531Twistianity

Appalling

…Contradicting God

10

Pseudomai | I Lie

Into the Darkness...

We do not have a copy of the report Sha’uwl received from the Galatians, but it is obvious from his response to them that they were, at the very least, highly suspect of his credentials and his preaching.

“I did not ascend (oute elthon – I did not travel) into (eis) Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem (Hierosoluma – a transliteration of the Hebrew name meaning Source of Information Regarding Reconciliation) toward the goal of being with or against (pros) the Apostles (apostolos – the messengers who are prepared and sent out, from apo sent out, and stello prepared and equipped) before (pro) me (ego), but to the contrary (alla) I went away, withdrawing (aperchomai – I departed) to (eis) Arabia (Arabia – a transliteration of the Hebrew ‘arab, meaning to grow dark), and (kai) returned (hypostrepho) again (palin – once more) to (eis) Damascus (Damaskos – a transliteration of the Hebrew Dameseq, meaning shedding silent tears in sackcloth).” (Galatians 1:17)

So that you are aware, Papyrus 46 uses elthon in the first clause, not anerchomai as is suggested in later-compiled manuscripts. Less accurate and verbose perhaps, the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear conveys: “But not I went up into Jerusalem toward the before me delegates but I went off into Arabia and again I returned into Damascus.”

Nothing would have been more compelling, more 532reassuring, with regard to Sha’uwl’s credibility than a trip to Arabia – that is if we are to believe that Yahowah couldn’t find a way off the mountain and was still there. While the line was designed to put Sha’uwl in the same conversation as Moseh, the idea was as preposterous as Muhammad’s fabled flight on the imaginary Donk-Mule from Petra to the nonexistent Temple in Jerusalem to lead the Islamic Musa in a round of prostration prayers after the debacle of the Satanic Verses. And while the other Devil’s Advocate leaped from an imagined mosque on the Temple Mount skyward to Hell en route to al-Lahi/hu/ha in the midst of his delusions of grandeur, Sha’uwl would have dimwitted Christians believe that the exodus was to the Promised Land of Damascus.

In the annals of the anuses in human history, I do not think that there was ever a more incompetent and insane, completely unhinged and delusional con man than this man. Nonetheless, Christians believe this verbal diarrhea was the inspired and inerrant word of their god. It’s little wonder that Paul and Company convinced anti-Semites to believe that Jews killed Jesus because the Christian god must have been an incompetent nincompoop, too – should he have inspired this fable.

I suppose there is also the inference that Paul’s New Testament is the Oral un-Law Part Two. Rabbis, to justify their Talmudic nonsense, would claim that as the written Towrah was revealed to Moseh and the Children of Yisra’el on Mount Choreb in Arabia, the 70 elders Yahowah prohibited from joining Him on the mountain, negotiated a different outcome and were bequeathed a verbal version in competition with the written one. So now with Sha’uwl / Paulos, he could dispense with and argue away the outdated and arcane Nomos of Moses because he had a new and improved version of his own.

Funny thing, though, while the Great Liberator brought down the Towrah, Paul never bothered to share a 533single word from his Moses Moment. And that is because it did not happen. The claimed inspiration behind these perverted epistles is a complete lie – an obvious one at that.

The first of five compelling reasons to discount the Arabian sojourn is that Paul’s Galatians testimony cannot be reconciled with his own account in Acts 9, which was written a decade later. In his testimony to Luke, Paul’s portrayal of events following his experience on the road to Damascus does not include a trip to Arabia. In the quasi-historical account, he claims that his public mission began within days of his spiritual awakening. And since the book of Acts is far better attested and vastly more detailed than Galatians, logic compels us to favor the more complete chronology over Galatians, when they conflict.

In this regard, years after his so-called “conversion experience,” Paul told his associate, Luke, who compiled Acts, that he was specifically instructed to spend time with an especially timid man named Ananias – an individual unknown to history apart from Paul’s telling of the events. And while we will consider Sha’uwl’s recollection of this meeting in a moment, the newly minted “Apostle” told Luke that, after spending a few days recovering in the home of his reluctant benefactor from the trauma inflicted by the harassing spirit who besieged him, he immediately began preaching in Damascus.

We read: “He took some food and regained his strength. Now for several days he was with the disciples who were at Damascus, and immediately he began to proclaim Iesou in the synagogues, saying that he is the son of God.” (Acts 9:19-20)

There is a considerable difference between spending a few days in a home in Damascus regaining strength after being tormented by an unseen spirit, and a long sojourn across the desert to Arabia to meet with a reclusive god still flaming about in the desert. As such, Paul either lied to 534Luke or to the Galatians – or both. Beyond the discrepancy in time, if we are to believe that Sha’uwl met with the “Healing Messenger” as he has so often attested, why was his spiritual encounter so debilitating?

This says that Paul was “with the disciples.” If true, it means that two or more of Gospel Jesus’ posse also thought that Damascus would be a more appropriate place to preach, recuperate, or vacation. And yet, they were so irrelevant to Paul’s story that they went unnamed. Or Paul was lying once again, as was his manner. Affirming this conclusion, later in Galatians, Paulos will specifically state that he initially avoided all contact with the other “Apostles.” And that is the problem of lying. It’s hard to remember prior fabrications.

Then, speaking of losing one’s place in their own delusions, the next line in Acts reads: “And all those who heard him continued to be amazed. And they said, ‘Is he not the one who in Yaruwshalaim destroyed those who called on this name and who had come here for the purpose of bringing them bound before the chief priests?’” (Acts 9:21) Annihilating people, as we were previously told Paulos had done, is very different than bringing them to trial. Further, since the Romans at this time were mostly ambivalent to a person’s perspective on God, inside the Roman province of Yahuwdah | Judea, the chief priests would have had no jurisdiction in such matters, not in Yaruwshalaim, and most especially not in Galatia. This scenario is not only unattested in history, it is incongruent with the evidence.

But Paulos would have his faithful believe: “And then Sha’uwl kept increasing in power (enedunamouto – in raw strength), confounding (sygcheo – baffling, confusing, and causing consternation among) the Jews who lived in Damascus.” (Acts 9:22) Sure sounds like the same arrogant anti-Semite we have been reading about in Galatians. All that mattered was that the world should 535come to see Paul as great.

Of course, that wasn’t the only thing on Sha’uwl’s demonic agenda because he also wanted the world to see Jews as lesser life-forms. After all, Torah-literate Jews knew that he was lying…

“And when many days had elapsed, the Jews plotted together to do away with him, but their plot became known to Sha’uwl. And they were also watching the gates day and night so that they might put him to death.

But his disciples took him by night, and let him down through the wall, lowering him in a basket. And when he came to Yaruwshalaim, he was trying to associate with the disciples, but they were afraid of him.” (Acts 9:23-25)

This reads just like the Quran. In all of the early surahs, the Meccans are shown scheming against Muhammad, only to have Allah alert his apostle and foil the plot. It was never true, mind you, in that Muhammad was little more than a whiney nuisance, but the same could be said for Paul in Damascus.

Most of this was fabricated to make Paul seem equivalent to his god. Just as with Iesou, the Jews plotted to kill him. Just like Iesou in his infancy, he was spirited out of town to spare his life. Just like Iesou, he had disciples. And even like Moses, he was lowered into a basket. All hail Paul – der Führer of the faith.

As an insightful comparison, I have received thousands of death threats after having compiled Prophet of Doom, now revised and renamed God Damn Religion, but not once have I ducked for cover, sought the help of others to save me, or fled town. Yahowah protects those who work with Him.

The detailed testimony in Acts which, like Galatians, 536was provided by Paul, is in direct conflict with his first epistle:

“I did not ascend into Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem toward the goal of being with or against the Apostles before me, but to the contrary I went away, withdrawing to Arabia | the Darkness, and returned again to Damascus.” (Galatians 1:17) As such, the only possible conclusion is that Paul lied. And if Paul cannot be trusted to tell you about his own life, why would anyone trust him to tell you about the mythos of a man-god he never met?

Please pause here a moment. If you are a Christian, the fate of your soul hinges upon your ability to process what you just read.

While Sha’uwl will self-inflict more than a thousand additional self-incriminating lashes on his credibility, this singular stroke is sufficient to undermine everything he said and wrote. And there is only one reason that Paul would lie about his calling and preparation: he was perpetrating a fraud. And today, that fraud has a name – Christianity – along with a couple of billion victims.

