed by God to save humankind were “not planned,” they “did not unfold on a fixed or appointed schedule,” and that His “means were unclear, vague, and imprecise.” Since this is all untrue, it’s instructive for you to know that Yahowah offered His Son as the Passover Lamb. In this way, the Messiah’s body served as the sacrifice while Dowd’s soul, once associated with our mistakes, was placed in She’owl on the Shabat to honor the promise to perfect us on UnYeasted Bread. And it occurred right on schedule in year 4000 Yah in 33 CE.

But none of this happens as a result of a plan according to Paul. His Lord slept through it all – or was dead at the time. And he must have awakened in a horrible mood, at least based upon the angry and violent verb this “apostle” ascribed to him – “exaireo: he might gouge, tear, and pluck out.”

Or perhaps, the transformation from Sha’uwl, the murderous wannabe rabbi, to Paulos, the Lord’s Apostle, was a bit overstated. By any standard, and most especially in this context, exaireo was a poor choice of words. It 419literally speaks of “gouging and tearing out,” in addition to “plucking and rooting out.” Yes, exaireo can also convey “to rescue, to remove, and to take out,” but when these softer approaches are connected with what the “Lord Iesou Christou” is allegedly delivering us from, it only gets worse.

In the Complete Word Study Dictionary, the primary definition of exaireo is “to pluck out” an eye. They provided this example because both times the Gospel’s Jesus is translated using the verb, it is to depict the plucking out of an offensive eye to keep one’s whole body from being cast into Hades. While it is probable that the mythical misnomer said no such thing, in that fables are typically inarticulate, there is no missing the fact that the Greek word is traumatic and violent.

The only time exaireo is used by other than Paul, the fictitious creation who has become known as “Stephen” is presented in Acts 7 telling the High Priest that Yowseph was “exaireo – delivered from” his afflictions. Reflecting this usage, the secondary definition in the Complete Word Study Dictionary is “to take out of affliction.” So in a moment, we’ll consider the source of affliction from which this Lord is supposedly “rescuing” believers.

The Dictionary of Biblical Languages concurs with its peers, reporting that exaireo principally means: “take out, gouge out, and tear out.” Secondarily, they attest that it can convey “to rescue and set free.” Then they point us to its root and reveal that exaireo also means “to choose.” But this too is a problem. While Yahowah has every right to choose whomever He wants, for the most part, the option is ours. We were given freewill so that we might choose to engage in a relationship with God once we disassociate from religion and politics and come to know Him.

Moving on, the Exegetical Dictionary lists “pluck it out” as its favored definition. This is supported by Strong’s 420Lexicon which presents “to pluck out” as the most accurate depiction of exaireo. This is not a loving embrace.

Nonetheless, Paulos deployed exaireo in the aorist tense, which depicts an isolated moment in time without any respect to a process. As such, the sacrifices made by Paul’s Lord were random events, neither promised nor part of a plan. They didn’t even occur on a prescribed schedule – all of which is untrue when the Miqra’ey are properly prescribed to Yahowah and Dowd.

In the middle voice, his Lord is being affected by his own actions, which could only be valid if the Lord is Satan, not Dowd. With regard to the Messiah’s sacrifices, it is Yahowah’s Covenant children who benefit from them. But if Paul’s Lord is Satan, then it is the Adversary who is most favorably affected by this inversion of the truth. And last but not least, by using the subjunctive mood, faith becomes operative, because it presents a mere possibility.

This has been a horrendous beginning, with the rejection of his Hebrew name, the selection of a Roman moniker, the unfounded boast of being named an apostle, denying his rabbinical training and its influence, inverting the order of the fictitious name and the title he errantly afforded his Lord, not once but twice, then implying that Iesou slept through the most vital aspect of the mission. Pagan Graces are now operative agents in Pauline Doctrine, and Paul has revealed that his god was the Lord. He conveyed that there had been no plan and that God’s schedule and timing were irrelevant. Then he protests that his Lord was now plucking us away from something. But from what do you suppose was Paulos’ Lord tearing us away?

To answer that question, we have to isolate the specific “aionos – prolonged circumstance, old system, or era” Paul is labeling “corrupt and worthless” with the adjective “poneros – annoying harassment, toilsome labor, 421burdensome hardships, and bad-natured.” And fortunately, our first hint comes from “enistamai – the threatening system in which we had been placed” by the inclination of God. With the verb scribed in the completed variation of the past tense where there is a lingering effect, we can be certain that the subject this verb and adjective is addressing with aionos is a “previous or old system” under which people, at least according to Paul, were still being adversely influenced. So, while the identity of this entity should be obvious since knowing for certain is vital to our understanding of Sha’uwl’s intent, please bear with me a while longer as we uncover something which is, well, disturbing.