And that is a serious problem considering what he has just written: “Paulos, an apostle, not from men, not even by the means of man, but to the contrary, on behalf of Iesou Christou and God, Father of the one having roused and awakened him out of a corpse, (1:1) and all the brothers with me to the called out of the Galatias, (1:2) Charis | Grace to you and peace from Theos | God, Pater | Father of us and Lord Iesou Christou, (1:3) the one having given himself on account of the sins and errors of us, so that somehow, through indefinite means, he might gouge and tear out, plucking and uprooting us from the past inflexible and unrelenting circumstances and old system which had been in place which is like pornography, disadvantageous and 537harmful, corrupting and debilitating, maliciously malignant in opposition to the desire and will of Theos | God and Paters | Father of us, (1:4) to whom the assessment of the brilliant splendor, the opinion regarding the glorious radiance and appearance of the shining light, by means of the old and the new systems, Amen, let it be so. (Galatians 1:5)

I marvel and am amazed, even astonished that in this way how quickly and in haste you changed, deserting and becoming disloyal apostates, traitors away from your calling in the name of Charis to a different healing message and beneficial messenger, (1:6) which does not exist differently, if not hypothetically negated because perhaps some are stirring you up, confusing you, and also proposing to change the healing messenger and pervert the beneficial message of the Christou, (1:7) but to the contrary, if we or a messenger out of heaven conveys a healing messenger or beneficial message to you which is approximately the same or contrary to, or even positioned alongside what we delivered as a beneficial messenger and announced as a healing message to you then a curse with a dreadful consequence exists. (Galatians 1:8)

As we have said already, and even just now, immediately thereafter, repetitively, I say, if under the condition someone delivers a helpful messenger or communicates a useful message to you similar or contrary to, in opposition with or just positioned alongside, no matter if it is close to or greater than that which you received, it shall be (in fact I command and want it to exist as) a curse with a dreadful consequence. (Galatians 1:9)

For because currently or simultaneously, [is it] men I presently persuade to win the favor of, seducing, misleading, and coaxing, even convincing, appeasing, 538and placating, or alternatively, the Theos | God?

Or alternatively by comparison and contrast, [do I] I desire to please and accommodate humans? Yet nevertheless, even regardless, if men, I was obliging and accommodating, exciting them emotionally, a slave of Christou, certainly not was me. (Galatians 1:10)

So therefore, I profess and reveal to you brothers of the beneficial message which having been communicated advantageously by and through myself, because it is not according to or in accord with man. (1:11) But neither because I by man associating myself with it. Nor was I taught (like a disciple). But to the contrary, by way of a revelation, an appearance serving to uncover and unveil Iesou Christou. (Galatians 1:12)

For because you heard of my unruly behavior at a time and place during the practice of Judaism, namely that because of my superiority, surpassing any measure of restraint, to an extraordinary degree better than anyone else, I was aggressively and intensely, even systematically pursuing it by persecuting, oppressing, and attacking the Called Out of God as I was and am devastating her, continuing to undermine, overthrow, and annihilate her. (Galatians 1:13)

And so I was and continue to progress, accomplishing a great deal, and I persist moving forward in the practice of Judaism, over and beyond many contemporaries among my race, enthusiastic, zealous, and excited, especially devoted and burning with passion to adhere to and assimilate with the traditions and teachings handed down by my forefathers. (Galatians 1:14)

But at a point in time when it pleased and was chosen to be better for Theos, the one having appointed me, setting me aside out of the womb of my mother (1:15) to reveal and disclose, uncovering and unveiling 539the Son of Him in order that I could announce the healing message among the multitudes, races, and nations, immediately. I did not ask the advice of or consult with flesh or blood. (Galatians 1:16)

I did not ascend, traveling into Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem toward the goal of being with or against the Apostles before me, but to the contrary, I went away, withdrawing to Arabia | the Darkness, and returned again to Damascus.” (Galatians 1:17)

Paul needed everyone to believe that he was more important and better prepared than Gospel Jesus’ disciples, better even than Moses, and that his calling superseded theirs. According to Paul, while the rival disciples tramped in the dust alongside Gospel Jesus for three years, based upon his testimony in the next verse, der Faithmonger commanded God’s special attention in Arabia, and basking in his blaze, he received private, one-on-one instruction from the Big Guy. And yet, since Paul fabricated and then contradicted the keystone of his fledgling credibility, the entire edifice of Pauline Doctrine crumbles – as does the religion based upon it.

Again, this begs a comparison to Muhammad’s fabulous fable of the Night’s Journey. After losing every episode of the Never-Ending Argument with his kin, Muhammad threatened to slaughter them. To appease the monster in their midst, the Quraysh bribed the religious charlatan with sex, power, and money through the Idolatrous Indulgence, which Muhammad accepted, then reneged. He excused pedaling paganism through the Satanic Verses, admitting that the Devil inspired the Quran. So, when that got him further into hot water, the duplicitous founder of Islam flew the coop aboard al-baraq, a winged ass. Since he was in Arabia, his flight of fancy took him to Jerusalem, to visit with the Hebrew bigshots of yesteryear in the Temple – thereby claiming them as his own and their peer. Beyond the fact that asses do not fly, and that the 540Temple had been destroyed six centuries before the alleged flight, the Jews and Patriarchs in Mighty Mo’s story were all long dead. So, in trying to elicit credibility after the Never-Ending Argument, Slaughtering Statement, Idolatrous Indulgence, and Devilish Diatribes, Muhammad further destroyed his credibility with the Asinine Assent. And while some may allege that this is a different story, it is actually the same story – one inspired by the same spirit. Welcome to Hell.

If you are still a Christian, you may not be ready to process what this actually means. I rejected Christianity for a relationship with Yahowah twenty-three years ago, but until a decade or so ago I could not deal with the errors or the conflicts in Paul’s testimony either.

For example, the “enedunamouto – raw strength” Paul was said to have increased in was a term only he used. The other seven times this verb is found in the Greek texts, they are all in his epistles. Therefore, since it is not said by or of anyone else, we know that this rather egotistical personal evaluation came from Paul himself, not his audience or God. Apart from Paul, each time a unique capability is ascribed to a New Testament character, it comes from the “Holy Ghost” and it is called: “dunamis – power,” as it is in Acts 1:8 during the completely fabricated and fabled birth of the church during Pentecost.

Also troubling, the first “achievement” Paul would claim on his own behalf was “sygcheo – confounding, baffling, and confusing” Jews. That is the antithesis of Yahowah’s purpose, which is to use His Towrah to teach His children. There is but one spirit who would boast about deceiving God’s people.

A Christian apologist might say that the change in Paul’s behavior and message confused the Jews, but that excuse is undermined by Sha’uwl’s insistence that he remained true to Judaism. Moreover, Luke expressed two 541separate thoughts, initially saying that those who listened to him were amazed by his oratory. Then after telling us that Paul’s physical power increased, Luke said that Paul went on to befuddle his would-be antagonists. The inference is that he was too clever for them to effectively refute, at least according to Paul.

The alleged plot, whereby the Jews conspired to do away with the self-proclaimed “messenger of god,” which was foiled by way of a revelation and uncanny escape of this basket case, in a basket, of course, as I have just mentioned, is virtually identical to the story Muhammad was inspired to tell six hundred years hence at the inception of the Islamic Era. Then, in the immediate aftermath of visiting multiple levels of heaven (something Paul will also claim), the other “messenger of god” claimed that his kin had conspired to kill him, but that his god revealed their plot, allowing the Devil’s Advocate to slither out of town by miraculous means under the cover of darkness. It is the same story. So perhaps it was authored by the same spirit. And that is a problem because, in the Quran, Allah is indistinguishable from Satan and he brags that he is the best schemer.

The other problems associated with Sha’uwl’s testimony begin with the realization that it is inappropriate for him to have his own disciples – should that be what he was inferring. It is as if he were trying to impersonate Gospel Jesus. And further incriminating his account, as I have previously hinted, Jews under Roman dominion had no authority to put anyone to death – especially in Syria – and most especially a Roman citizen, like Paul. The Sanhedrin didn’t have the authority to kill “Jesus” either, but that’s a story for a later chapter. Therefore, this whole sordid affair is preposterous from beginning to end.

If you are into fairytales, then embrace the notion that this self-proclaimed murderer, this man of enormous physical strength, was, as a newborn prophet, “lowered” 542“in a basket” to save him from baffled and marauding Jews. But why not a magic carpet or flying ass?

The second of five proofs that the Arabian sojourn was a myth is a derivative of Paul’s purpose in writing his first epistle. Galatians was composed to accomplish two goals. Paul wanted to differentiate his message from the Torah to do away with the Torah, thereby replacing God’s word with “but I, Paul, say.” To accomplish this feat of derring-do, he would have to be more credible than Moses. Therefore, the first two chapters focus on establishing his personal qualifications. But since everyone knew that Paul never met Gospel Jesus, the interloper had to make up a story which would appear to the unsuspecting mind to put him on superior footing. Three years in Arabia hanging out with Mr. Big would do the trick – at least if it were so incredulous.

And should we play along, if Paul’s claims to have met with Iesous on the Road to Damascus or in the Arabian Desert were true, then it would make Gospel Jesus a liar because he is recorded standing on the Mount of Olives saying: “If anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is the Messiah,’ or ‘There He is,’ do not believe him.” (Matthew 24:23) Since this is precisely what Sha’uwl claimed, who do you suppose is lying, the myth or the man? Or asked another way, recognizing that the religion requires both to be accurate and real, does it even matter?

Further impugning the only one who made these claims, Gospel Jesus went on to say: “For false Messiahs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.

Behold, I have told you in advance. If therefore they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the desert,’ do not go forth, or ‘Behold, He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe him.

For just as the lightning comes from the east and 543flashes even to the west, so shall the coming of the Son of Man be. Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.” (Matthew 24:24-28)

This is yet another deathblow to the veracity of Paul’s testimony. If the speaker recorded delivering the Olivet Discourse was reliable and told the truth, then Paul was lying about meeting with him along the road to Damascus and again in the wilderness of the Arabian Desert. And if Gospel Jesus cannot be trusted, then Paul’s witness on behalf of a liar would be worthless.

Therefore, since Gospel Jesus and Sha’uwl spoke about this specific happenstance, and since this issue is central to Paul’s credibility and to the merits of Iesou’s advice regarding the reliability of a false prophet claiming to have seen him, a rational person can now close the book on Paul. It is over. His credibility has been completely undermined by the very person he claimed to represent. If you have a Bible, rip Paul’s letters from its pages.

What’s more, unless the ‘Ebownym correctly recorded Dowd making these pronouncements, which have now been usurped by the mythical misnomer Jesus Christ, then Gospel Jesus is also a liar because it’s the Son of God, not the Son of Man (Dowd, not Jesus), who will be returning.

As irrefutable as this verdict has become, this realization is but one in many which bury Paul. All that is left for us to do is to watch the vultures gather over his rotten corpse.

Returning to Paul’s desperate, irritatingly repetitive, and almost pathetic attempts at setting himself up as God’s lone authorized prophet to the world, if he had actually met with Yahowah as Moseh had done, his testimony would have been unassailable, that is should the impossible have occurred and had he described the experience in a written narrative, recounting word for word what Yahowah had said – all without contradicting anything in the Towrah’s 544narrative while supporting its teachings. But we have nothing. Not a word from Paul or anyone else regarding an event, which is true, would have authenticated Sha’uwl’s authority – well up to a point. That is so long as he spoke on behalf of the Towrah and Yahowah rather than against it and Him. So, when we contrast this missed opportunity with Paul’s countless protestations that we should trust him because he was God’s chosen messenger to the world, there is a credibility gap the size of the Great Rift – a religion-sized tear in the fabric of spacetime.

Third, in an upcoming chapter (Yaruwshalaim | Source of Reconciliation), we will juxtapose Acts 15 and Galatians 2 in order to demonstrate that Paul’s ability to accurately recount recent events in his life is highly suspect. In this regard, the entire 15^th chapter of Acts is devoted to describing the Yaruwshalaim Summit, sometimes called the “Apostolic Conference,” because this meeting was arguably the most important in Paul’s life, and the history of Christianity.

And yet Sha’uwl’s testimony in the second chapter of Galatians conflicts with the narrative provided by Luke in Acts in every imaginable way. In fact, it becomes readily apparent that, had Paul not written Galatians as his rebuttal, his credibility would have been destroyed. But reason tells us that if Paul was willing to write a detailed revisionist account of a meeting, which was well attended and which had occurred within the previous few months, his lone, unsupported assertion that he had gone to Arabia nineteen years earlier to meet with God – for which there were no witnesses or corroborating testimony – is suspect in the extreme.

Fourth, as it turns out, the reason Sha’uwl was summoned to appear before the supposed disciples in Yaruwshalaim was that his preaching was in conflict with the Towrah’s teaching. And since Yahowah’s Word was personally delivered by God to Moseh on Mount Choreb | 545Sinai in Arabia, the fact that Paul’s message was entirely different means that either the Source of Moseh’s inspiration was hopelessly unreliable or Yahowah was not the source of Sha’uwl’s conflicting mantra. This problem becomes insurmountable when we recognize that should the Towrah be unreliable, there is no possibility of knowing God or salvation.

The conflict is acute because the central thrust of Galatians is designed to meticulously belittle and then annul the Towrah. Sha’uwl will say that the Covenant memorialized on Mount Sinai (another name of Mount Choreb) was with Hagar and that it was enslaving as a result. He will speak of the Towrah as being of the flesh, so as to demean it, calling it an outdated and cruel taskmaster. He reports that the Towrah was a burden which no one could bear – the opposite of what Moseh said about this same source of Godly Guidance.

With Paul writing that the Nomos / Torah was incapable of saving anyone, he placed himself in direct conflict with Yahowah’s testimony and Dowd’s purpose. Regardless, Sha’uwl will write that the Torah’s usefulness had come to an end, effectively annulling it – in direct conflict with the testimony offered during the Instruction on the Mount. He will go so far as to say that there are two Covenants when God says that His one and only Covenant is everlasting. Since these messages are the antithesis of one another, Yahowah, who is the acknowledged Author of the Towrah, cannot be the same spirit who served as Sha’uwl’s inspiration.

And fifth, the timeline Paul provided in Galatians, delineating the number of years which transpired between his promotion from rabbinical hitman to his god’s lone messenger and then to the Yaruwshalaim Summit, is far too great. According to Paul’s testimony in Acts 9, he spent a considerable time in Damascus amazing the locals while confusing the Jews after his “conversion.” (Acts 9:22-23) 546He is so proud of himself; we can only assume that the Damascenes were graced with his stellar oratory for the better part of a year. Then he claims to have gone off to Arabia for three years before returning to Damascus (Galatians 1:17-18) only to be lowered down the wall in a basket. (Acts 9:24-25 and 2 Corinthians 11:32-33) His memory betrayed him, his story then changed, and he claimed to be fleeing a government official under the Arabian King Aretas who died in 40 CE. After his first brush with power, he is said to have gone to Jerusalem to meet with Peter and James. (Galatians 1:18-19)

Sha’uwl’s | Paul’s travelogue continues through Syria and Cilicia, a journey which collectively transpired over the course of a year. (Galatians 1:21) However, in Acts 9, Sha’uwl adds that he went to Caesarea, bypassing Syria, and then to Tarsus. (Acts 9:30) But then Paul claims that he was summoned to the Jerusalem ekklesia “after the passage of another fourteen years.” (Galatians 2:1) That is a total of nineteen years.

Dark years, as it would transpire, because we do not have a record of any sermon or any letter from Sha’uwl during the decade after his alleged promotion from murderer to preacher. In fact, during much of this period, it is apparent that god’s self-proclaimed messenger to the world went into hiding. And that is a far cry from the “immediacy” of his mission in Galatians 1:16.

But speaking of time, the timing of the Yaruwshalaim Summit is well-documented. It is dated to 50 CE. So, if you subtract nineteen years, Sha’uwl’s abuse at the hands of the prodding spirit on the road to Damascus would have occurred in 31 CE, two years before Gospel Jesus modeled for the role of a Dead God on a Stick. And if that were not sufficiently incriminating, according to Sha’uwl, he had spent a protracted period of time building an international reputation as a ruthless assassin of Yahuwdym before encountering the flashing light that blinded him. If he were 547telling the truth about being “bad,” it would indicate that his “conversion” occurred in 29 CE, a year before the mythical misnomer Iesou Christou arrived on the scene. That also means that his pursuit of the Jews who recognized what Dowd had done as the Messiah and Passover Lamb would have begun four or five years before he fulfilled Pesach.

As shared previously, there is an old adage which says that the problem with lying is remembering what one has said. These events represented the pivotal moments in Sha’uwl’s life, so they would have been forever etched in his memory. But since the truth did not serve his interests, and since his reality did not fit his ego, he lied, making up so many exemplary stories of derring-do, he could not fit them into one lifetime or recall from one occasion to the next what he imagined he had done. This is why we have three different depictions of his alleged conversion experience, another problem we will detail in upcoming chapters.

Since Sha’uwl has regaled us in a fictitious rendition of his initial ministry, I would like to linger a moment longer in the 9^th chapter of Acts before we return to Galatians. In Paul’s first and second, but not his third, accounting of his adventure on the road to Damascus, he was asked to meet with a fellow named Ananias, who was reluctant due to Sha’uwl’s burgeoning reputation as an uncivilized brute. So according to Paul, after Ananias hesitated to tutor the now blind and lame would-be apostle, “the Lord” intervened a second time, saying (according to Paul):

“But then (de) the Lord (o kurios – the ruler and master who possesses [without a pre-Constantine manuscript of this verse, it’s appropriate to deploy the title Paul would have used as he spoke on behalf of his Lord while recounting the affair to Luke]) spoke (lego) to (pros) him (autos), ‘Go (poreuomai) because (hote – namely) he 548is (estin) my (moi) chosen (ekloge – a selected) instrument (skeuos – object and vessel), the one (outos tou) to carry or carry away (bastazo – to take up and bear, to tolerate and to put up with, to endure and sustain the yoke and weight) my (mou to) name (onoma – and reputation) so that it is seen by (enopion – so as to be witnessed by; a compound of en – in and optanomai – to look at and to be seen (the Lord said of the blind man)) the nations and races (ethnos), kings (basileus), and (kai) children of Yisra’el (uios Israel).