Aionos can be used to address something which has been present from the beginning. It speaks of prolonged periods of time, even of so many lifetimes that these epochs might seem to last forever. It reflects eons and ages, which is why it is often translated as “forever” or “into perpetuity.” Aionos is used to describe “worldly systems” and “universal circumstances.” But not every condition can be conveyed using aionos because it is based upon “aei – circumstances which are incessant, unremitting, relentless, invariable, and inflexible.” This is telling because this is similar to how Sha’uwl describes Yahowah’s Towrah.

Paul uses aionos as if it were synonymous with the “world as it presently exists” in 1 Corinthians 8:13. It is used to mislead people into believing that there is an “order of” Melchisedec in Hebrews 5:6. Then in Ephesians 3:9, Paulos again deploys aionos to speak of a mystery which has been hidden by God from the “beginning of the world.”

But it is his selection of aionos in Colossians 1:26 which is especially telling. Once again, in association with “mysterion – religious secrets which are mysterious, remaining a mystery and not to be understood, confided only to the initiated and not to mere mortals” and also “apokrypto – deliberately hidden and concealed by those 422keeping secrets,” we find aionos depicting “past ages,” especially with regard to previous generations.

So let’s turn to that letter and examine what Paulos had to say about the mysterious and hidden aionos. This discussion begins with the self-proclaimed apostle arrogantly and erroneously presenting himself as the “co-savior” and “co-author” of his new religion in Colossians 1:24-25:

“Now (nyn – at the same time), I rejoice (chairo – I embrace and hail, I thrive and benefit (present tense, active voice, indicative mood)) in (en – by and in association with) the sufferings and misfortunate afflictions (tois pathema – the evil calamities and adverse emotional passions) for your sake (hyper sy – for the benefit of you, beyond you and over you), and (kai – also) I actually complete (antanapleroo – I fill up and fulfill, I make up for that which would otherwise be deficient (in the present tense the writer is portraying his contribution as being in process, in the active voice, he is signifying that the subject, which would be either Sha’uwl or the afflictions is performing this, and with the indicative mood, the writer is portraying his fulfillment of the sufferings as being actual, and thus real, even though he may not believe it himself)) that which is deficient and lacking (hysterema – that which is needed, missing, wanted, and absent from, addressing the deficiencies associated with that which is left to be done due to prior failures and inferior performances) of the (ton) afflictions (thlipsis – pressing troubles, anguishing distresses, burdensome tribulations, oppressive pressures, straits, and persecutions) of the (tou) Christou (ΧΡΥ) in (en) the (te) flesh (sarx – corporeally) of me (mou) for the benefit of (hyper – for the sake of, on behalf of, beyond and over) the (tou) body of (soma – the human and animal nature of) him (autou) who (os) is (eimi – he presently, and by his own accord, exists as (present active indicative)) the (e) called out (ekklesia – called-out 423assembly, congregation, meeting), of which (hos – that means), I (ego), myself, exist as (ginomai – myself conceive and bring into existence, become, cause, belong to, appear as, and possess similar characteristics to) a servant (diakonos – one who serves without necessarily having the office) extended down from (kata – in accordance with or against, with regard to or in opposition to) the administration and arrangement (oikonomia – the management, task, job, oversight, dispensation, or plan) of this (tou – the) god (ΘΩ), the (ten) appointment having been produced and granted (didomi – one caused, assigned, entrusted, committed, and given for his advantage (in the aorist participle this one time appointment was in antecedent time, in the passive this god was influenced and acted upon, and in the accusative singular this appointment was solely granted)) to me (moi – to and for myself (in the dative, Sha’uwl is saying that this belongs to him)) to (eis – for and into) you all (umas) to complete and fulfill (pleroo – to fully provide, completely enable, and finish, bringing an end to) the (ton) word (logon – statement, speech, and account) of the (tou) god (ΘΩ).” (Colossians 1:24-25)

In addition to calling himself the “co-savior,” Paulos would have us believe that he is the “co-author” of God’s Word. If we are to believe him, God personally granted Paulos the authority to complete His testimony. It all sounds a bit Muhammadan, doesn’t it? On a balance designed to weigh presumptuousness and ego, even intoxicating and deadly deceit, this would be off the scale.