Because (gar) I (ego) by him will provide a glimpse into intimate secrets which have been concealed (hypodeiknymi auto – under him will show and suggest, pointing out using words and arguments to warn; from hupo – by and under and deiknuo – to show and reveal, to indicate and point out), as much as is necessary (hosos – to the degree, amount, and duration), as it is currently required and actually inevitable (dei – it is now compulsory, expected, and in fact necessary, actively binding, and realistically fitting (present tense, active voice, indicative mood)) for him (auton) for the sake of (hyper – because and on behalf of) my (mou) name (tou onoma – the designation, person, and reputation) to suffer through this experience (pascho – to undergo this ordeal, vexed, afflicted, and ultimately enduring death (the aorist tense speaks of a moment in time unrelated to any plan or process, the active voice indicates that the subject is performing the action of the verb, meaning that Paulos is causing the speaker to suffer, while the infinitive makes this verb read like an active noun)).’” (Acts 9:15-16)

While I am sharing this to point out yet another inconsistency in Paul’s story, I would be remiss if I did not share why I consider this to be the most egotistical nonsense I have ever read – and that is saying a lot since I have written God Damn Religion to chronicle Muhammad’s repulsive existence and Babel to further 549expose Satan and the Rabbis who serve him. Dowd | David was Yahowah’s Chosen One, not Sha’uwl. And Sha’uwl never once wrote or spoke Yahowah’s name.

Beyond having Yahowah’s testimony boldly confirming that Dowd is the Messiah, the Son of God, the Chosen One, the Firstborn, and our Savior, throughout the 89^th Mizmowr | Psalm for all to witness (shared in the Tsadaq | Right chapter of this volume of Twistianity and in Coming Home, Volume 1, Chapter 10, To Dowd or Not to Dowd – The Root of Replacement Theology), one would have to wonder why King Dowd is returning with Yahowah to govern the universe, and Sha’uwl was presented in the Psalm as “the Son of Evil,” if Paul was God’s preferred implement. Moreover, Paul was diligent in telling us his given and chosen names, but never once correctly conveyed Yahowah’s name. And in this regard, Yahowah chose Moseh, not Sha’uwl, to reveal His name to us. Every time Paul opens his mouth, he is lying.

Even the priorities of Paul’s egotistical Lord are telling. According to the testimony of the Devil’s Advocate, after having chosen Sha’uwl to replace Moseh and Dowd, and negating the Towrah and Prophets, the Son of Evil was to go to the Gentiles first, meeting with their kings, and only then to the Children of Yisra’el. And as it would transpire, that is what Sha’uwl | Paul would do. It would not be to share Yahowah’s name, but instead to inspire the kings and their nations to join him and turn on Yisra’el, replacing and then removing them from the Earth.

Yahowah has conveyed His message in His Towrah, through His Prophets, and within Dowd’s Psalms. There is nothing more we need to know to live forever as part of Yahowah’s Covenant Family. So, while there are things God has deliberately concealed, they are His to know, not Sha’uwl’s. In the Towrah, we have read: “That which has been deliberately concealed and not revealed (ha sathar) is for Yahowah (la Yahowah), our God (‘elohym 550‘anachnuw), while (wa) that which has been made known, revealed and exposed (ha galah) is for us and for our children (la ‘anachnuw wa la beny ‘anachnuw) as an eternal witness for all time (‘ad ‘owlam) so that we may engage, acting upon (la ‘asah) everything that is conveyed through the words (‘eth kol dabary) of this Towrah | Guidance and Teaching (ha Towrah ha zo’th).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 29:29) Trying to present himself as more insightful and vital than Moseh, Sha’uwl has scuttled his credibility once again.

As for causing Sha’uwl to “pascho – suffer,” that is indeed the sentence he has earned. Paul will endure it with his Lord and inspiration, the Adversary, in She’owl | Hell. Perhaps that is why Sha’uwl was afforded naming rights over the institution.

Previously, Paul claimed that Ananias told “the Lord” that: “he had heard from many about the man who had to the greatest extent possible done immoral and injurious things to your holy ones in Jerusalem, and that here [in Damascus, Syria] he [Paul] has authority from the chief priests to forcefully bind and imprison everyone calling on your name.” This was just another contrived fable designed to make Paul look as if he were the chosen one, even of the High Priests – a man to be reckoned with or else.

Contradicting Paul’s claim, historians of this period acknowledge that there were no Jewish “high priests” outside of Jerusalem, much less in Damascus, Syria. And outside of Israel, the priests would have had no authority whatsoever. And had there really been a man named “Ananias,” since it is based upon the Hebrew Chananyah, meaning “Mercy is from Yahowah,” he would have known that Yahowah did not need or want the help of an incarcerating rabbi.

There is yet another problem with Paul’s pitiful 551pronouncements. When Yahowah introduced Himself to ‘Abraham and Moseh, and chose them, one had walked away from Babylon and the other from Egypt. They had previously disassociated themselves from the babel | confounding intermixing of religion and politics. Sha’uwl, on the other hand, was blood-deep in it and continued to pursue both. This disqualified Paul from the Covenant and from being in Yahowah’s presence.

Turning to the alleged testimony from Sha’uwl’s Lord, knowing that Gospel Jesus is alleged to have chosen twelve disciples at a time when Sha’uwl was available in Jerusalem and not selected, we are now to believe that Paulos, as a reward, I presume, for being especially immoral and injurious, was the chosen one. This resolutely religious and evil man claimed to be the “implement” of God, which is tellingly similar to claiming to be Dowd, the Chosen One and Anointed Messiah. It is yet another attempt to position himself as God’s right hand, the co-savior, and king of kings.

But consider what this “Lord” wanted Sha’uwl, the man who changed his name to Paulos, to do with his “onoma – name and reputation.” “The Lord” did not select Sha’uwl to introduce his name, explain his name, share his name, proclaim his name, invite people to the Miqra’ey and Beryth using his name, or even save people in his name, much less say his name, all things which would have been vitally important, and none of which Paul actually did. “The Lord,” which is Satan’s title, from the name, “Ba’al,” chose Sha’uwl to “bastazo – remove and carry away the burden” of his name and reputation. That is something Satan craves. Ha Satan | the Adversary, as Halal ben Shachar wants to jettison this derogatory baggage so that he can convince simpletons to worship him as if he were a god. So, by selecting bastazo, “the Lord” has to be Satan, who is the only one who would benefit from having the “burden” of his adversarial name and reputation “removed 552and carried away.” It would be senseless and counterproductive for God to ask for such a thing.

And then we find Sha’uwl’s Lord mimicking Paulos’ mantra, which is revealing secrets. Sha’uwl even has his Lord say that the selection and implementation of Paulos was not only inevitable, it was actually compulsory and required. As for suffering, Dowd’s sacrifice, coopted as it was by the misnomer Jesus, was insufficient according to Paul’s Lord because, in this pronouncement, Paul would likewise suffer as a co-savior.

If we are to believe Sha’uwl’s testimony here, the three years Gospel Jesus spent with his disciples were a waste of time as were the entirety of the Gospels. All the Lord wanted was to have the burden of his name and reputation removed and for there to be more suffering. And for these reasons, the Lord had no choice, no say in the matter, no freewill because Sha’uwl’s Lord was compelled to turn to Paul for these results.

Not that we require more evidence to distrust Sha’uwl, but this statement contradicts Paulos’ testimony throughout Galatians, where he divides the world, giving Shim’own, Ya’aqob, and Yahowchanan | Peter, James, and John responsibility for the Jews, while he assumed authority over every other nation and race. But this is not so according to his Lord.

Even if we discount the troublesome vocabulary, if Sha’uwl’s mission was to “bastazo – carry,” but not “bastazo – carry away,” Yahowah’s name to every race and place, then he failed miserably. Not one Christian in a million knows the proper pronunciation of God’s name.

But since Christians the world over know and proclaim the “Lord’s” name, Satan was obviously the spirit who chose Sha’uwl. Fixated as they both were on immorality and injury, on submission and death, on secrets and concealment, they were a match made in She’owl | 553Hell. After all, Sha’uwl’s testimony has been dishonest, making the Lord Ba’al’s seed the Son of Deception.

As an interesting study, consider how many false gods have been called “the Lord.” Ba’al, which means “lord,” was the dominant deity of the Canaanites, of the Phoenicians, of the Babylonians, and of the Assyrians. The Philistines worshiped the infamous Baalzebub. Remarkably, the center of Ba’al / Lord worship was in the town of “Ba’al Chermown – the Lord of Destruction.” In particular, ‘ElYah’s mission was to excoriate and condemn the prophets of Ba’al | the Lord. And it was because Jews chose to base their religion on Ba’al | the Lord rather than pursue a relationship with Yahowah, God divorced them in Howsha’.

In that we first considered Galatians 1:17 several pages ago, let’s review it again in advance of presenting the Christian renditions. “I did not ascend, traveling into Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem toward the goal of being with or against the Apostles before me, but to the contrary, I went away, withdrawing to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.” It would have been a different story if only it were true.

These translations are passable (notwithstanding that there is no “J” in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, or even in English prior to the 17^th century). KJV: “Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.” It reads similarly to the Latin Vulgate: “Neither did I go to Ierosolymam, to those who were apostolos before me. Instead, I went into Arabiam, and next I returned to Damascum.” The NLT published: “Nor did I go up to Jerusalem to consult with those who were apostles before I was. Instead, I went away into Arabia, and later I returned to the city of Damascus.”

You will notice, however, that all three texts made a 554reasonable attempt to transliterate the Hebrew names for Yaruwshalaim, ‘Arab, and Dameseq. So why were they all unwilling to transliterate the Hebrew basis of Iesou accurately as Yahowsha’?

By way of background, Sha’uwl (meaning Question Him (and indistinguishable from She’owl, the place of questioning more commonly called Hell)) was born and initially educated in Tarsus, the capital of the Roman province of Cilicia. It is on the Mediterranean coast of what is southern Turkey today. It lies directly south of Galatia, the Roman province he was addressing with his first letter. At the time, it was home to the world’s most preeminent university. Sha’uwl’s father was both Jewish, from the tribe of Benjamin, and a Roman citizen – things which will loom large as this story unfolds. His father may also have been a Pharisee, which would affirm why Sha’uwl remained a religious fundamentalist.

For a frame of reference, it is about a five-hundred-mile hike from Tarsus south-southeast to Damascus. Similarly, Mount Choreb (also known as Mount Sinai) in Arabia, is another 500 miles by foot, almost due south of Damascus (Choreb is directly east of Nuweiba on the west coast of the Gulf of Aqaba and is known as Jabal al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia). Jerusalem lies between the two, less than two hundred miles south-southwest of Damascus.

After lying and telling us that he trekked to Arabia to chat with a recluse deity, but not bothering to humor us with a word of what was spoken there, Sha’uwl revealed exactly how long he remained in the wilderness. And that is odd because other than to incriminate him, the one detail he shared was otherwise irrelevant.

“Then later (epeita – thereafter in the sequence of events), after (meta – with) three (treis) years’ time (etos), I ascended up (anerchomai – I went up) to (eis) Yaruwshalaim (Hierosoluma – transliteration of the 555Hebrew name meaning Source of Guidance Regarding Reconciliation) to visit and get acquainted with (historeo – went to inquire about and investigate, hoping to gain knowledge by becoming familiar with) Kephas | Rock (Kephas – transliteration of the Hebrew word keph – hollow of a rock (Strong’s H3710); from kaphah – to pacify or subdue, kephah – branch, kephel – doubling-dealing, kaphan – to be twisted and bent, kaphaph – to bow down, and/or kaphar – to reconcile, a reference to Shim’own, who became Petros (a transliteration of the Greek word for stone), and is known today as Peter) and remained (kai meno – stayed and persevered, endured and abided, continuing to persist) against (pros – to, at, among, or with) him (autos) fifteen (dekapente) days (hemera).” (Galatians 1:18)

While it may be relevant, Papyrus 46 uses meno for “stayed” in the final clause, while later scribes wrote epimeno, a related word which is much more emphatic with regard to Sha’uwl remaining in close proximity to Shim’own. However, since the Nestle-Aland was compiled from the most popular texts, not the oldest manuscripts, their McReynolds Interlinear was oblivious to the alteration. “Then after years three I went up into Jerusalem to visit with Cephas and I stayed on toward him days fifteen.”

It is instructive to know that Moseh was on Mount Choreb | Sinai for 40 days, during which time he received the Towrah – a three-hundred-page book with prophecies so astounding and insights so profound, the resulting document left no doubt that it was inspired by God. And yet if we are to believe Paul’s story here in Galatians, as opposed to his story in Acts, Sha’uwl was in Arabia three years. And this pathetic letter is the product of all that time.

Rather than being equipped to share Yahowah’s Towrah – Teaching as Moseh had been, and explain how Dowd had honored one of his Father’s most essential 556promises by fulfilling the initial Miqra’, we get an angry and egotistical diatribe that serves to negate everything Yahowah and Dowd have said and done.

The interesting nuance in this passage is one we considered earlier. Sha’uwl may have been more comfortable communicating in Hebrew than he was in Greek. Recognizing that “Petros,” meaning “rock or stone” in Greek, was not Shim’own’s actual name, but instead his nickname, Sha’uwl was at liberty to transliterate it into Greek – which he did, retaining the Hebrew pronunciation and meaning. The official language of Tarsus would have been Latin. Aramaic would also have been spoken as a result of the Babylonian, Assyrian, and Persian influence in the region. And Hebrew would have been the lingua franca of rabbinical school.

Therefore, we should be mindful of the fact that if a statement is being made by God, or if two Yisra’elites are in the midst of a discussion, then the Greek text represents a translation of the hearsay assessment of what was spoken in Hebrew. The reference to Shim’own as “Kephas” keeps us mindful of this distinction, which is true for the entirety of the New Testament.

If this is the nickname Gospel Jesus was alleged through Eusebius’ insertion in the 4^th century to have offered Shim’own during his belated and inaccurate pronouncement that Iesou was the Christou, it would have been a slight, “kaphah – pacifying” Shim’own for the moment, recognizing that he rebuked him and told him never to say it again. It was all subject to the “kephel – double-dealing” and “kaphan – twisted and bent” narratives designed to serve the Church and its Lord. This also speaks to the reason Gospel Jesus reprimanded “Kephas” at the time, telling Satan to back away.

But now that we know that Shim’own’s nickname was based upon a Hebrew word, there is no justification for 557translating his new moniker to petras and then transliterating it as “Peter.” And this also means that there is no “Saint Peter” associated with Gospel Jesus. Someone should tell the Vatican and then rename the gaudy Chair.

It is a distinction, however, which was lost on Francis Bacon and his associates. But other than changing the name of the place and person, the rest of the KJV is reasonably accurate with regard to this otherwise insignificant verse. “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.” LV: “And then, after three years, I went to Ierosolymam to see Petrum; and I stayed with him for fifteen days.” NLT: “Then three years later I went to Jerusalem to get to know Peter, and I stayed with him for fifteen days.”

Speaking of names, the next passage destroys one of the foundational claims of Catholicism, in addition to devastating the foundation of Protestantism.

“But (de) other (heteros – different) of the Apostles (ton apostolos – of those who were prepared messengers and were sent out), I did not see (ou eidon – I did not pay attention to, concern myself with, or understand) except (ei me – if not) Ya’aqob | Jacob (Iakobos – a transliteration of the Hebrew Ya’aqob who became Yisra’el but then changed to “James” to appease the British king), the (tov) brother (adelphos – male sibling) of the Lord (tou ΚΥ – a placeholder used to convey kurios, giving the Greek word for lord and master a divine sheen).” (Galatians 1:19)

In the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear, these same words were either translated or misrepresented to say: “Other but of the delegates not I saw except [not applicable] Jacob the brother of the Master.”

While it is impossible to know for certain if Paul actually wrote “Kuriou – Lord,” only to see his nomenclature replaced by a scribe who sought consistency and uniformity with the Septuagint, or whether Paul used 558the placeholders, knowing that if he didn’t, his letters would differ from the Septuagint. Should these passages be translated as Paul likely intended, or as the placeholders might portend – at least as used in the Septuagint?

The reason this verse should be troubling to Protestants is that it undermines the credibility of the King James Bible, and indeed, the credibility of every English translation since that time. While Sha’uwl correctly transliterated the name of Gospel Jesus’ brother as Ya’aqob, Francis Bacon changed his name to match that of his king. The King James Version therefore reads: “But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.”

The political mindset required to justify altering the name of Gospel Jesus’ brother, Ya’aqob, so that he would forever be known by the name of the reigning English monarch, is the same twisted mentality required to justify copyediting God and His messengers whenever it suits a religious or political purpose. Such men cannot be trusted – nor can their institutions or translations.

But what does this say about the attitude of those in the ministry today who know that this was done and yet have done nothing to correct the record – preferring instead to perpetrate a lie designed to obfuscate the Hebrew roots of the story the Gospel writers were counterfeiting? Even to this day, in Christian Bibles, King James’ name sits atop the letter allegedly written by Ya’aqob.

This literary fraud exposes the lack of moral character present among Christian leaders who continue to accept the wholesale infusion of Babylonian religious rites and symbols into Christendom. While it is one man’s name, it is indicative of how the Towrah was replaced by “Gratia / Grace” in “Christianity,” of how Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children became the “Last Supper,” “Good Friday,” Nothing Happened Day, and then “Easter 559Sunday.” The Shabat celebration with Yahowah became “the Lord’s Day” and moved to Sunday. The Covenant became a Church with its own Testament. And along the way, Jews were replaced by Christians and Dowd was emasculated by transferring his accolades and achievements to Jesus Christ. The religion is one colossal farce from beginning to end. And when we think of how irritating it is to Yahowah and how dismissive it is of His Son, costing untold billions access to God while they abused His people, this is no laughing matter.