So now after revealing that he is both “co-savior” and “co-author,” God’s means to make up for His own deficiencies, Paulos turns to mythology. His enormous contributions and these marvelous accommodations had been unknown to the Jews, to the descendants of Abraham and the Covenant, because they were blinded by the old system. He writes:

424“The mystery and mythology (to mysterion – the sacred secrets, used as a technical religious term in the pagan cults of Greece and Rome to depict a secret rite or esoteric knowledge confided only to the initiated and not spoken to mere mortals) of the one having been hidden and concealed (to apokrypto – the one kept a secret) from those of (apo) the past age (ton aionos – the old system), and from (kia apo) their generations (genea – those fathered, the descendants who were related, successive members of the same ethnicity, thus speaking of the offspring of the old system who were Abraham’s descendants, a.k.a., Yahuwdym), but right now at this exact moment (de nyn – however presently at this time as part of this current discourse) it is being revealed (phaneroo – it is being disclosed and displayed) to (tois) his (autou) holy and pure ones (hagios – dedicated, consecrated, sacred, and set-apart saints).” (Colossians 1:26)

Since this has been all about Paul’s contributions, it would be reasonable to assume that he was implying that God wanted him to become known to the world in this way – by Paul’s own hand. But that is not why we turned to the Colossians letter. We were seeking to define aionos which, now having been linked to the “genea – descendants,” can be none other than the Towrah and its Covenant. In Paul’s mind, that was the “old system.” It is known today as the “Old Testament” as a result of Paul’s malfeasance.

And speaking of Paul’s state of mind, his affinity with the rabbinical community may be showing. Orthodox Jews view the most devout as “holy and pure ones.”

Returning to Galatians 1:4, as I mentioned before, with “enistamai – had been placed in” scribed in the perfect tense, thereby describing something that had been completed in the past but with a legacy influence, we have yet another affirmation that aionos was being deployed to depict an “old, or previously existing, system.” And then 425when these circumstances are presented in context to “to thelema – the intent, determination, and decision” of God, the aionos is most assuredly the Torah.

That is a problem for a number of reasons. First, Paulos is describing God’s “old system,” His Towrah, saying that it is: “poneros – disadvantageous and harmful,” when Yahowah’s perspective on His Towrah is the opposite. Just imagine having the gall to call God’s teaching and guidance “wicked and worthless, evil and faulty, immoral and corrupt, annoying and mischievous, laborious and criminal, unprofitable and useless, unserviceable and malicious, malevolent and malignant.” No. Not even remotely. Just the opposite.

Second, Paulos is introducing the myth which would forever haunt Christendom: that of an “Old Testament” being replaced by a “New Testament.” And yet God only has one testimony. His message has not changed. Likewise, Yahowah only has one Covenant, and it has yet to be renewed. Yahowah emphatically affirms that the Towrah is forever. Nothing can be added to it or taken away from it. And yet here, it is being discarded as trash – literally as “poneros – porn.”

Third, why would anyone in his right mind believe that God authorized someone to malign and discredit Him? Associating poneros with His system, with His Way, is about as slanderous as words allow.

And fourth, if God’s original system was so worthless and immoral, why would anyone suspect that this revision would somehow be worthy? How is it that the Author of such a disadvantageous and harmful scheme could ever be credible? Moreover, if this is God’s history, if what He has revealed and promised through His previous prophets is so awful, so counterproductive, why believe this “Impostle?”

And as mind-bendingly atrocious as all of this is, and it is as bad as bad ever gets, there is yet another implication 426so rotten, so insidious, once I saw it, I had to put my response off for a day just to cool down. Paul is saying that his “Kurios Iesou Christou” is “tearing us away from” the Torah. It is the unspoken undercurrent of Christianity.

While the Sermon on the Mount bluntly and boldly declares that the speaker came to fulfill and affirm the Towrah, and that no one should think that he came to discredit or discard it, Paulos is refuting and upending all of this. He is literally turning everything Gospel Jesus represents upside down while also demeaning the Word of God. It is all being discarded, tossed away as “poneros – trash.”

To believe Paul, Yahowah’s entire plan of redemption, His Towrah | Guidance, must be repudiated. Dowd’s sacrifice is now for naught. The Covenant is meaningless. The Invitations to Meet with God go unanswered. The Torah is public enemy number one.

And yet, by writing in a counterfeit of God’s name, by claiming God’s authorization and sponsorship, Paulos, with the stroke of a pen, has handed billions of unsuspecting souls over to Satan.

We are witnessing the creation of Christianity. Paul’s religion would be based upon the lie that the “Lord Jesus Christ came to save us from the evils of the Torah and from its mean and incompetent God.” In Christendom, rather than Dowd being the Passover Lamb saving us by affirming and fulfilling the Torah’s promises, the “Lord Jesus Christ” would be “kata – in opposition to” the “thelema” will and intent” of God, “exaireo – ripping us away from” His “poneros – disadvantageous and harmful” “aionos – Old System.”