While it is hard to imagine, this statement contains an even bigger problem for Catholicism – a religion fabricated on the Babylonian presentation of the Madonna and Child, upon the Mother of God and the Queen of Heaven. Catholicism requires that Mary remain a virgin, and that she never age or die. But this statement from Paul’s pen clearly states that Ya’aqob was the brother of Gospel Jesus, as do many other passages. So Jerome was in a pickle.

Therefore, after writing: “But I saw none of the other apostolorum, except Iacobum, the brother of the Domini,” Jerome was forced to add the following to the Latin Vulgate: “This Iacobum is Iacobum the Less, who stayed in Ierosolymam, while the other apostolorum went out to preach the evangelium to the world. He functioned as the spiritual leader of the city where Christi preached and died; he was the Bishop of Ierosolymam. He was called the brother of the Domini because he was a cousin of Iesu, and also because he was similar in appearances to Iesu.” It was all untrue, every word of it, and Jerome knew it. But religious leaders will say and do anything to perpetuate the myths which empower and enrich them.

And yet now, with the benefit of some seventy manuscripts dating to within three centuries of the events being misappropriated and misrepresented, all of which affirm that the brother of Gospel Jesus was Ya’aqob, today’s wrongly esteemed religious scholars and 560theologians are still unwilling to convey the truth. Those associated with the New Living Translation failed to correct the political malfeasance promoted in the King James. “The only other apostle I met at that time was James, the Lord’s brother.” So much for religious integrity and biblical inerrancy. Because familiarity sells, had they not included a book named after the English King, too few Christians would have purchased their Bibles for them to have profited from the endeavor.

Galatians 1:19 was otherwise inconsequential, and yet it laid two religions bare. The moral of the story is: you cannot trust men guided by religion or politics.

Seen as a collective whole, Sha’uwl’s fifth paragraph reads: “I did not ascend, traveling into Jerusalem toward the goal of being with or against the Apostles before me, but to the contrary, I went away, withdrawing to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. (Galatians 1:17) Then later in the sequence of events, after three years’ time, I ascended to Jerusalem to visit, investigate, and inquire about Kephas | Rock and remained against him fifteen days. (Galatians 1:18) But other of the Apostles, I did not see or concern myself with except Ya’aqob | Jacob, the (tov) brother of the Kurios | Lord.” (Galatians 1:19)

My initial inclination in composing this review was to pass over these positioning statements and move directly into the substance of the arguments Christians raise from Paul’s writings to dismiss the Towrah. And yet by studying them, we have come to know that Paul cannot be trusted. It was worth the effort.



Sha’uwl’s next statement is troubling on three separate 561fronts. He wrote: “But now (de – because then) what (o – this means that which) I write (grapho – using a pen to form letters on papyrus I communicate in writing) to you (umin), you must pay especially close attention to (idou – you are ordered to intently look at, focus upon, behold, carefully consider, and remember this command (in the imperative mood this is a command)) in the presence (enopion – before and in front of) of Theos | God (tou ΘΥ – Placeholder for Theos | God), because (oti) I cannot lie (ou pseudomai – mislead or deceive, speak falsely or communicate that which is not true).” (Galatians 1:20)

This message is wholly dissimilar to that of Yahowah’s prophets. They wrote, “Thus says Yahowah…,” but Sha’uwl proclaims, “But now what I write to you, you have to pay especially close attention to.” Those who speak for God, speak God’s words, because they know that their choice of words pales in comparison to His. Even Gospel Jesus quoted God: “For he [Jesus] whom God has sent, speaks the words of God.” (John 3:34)

Even when we incorporate “in the presence of Theos” in Paulos’ statement, this gets worse. Paul would have the faithful believe that they must read his words in God’s presence. Why? Does he want us to antagonize Him?

We read, contemplate, and accept Yahowah’s words to enter His presence. There would be no point of reading what God told us in front of the One who shared these things. He already knows what He said.

The only rational conclusion which can be drawn from the statement, “I cannot lie,” is that the one who made it is a liar. No man has or ever will tell the truth all of the time. As such, this statement alone rendered this epistle worthless. And in reality, based on what we have read thus far, Paul has made many more invalid statements than accurate ones. But on the bright side, this means that Paul 562was telling the truth when he said that he was vicious and perverted, not to mention possessed by one of Satan’s demons.

Liars lie, that is what liars do. And in deception, Paul was a maestro.

Further exposing Sha’uwl, the Greek word for “writing a letter” is epistello, from which we get the English word “epistle.” But it was not used, even though it would have been the perfect verb to state: “I’m writing a letter to you.” And while grapho simply means “writing,” the term was often attributed to Gospel Jesus, albeit through translation, to say, “It is written (grapho) in the Torah and Prophets.” But what is particularly telling here is that Sha’uwl has set his “grapho – writing” in the context of something which “must be evaluated in the presence of God because I cannot lie.” And in that context, Paul is expressing that he wanted his letters to be seen as “Scripture,” equivalent to the Word of God in Christian parlance. And nothing could be further from the truth. Therefore, Paul lied about lying.

As we consider Christian Bible publications, the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27^th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear provides a somewhat unbiased approach: “What but I write to you look before the God [not applicable] not I lie.” Turning to the King James Version, it is apparent that Christians desire the rationally impossible, for Paul to “truthfully contradict” God. And that is why the King James Bible says: “Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.” And it is once again obvious that the King James was a revision of the Latin Vulgate, which reads: “Now what I am writing to you: behold, before God, I am not lying.”

As we consider the NLT, this statement, when converted to follow English grammar rules, begins with “o – what, not “ego – I.” Further, there are many Greek words 563which can be translated as “declare” (endeixis – to prove by declaring, apaggello – to communicate a message, gnorizo – to make known, diegeomai – to describe by way of narration, ekdiegeomai – to relate, kataggello – to announce, and euaggelizo – to bring a beneficial message), but none of these appear in Sha’uwl’s epistle. So why then did the New Living Translation publish: “I declare before God that what I am writing to you is not a lie.” Desperate is as desperate says, I suppose.

Returning to Sha’uwl’s flight of fancy, we find:

“Thereafter (epeita – later then), I came (erchomai – I moved toward and happened upon) to (eis) the regions (ta klima) of Syria (tes Suria – a transliteration of the Hebrew sowr, meaning scorched rocks) and also of Cilicia (kai tes Kilikia – the Roman province in today’s southern Turkey were Sha’uwl was born). (Galatians 1:21)

But (de) I was (eimi) not known or understood (agnoeo – not ignorant, neither recognized nor disregarded) personally (to prosopon – by appearance as an individual) by the (tais) Called Out (ekklesia) of Yahuwdah | Judah (tes Ioudaia – transliteration of the Hebrew name, meaning Beloved of Yah, errantly transliterated Judea) in (eis) Christo (ΧΡΩ – placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement to usurp the Septuagint’s credibility and infer divinity).” (Galatians 1:22)

As the story is told, Sha’uwl was born and raised in Cilicia (Acts 22:3). He claimed to be the son of a prominent Roman citizen. If he were known anywhere, it would have been there. But should he have been telling the truth, he also would have been known to the Called Out in Yahuwdah because he just said that he had met with Kephas / Peter and Ya’aqob / James – the acclaimed leaders of that Assembly. And while I suppose that it was possible, albeit unlikely, that Sha’uwl was unknown in 564these communities, moments ago he claimed that his reputation preceded him. These assessments cannot all be true. So the un-liar is lying.

Also troubling, in Acts 9, Paul claims that he went to Caesarea, which is on the Judean coast, before traveling to Tarsus, Cilicia, and thus bypassing Syria. While it is just a detail, the inconsistency is troubling juxtaposed against “I cannot lie.”

Turning first to the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear, we find: “Then I went into the regions of the Syria and the Cilicia. I was but being unknown in the face to the assemblies of the Judea the in Christ.” The King James manages to properly transliterate Syria and Cilicia, but can’t seem to do the same for ekklesia, Yahuwdah, or Mashyach. KJV reads: “Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:” Jerome did a reasonable job transliterating ekklesia and Yahuwdah but must have thought that the character playing Dowd as Yahowsha’ was a Greek bearing gifts. His Latin Vulgate says: “Next, I went into the regions of Syriæ and Ciliciæ. But I was unknown by face to the ecclesiis Iudææ, which were in Christo.”

Sha’uwl has made a habit of including the definite article before every title, from “the God” to “the Lord.” And in this sentence, even the title “ekklesia” was scribed as “tais ekklesia – the Called Out.” So it is telling that he has not yet included the definite article before the title of the individual he claims to be representing. And yet since “Christo” isn’t a name, what options are available to us other than to conclude that Sha’uwl wanted readers to consider it as such?

Philip Comfort, the overall coordinator of the “New Testament” passages which comprise the New Living Translation, emphatically reveals on pages 224 and 225 of 565his Encountering the Manuscripts that he is aware that the initial Followers of the Way were called “Chrestucians,” not “Christians.” And he knows that in all three references to these individuals in the Greek texts – Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28, and 1 Peter 4:16 – that the oldest, most reliable manuscripts, including the vaunted Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, read “Chrestucians” not “Christians.” Furthermore, Philip Comfort is keenly aware that neither “Chrestucians” nor “Christians” appear in any other passage. So why do we find “Christians” in Galatians 1:21-22? “After that visit I went north into the provinces of Syria and Cilicia. And still the Christians in the churches in Judea didn’t know me personally.” Christian publishers must believe that their religious readers do not care that the “evidence” they are presenting is invalid.

While there is no textual basis for the NLT’s use of “that visit,” “north,” “still,” “me,” or “personally,” Mr. Comfort’s most egregious crime was changing “ekklesia – called-out assembly” to “church,” and then associating this “church” with the nonexistent “Christians.” It is as if he felt that he was at liberty to assist Paul in the creation of a new religion.

If you follow the link on the NLT’s homepage to “Philosophy & Methodology,” you will find that they don’t acknowledge the methods they have deployed in creating their “translation.” They simply list a pair of “philosophies” and a “method.” And both philosophies are opposed to the liberal transformations we have witnessed in almost every NLT passage. They say:

Essentially Literal (free only where absolutely necessary): This philosophy is reluctant to “clarify” the meaning of the text, though it is open to doing so when absolutely necessary for understanding. It holds English style at a higher value than the more literal approach and often adjusts syntax to help it read better, even if this makes it less literal.

566Dynamic Equivalent (free where helpful to clarify meaning): This philosophy is open to “clarify” the meaning of the text whenever a literal rendering of the text might be confusing to the normal, uninitiated reader. This does not mean it deviates from the text; on the contrary, it does whatever is helpful to ensure that the text’s meaning comes through in English. In general, such translations try to balance the concerns of both functional equivalence and literal approaches.

Based upon what we have experienced thus far, nothing the NLT has published has been “essentially literal.” They have shown no “reluctance to ‘clarify’ the meaning of the text.” So we must assume that either they don’t abide by this philosophy (and that it was stated as a diversion), or they believe that it was “absolutely necessary” to revise, ignore, change, or extrapolate almost everything Sha’uwl wrote. Apart from the religious, that would be incriminating.

I recognize that this is standard operating procedure in politics, where even though the public has access to their constitution, their elected officials reinvent its meaning on a daily basis. But Paul’s epistles are positioned as the inerrant word of God, making this practice an outright fraud.

As for their pervasive use of what they call “dynamic equivalence,” we must conclude that they believe everything Sha’uwl had to say would have been “confusing to the normal, uninitiated reader.” And that means that if Galatians is to be considered “Scripture” (in the Christian sense of being inspired by God), then the folks working for the New Living Translation believe that God is a very poor communicator. And I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that the concept of being “initiated” in a religion, especially its mysteries, dates back to the Babylonians. And yet it is something Paul has continued to promote.

567While it is egotistical in the extreme, not to mention ignorant, irrational, and foolish, to place one’s writing style and ability above the Creator of the universe (or even above someone claiming to speak for him), the NLT’s claim that they do not use dynamic equivalence to “deviate from the text” is laughably inaccurate.

But none of that really matters. This pedantic posturing was designed to take your attention away from the method they deployed.

Paraphrase (free for clarity and to catch attention): This method is normally used by an individual translator, while the other methods usually employ committees of scholars. Creativity and style are extremely important here; the translator sometimes tries to catch the attention of readers in a fresh way, seeking to jolt and surprise them into understanding.

The New Living Translation is so “fresh,” so “jolting and surprising,” it is as if Philip Comfort and Company (a.k.a. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.) felt as if God, Himself, needed them to write a Bible for Him.

Leaving one fictional realm, and returning to another, we find the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear suggesting that Paul concluded his opening statement by writing: “Alone but hearing they were that the one pursuing us then now he tells good message the trust which then he was ravaging (1:23) and they were giving splendor in me the God.” (1:24)

Grammatically, this next statement is odd in that Sha’uwl / Paul is writing in the second, third, and first person. Also strange, the verbs were scribed in the present tense, suggesting that the attacks were continuing.

“But then (de) only (monon – alone) they were constantly (eimi) hearing (akouo) that the one (oti o) presently pursuing and persecuting (dioko – 568systematically, hastily, and intensely approaching, running and following after, oppressing and harassing (scribed in the present tense)) us (emas) at various times (pote – at any undisclosed period) now (nyn – at the present time) he presently proclaims a healing message (euangelizo – he currently announces a beneficial messenger (scribed in the present tense and middle voice, thereby influencing himself)) of faith (ten pistis – of belief) which (os) once or now (pote – at some unspecified period) he was attacking and continues to annihilate (portheo – he was consistently ravaging and destroying, he is devastating and overthrowing, he was sacking and is continually wasting and killing (the imperfect tense addresses an action which is in-process, something which began in the past but is still ongoing with no anticipation of its conclusion, the active voice says that Paulos was personally engaged in this savage behavior, while the indicative mood reveals that this depiction actually occurred)). (1:23)

And (kai – so) they were praising and glorifying me, attributing an exceptionally high value and status to me (doxazo emoi – they were considering me illustrious and magnificent, holding the opinion of an especially high rank for me, thereby supposing to honor me, extol and celebrate me, dignify and magnify me) in relation to (en – with regard to) the (ton) Theos | God (ΘΝ – Placeholder for Theos | God).” (Galatians 1:24)

By writing in the third, second, and first person, Sha’uwl / Paul was out of touch with reality. It is like a schizophrenic man saying, “We were crazy but he and you are better now.” This split personality permeates the Quran, so this is like being dragged back into that hellish realm of word salads and psychotic personalities. There, it was difficult to know when the voice of the human psychopath gave way to the voice of the wannabe god.

The presentation of “portheo – attack and annihilate” is identical to what we have seen before. By deliberately 569writing it in the imperfect tense, this grotesque behavior is ongoing. Paulos continues to ravage and destroy. That is the legacy of his letters. They remain as destructive and deadly as the day they were written.

While it is not currently apparent, we have been given another clue into the nature of what would become known as Pauline Doctrine. This time it comes through the forced inclusion of pistis, which I have translated as “faith.” Etymologically, the word originally conveyed the exemplary concepts of “trust and reliance.” But that was before Paul made pistis so central to his religion, and as a result, faith became synonymous with Christianity – just as “believers and disbelievers” distinguish Muslims from Infidels in the Quran. Therefore, by alleging that his admirers equated his “euangelizo – beneficial message” to “pistis – faith,” Paul was setting the table for his treatise. Pistis was awkwardly tossed into the mouths of others because Paul’s entire edifice will be based upon believing him. Faith in him will become the alternative to the Towrah. That is why he lied and said that he could not lie. It was all a lie.

No matter how we render “en emoi ton – in me for the” God, or “with regard to” God, there is no way to incorporate “doxazo – praising and glorifying” without gagging on the result. Paul has either imagined groupies who are now worshiping him or the Called Out from Syria to Cilicia were collectively suffering from Stockholm syndrome. Either way, Sha’uwl / Paul was now a legend in his own mind, with the Jews who he was persecuting now praising and glorifying him, considering him illustrious and magnificent. Pardon me while I gag.

The scenario Sha’uwl has laid out, whereby the chief priests recruited him and then ordered him to bludgeon Torah-observant Jews, is a charade based on what Paulos has said about himself. It is entirely possible, however, perhaps probable, that the founder of the Christian faith 570was ruthless, lashing out at others as a condescending bully and a brute. But should this be the case, it means that we are dealing with the likes of Muhammad – a delusional schizophrenic psychopath and narcissist.

Nonetheless, to the extent that Sha’uwl told the truth, and that he was exceptionally and uniquely vicious, in concert with his repetitive claims, then the victims of his wonton savagery may have misconstrued this temporary remission in his brutality as being praiseworthy. In such cases, victims often bond with their abuser. They see the merciless as merciful. It is called the “Stockholm syndrome.” Therefore, in this concluding sentence, we are witnessing a psychological phenomenon that profoundly alters an individual’s ability to exercise good judgment regarding those who are abusing them, nineteen centuries before it was codified and explained.

This was not the first time, nor would it be the last, that this strategy would be deployed for nefarious means. Islam, for example, would not exist without it. Muhammad expressly authorized Muslim men to berate, imprison, and beat their wives so long as they occasionally relented, which was usually in the form of having their way with their bodies. And if that was not sufficient to exercise complete dominion over women, then they could murder them.

Doxazo, which is being directed at Paul, was translated as “They were praising and glorifying, attributing an exceptionally high value and status.” It also conveys: “They were considered illustrious and magnificent, holding the opinion of an especially high rank, supposing to honor, extol, celebrate, and dignify” Paul.

Doxazo is from the base of doxa, which is “to form a favorable opinion,” and thus “to hold someone in high esteem by taking into account their behavior and reputation.” And since Paul’s reputation, at least according 571to Paul, has been that of a libertine and terrorist, both of which in the sight of God’s people would be considered reprehensible, should this declaration have occurred, the Stockholm syndrome provides the lone rational reason to deploy “doxazo – glorified in the opinion of the beholder” in association with Paul.