I am reminded of what Yahowah said of this man some 2,500 years ago, 666 years before the Devil’s Advocate penned this poisonous prose:

427“Pay attention, he will be puffed up with false pride. His soul, it is not right nor straightforward in him. So, through trust and reliance, by being firmly established and upheld by that which is dependable and truthful, those who are correct and thus vindicated shall live. (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:4)

Moreover, because the intoxicating and inebriating spirit of the man of deceptive infidelity and treacherous betrayal is a high-minded moral failure with his meritless presumptions, he will not rest, find peace, nor live, whoever is open to the broad path, the duplicitous and improper way, associated with Sha’uwl. He and his soul are like the plague of death.

And so those who are brought together by him, receiving him, will never be satisfied. All of the Gentiles will gather together unto him, all of the people from different races and nations in different places. (Chabaquwq 2:5)

But they do not ask questions, any of them, about him. Terse references to the word they lift up as taunts to ridicule, with implied associations that mock, controlling through comparison and counterfeit, along with allusive sayings with derisive words arrogantly conveyed.

There are hard and perplexing questions which need to be asked of him, and duplicitous dealings to be known regarding him. So they should say, ‘Woe to the one who claims to be great so as to increase his offspring, acting like a rabbi, when neither apply to him. For how long will they make pledges based upon his significance, becoming burdened by his testimony?’” (Chabaquwq / Habakkuk 2:6)

While it is a painful reminder, in his opening line, Paulos actually wrote:

428“…the one having produced and given himself on account of the sins and errors of us, so that somehow, through indefinite means, he might possibly gouge or tear out, pluck and uproot us from the past circumstances and old system which had been in place which is disadvantageous and harmful, corrupt and worthless, malicious and malignant, and in opposition to the desire and will, the inclination and intent, of God and Father of us…” (Galatians 1:4)

Reflecting some, but not all of this, the McReynolds translators, who provided the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear, opted to ignore the caustic and confrontational nature of Paulos’ greeting when they offered: “the one having given himself on behalf of the sins of us so that he might pick out us from the age the present evil by the want of the God and father of us.” And not surprisingly, the dark side of the message laden within the Greek text was also ignored in the version of Galatians 1:4 found in the KJV: “Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father,” Other than “present wicked age,” the Vulgate is identical.

The NLT, however, decided to be more creative: “Jesus gave his life for our sins, just as God our Father planned, in order to rescue us from this evil world in which we live.” While the inclusion of a subject is required, “Jesus’” name isn’t part of this clause. Further, arbitrarily adding a subject to the clause artificially elevates the writing quality, giving the false impression that this could have been inspired by a rational being. Furthermore, there is no basis for “his life” in the Greek text.

The first run-on sentence within the most wretched document ever penned began with these words…

“Paulos (Paulos), an apostle (apostolos), not (ouk) from (apo) men (anthropon), not even (oude) by the 429means of (dia) man (anthropou), but to the contrary (alla) on behalf of (dia) Iesou Christou (ΙΝΥ ΧΡΥ) and (kai) Theos | God (ΘΥ), Patera | Father (ΠΡΑ) of the (tou) one having roused and awakened (egeiromai) him (autos) out of (ek) a lifeless corpse (nekros), (Galatians 1:1) and (kai) all (pas) the (oi) brothers (adelphos) with (sym) me (emoi) to the (tais) called out (ekklesia) of the (tes) Galatias (Galatias), (Galatians 1:2) Charis | Grace (charis) to you (humeis) and (kai) peace (eirene) from (apo) Theos | God (ΘΥ), Father (pater) of us (emon) and (kai) Kurios | Lord (ΚΥ), Iesou (ΙΗΥ) Christou (ΧΡΥ), (Galatians 1:3) the one (tou) having given (didomi) himself (heautou) on account of (peri) the (ton) sins (hamartia) of us (emon), so that (hopos) he might possibly gouge or tear out (exaireo) us (emas) from (ek) the (tou) past inflexible and unrelenting circumstances of the old system (aionos) which (tou) had been in place (enistamai) which is disadvantageous and harmful trash, indeed pornography (poneros) in opposition to (kata) the desire and will (to thelema) of the (tou) Theos | God (ΘΥ) and (kai) Paters | Father (ΠΡΣ) of us (ego),…” (Galatians 1:4)

If you believe that this man was speaking for the God he was excoriating, please give this book to someone with a functioning conscience.