And since the praiseworthy connotations associated with doxazo are directed “in me for God,” Sha’uwl’s statement can be read that people “thought highly of God in me,” which is extraordinarily arrogant, placing Paul in the company of the Caesars, Emperors, and Pharaohs who claimed to be god – or, at the very least, to represent Him before men. This serves to establish Paul as co-savior and co-author, his personal contribution toward completing his Lord’s work.

This is yet another way that Paul sounds like Muhammad in the Quran. This sentence pushes the envelope, elevating Paul’s opinion of himself well beyond anything which is appropriate.

But the other options may be even worse, especially if we read this as saying, “for God in me,” making Paul and his god one and the same. And if God is brought into the equation, and is seen as part of this arrogant evaluation, then Paul rises above his god in status.

Each of these themes will play out again in Islam, where Allah and Muhammad speak with the same voice because Muhammad was the corporeal manifestation of Satan as a result of having been demonically possessed by him, as he had Paul. And this similarity is germane to our evaluation of Paul, because in Islam, Allah is indistinguishable from Satan. They have the same personality, ambitions, attitude, and methods. In Islam, which means “submission,” Allah replaces Yahowah as God. In Christianity, the Lord replaces Yahowah as God. The result is the same.

572The King James Version crafted a bizarre ending that serves to exacerbate the problem: “But they had heard only, that he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed. And they glorified God in me.” The Latin Vulgate, from which the inappropriate ending materialized, reads similarly: “For they had only heard that: ‘He, who formerly persecuted us, now evangelizat/evangelizes the fidem/faith which he once fought. And they glorified God in me.’”

While typically I am critical of these translations when they diverge from the original text, both conclusions are reasonable adaptations of Paul’s poorly worded statement. It is easy to construe this as if Paul was suggesting that he and his god were equally praiseworthy. And keep in mind, the path to this place was paved with the pronouncement that Paul cannot lie.

In the context of religious deceptions, it’s also important to recognize that the King James rendition of the beginning of this statement was errant because the Greek word for “preach” is kerysso, not euangelizo which means “to convey a healing messenger or beneficial message.” And since faith is the result of not knowing, how and why would it be “preached?”

Faith is required when there is insufficient information to know and thus understand. That is why it is part and parcel to Pauline Doctrine. Paul never presents sufficient information to grow beyond “faith.” This realization drives to the heart of the Great Galatians Debate.

It is only out of a sense of duty, that of pulling weeds from the swamp that has become Christendom, that I continue to expose the methodology of the New Living Translation: “All they knew was that people were saying, ‘The one who used to persecute us is now preaching the very faith he tried to destroy!’ And they praised God because of me.”

573While this is not what Paul wrote, if this is what he was intending to say, if this is what he believed, then we should pity him. Neither Noah nor Abraham made such a claim. We do not find these words on the lips of Moseh (Moses) or Dowd (David). Not even Gospel Jesus said such a thing.

Recapping the sixth Pauline stanza serves as a real eye-opener and head turner…

“But now what I write as if it were ‘Scripture’ to you, you must pay especially close attention to in the presence of Theos | God, because I cannot lie, nor deceive, conveying that which is untrue. (Galatians 1:20)

Thereafter, I came to the regions of Syria and also of Cilicia. (Galatians 1:21) But I was not known or understood personally by the Called Out of Judah in Christo. (Galatians 1:22)

But then only they were constantly hearing that the one presently pursuing and persecuting, systematically oppressing and harassing us at various times now he presently proclaims a healing message of faith which once he was attacking and continues to annihilate, ravaging. (Galatians 1:23) And they were praising and glorifying me, attributing an exceptionally high value and status to me, considering me illustrious and magnificent, honorable and dignified in relation to the Theos | God.” (Galatians 1:24)

If true, why did Sha’uwl call them “apostates?”



The most appropriate way to conclude Paulos’ introduction of himself, his pronouncement of his calling, his disdain for the people he labeled apostates and traitors, and his zeal to be disjoined from the old system which he 574deemed pornographic and debilitating, would be to review what Paulos has written thus far. It has been a nauseating ride to a place most would not have dared imagine...

“Paulos, an apostle, not from men, not even by the means of man, but to the contrary, on behalf of Iesou Christou and God, Father of the one having roused and awakened him out of a corpse, (1:1) and all the brothers with me to the called out of the Galatias, (1:2) Charis | Grace to you and peace from Theos | God, Pater | Father of us and Lord Iesou Christou, (1:3) the one having given himself on account of the sins and errors of us, so that somehow, through indefinite means, he might gouge and tear out, plucking and uprooting us from the past inflexible and unrelenting circumstances and old system which had been in place which is like pornography, disadvantageous and harmful, corrupting and debilitating, maliciously malignant in opposition to the desire and will of Theos | God and Paters | Father of us, (1:4) to whom the assessment of the brilliant splendor, the opinion regarding the glorious radiance and appearance of the shining light, by means of the old and the new systems, Amen, let it be so. (Galatians 1:5)

I marvel and am amazed, even astonished that in this way how quickly and in haste you changed, deserting and becoming disloyal apostates, traitors away from your calling in the name of Charis to a different healing message and beneficial messenger, (1:6) which does not exist differently, if not hypothetically negated because perhaps some are stirring you up, confusing you, and also proposing to change the healing messenger and pervert the beneficial message of the Christou, (1:7) but to the contrary, if we or a messenger out of heaven conveys a healing messenger or beneficial message to you which is approximately the same or contrary to, or even 575positioned alongside what we delivered as a beneficial messenger and announced as a healing message to you then a curse with a dreadful consequence exists. (Galatians 1:8)

As we have said already, and even just now, immediately thereafter, repetitively, I say, if under the condition someone delivers a helpful messenger or communicates a useful message to you similar or contrary to, in opposition with or just positioned alongside, no matter if it is close to or greater than that which you received, it shall be, in fact I command and want it to exist as a curse with a dreadful consequence. (Galatians 1:9)

For because currently or simultaneously, [is it] men I presently persuade to win the favor of, seducing, misleading, and coaxing, even convincing, appeasing, and placating, or alternatively, the Theos | God? Or alternatively by comparison and contrast, [do] I desire to please and accommodate humans? Yet nevertheless, if men, I was obliging and accommodating, exciting them emotionally, a slave of Christou, certainly not was me. (Galatians 1:10)

So therefore, I profess to you brothers of the beneficial message and good messenger which having been communicated advantageously by and through myself, because it is not according to or in accord with man. (Galatians 1:11)

But neither because I by man associating myself with it. Nor was I taught. But to the contrary, by way of a revelation, an appearance serving to uncover and unveil Iesou Christou. (Galatians 1:12)

For because you heard of my unruly behavior at a time and place during the practice of Judaism, namely that because of my superiority, surpassing any measure of restraint, to an extraordinary degree better than 576anyone else, I was aggressively and intensely, even systematically pursuing it by persecuting, oppressing, and attacking the Called Out of God as I was and am devastating her, continuing to undermine, overthrow, and annihilate her. (Galatians 1:13)

So I was and continue to progress, accomplishing a great deal, and I persist moving forward in the practice of Judaism, over and beyond many contemporaries among my race, enthusiastic, zealous, and excited, especially devoted and burning with passion to adhere to and assimilate with the traditions and teachings handed down by my forefathers. (Galatians 1:14)

But at a point in time when it pleased and was chosen to be better for Theos, the one having appointed me, setting me aside out of the womb of my mother (1:15) to reveal and disclose, uncovering and unveiling the Son of Him in order that I could announce the healing message among the multitudes, races, and nations, immediately. I did not ask the advice of or consult with flesh or blood. (Galatians 1:16)

I did not ascend, traveling into Jerusalem toward the goal of being with or against the Apostles before me, but to the contrary, I went away, withdrawing to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. (1:17) Then later in the sequence of events, after three years’ time, I ascended to Jerusalem to investigate and inquire about Kephas | Rock and remained against him fifteen days. (1:18) But other of the Apostles, I did not see or concern myself with except Ya’aqob | Jacob, the (tov) brother of the Kurios | Lord. (Galatians 1:19)

But now what I write as if it were ‘Scripture’ to you, you must pay especially close attention to in the presence of Theos | God, because I cannot lie, nor deceive, conveying that which is untrue. (1:20) Thereafter, I came to the regions of Syria and also of 577Cilicia. (1:21) But I was not known or understood personally by the Called Out of Judah in Christo. (Galatians 1:22)

But then only they were constantly hearing that the one presently pursuing and persecuting, systematically oppressing and harassing us at various times now he presently proclaims a healing message of faith which once he was attacking and continues to annihilate, ravaging. (1:23) And they were praising and glorifying me, attributing an exceptionally high value and status to me, considering me illustrious and magnificent, honorable and dignified in relation to the Theos | God.” (Galatians 1:24)

It is spellbinding, albeit in the most nightmarish way.

