42Twistianity
Towrahless
…Without Guidance
2
Dauchaomai | To Brag
Previously Functional…
The realization that Galatians is not “Scripture” in the Christian sense, does not infer that a spirit was not engaged in Sha’uwl’s mission. By using energeo in the next statement, Paul acknowledged that something was “functioning” in him, “facilitating” the resulting toxin the Christian world has come to ingest.
Sha’uwl / Paul will infer that the spirit who inspired him, working within him, was the same “o – one” who inspired Shim’own Kephas, now called “Petro | Peter.” That being so, it explains why Gospel Jesus bluntly equated Peter to Satan after the misrepresented declaration where Iesous told him to tell no one that he was the Christos.
“For indeed (gar – because then namely), the one (o – article nominative singular masculine) having previously functioned (energeo – (scribed energesas) having operated and produced previously at work (in the aorist participle, this refers to a snapshot in antecedent time)) in Petro (Petro – in rock or stone; typically transliterated “Peter” from the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew/Aramaic kephas) to (eis – into and inside) an apostle (apostolen – one who is prepared to be sent out with a message) for the (tes) circumcision (peritome), it actually is functioning (energeo – (scribed energesen) it truly operating and is really working (aorist active indicative)) also (kai) in me (emoi) to (eis) the nations and ethnicities (ta ethnos – the people from different places and races).” (Galatians 2:8)
43It was either yet another desperate lie, deliberate and inexcusable, or it was true and, therefore, self-incriminating and damning. Sha’uwl wants his readers to believe that the spirit working within him was not only the same one guiding the disciples, but that it came from God. But since Peter’s and Paul’s messages were discordant, necessitating this summit, and both contrary to Yahowah, the spirit would have to have been duplicitous. And in this regard, Satan would not have cared how much they differed between them, so long as they were contrary to God in ways that made his ascension possible.
According to the testimony provided by Shim’own Kephas or one of his colleagues to Luke and then passed on to us in the opening chapters of Acts, Paul’s claim to similar inspiration was wildly inaccurate. At this time, they were in disagreement on almost every issue. And even though Peter was less dismissive of the Towrah, his defense of it was remedial at best and often inaccurate.
Having studied the Towrah, I realize that the only way to receive the Set-Apart Spirit is to embrace the conditions of the Beryth while accepting the invitations offered through the Miqra’ey. And even then, She comes upon those Yahowah is seeking to enlighten, protect, and deploy. There is nothing to suggest that either Peter or Paul were ever Covenant, and there is a mountain of words demonstrating otherwise. Therefore, if they were inspired by a spirit, then they were demon-possessed – something Paul, himself, admits.
Several years ago, during my previous edit of this material, I tried to paint Peter as Paul’s foil, as the voice of Gospel Jesus and of the Towrah against the Towrahless One and Devil’s Advocate. I had once thought that his retort against Paul’s position in opposition to the Towrah, while feeble, was heartfelt. I have even considered Peter’s take on Shabuw’ah / Pentecost to have been somewhat plausible. But the more I considered the disciples’ 44testimony and compared it to God’s clearly articulated positions on these things, the more I realized that Peter was no closer to the truth and no better than Paul. His every word was untrue.
For example, Shabuw’ah was not fulfilled at the time or manner claimed by Peter and Luke in the Book of Acts. This harvest of standing grain is in our immediate future, and during it, only those who have capitalized upon what Dowd has accomplished through the Miqra’ey on behalf of the Beryth will benefit – all of which Peter and Paul deny.
Informed and rational, we now know for certain that Peter’s and Paul’s claims were unfounded, both regarding the Towrah and Ruwach. And since they were in conflict with each other and in opposition to God, all of the air has gone out of the room.
One of the reasons that I prefer the insights we glean through amplification is because of words like energeo. By examining them, we not only plumb the depths of what’s being conveyed, we also come to understand that terms like ethnos convey a much broader and more all-encompassing idea than either “nations” or “Gentiles.”
Energeo, when applied to Shim’own Kephas, was scribed in the aorist active participle, thereby, exhibiting the characteristics of a verb and an adjective as a moment in antecedent time. This grammatical form is used to say that this took place earlier in his life and that one thing preceded another. But when Sha’uwl applied energeo to himself, he used the aorist active indicative, whereby the mood of assertion proclaims that the state being presented by the writer was real. In this context, and by incorporating these telling nuances, we can read Paul’s statement to say: “There was a time, long before I took charge, that this other fellow may have once done in a limited way what I have already accomplished and am doing in a massive way.” I did say he was a narcissist, after all.
45According to the Devil’s Advocate, Paul was pertinent and Peter was passé. Sha’uwl was usurping his authority. So why did Gospel Jesus bother with the disciples in the first place? There is no room for them in Paul’s power grab.
Translated as “having previously functioned” and “actually functioning,” the two times it appears in Galatians 2:8, energeo speaks of “causing something to function or work, thereby producing an effect.” But it is an amoral term, without any inference as to whether the power is good or bad, whether the effect being produced is right or wrong, or whether the result is beneficial or harmful. And I suppose this is the reason that Gospel Jesus is never shown using this verb. Therefore, all we know for sure is that Paul wanted his audience to believe that there was no difference between the source and the result of his “power and ability,” and that which had once been demonstrated through Shim’own and now through him.
But even the most favorable interpretations evaporate when we examine the Greek text more closely. Energeo was written as energesas, which is masculine singular in reference to the subject, “o – the one,” also written in the masculine singular. But the ruwach qodesh – Set-Apart Spirit of Yahowah is feminine in Hebrew and neuter in Greek. Therefore, the source of power Paul was claiming was masculine, and thus could not have been Yahowah’s Set-Apart Spirit – which was most assuredly the source of Dowd’s inspiration and ability. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending upon your perspective), as we have already seen, Sha’uwl was not mum on the identity of the spirit who possessed him. The masculine and singular source of his inspiration was ha Satan | the Adversary.
This known, there is a difference between proving that Sha’uwl / Paul was a fraud, the Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing, and alleging that he was the Devil’s Advocate. And while the initial conclusion has become irrefutable, its derivative would be foolish to ignore.
46We already know that Sha’uwl / Paul would eventually admit in his second letter to the Corinthians that he was demon-possessed. And we are now aware that he has opened Pandora’s Box with his ode to the masculine power influencing his assault on the Towrah, its Covenant and its people. But Sha’uwl was a liar, so we ought not trust his testimony. However, God is not, and Yahowah called Sha’uwl “ben ‘awlah – the Son of Evil,” initially in Shamuw’el / He Listens / 2 Samuel 7:10 and then again in Mizmowr / Lyrics to be Sung / Psalm 89:22. As the Son of Evil, he was Satan’s child. In due time, we will consider both prophecies in association with Sha’uwl. They are presently presented in the Above and Beyond and To Dowd or Not to Dowd chapters of Volume 1, A Voice, of Coming Home.
So now regarding Sha’uwl’s | Paul’s misleading statement, the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear (NAMI) asserts that Paul wrote: “The one for having operated in Peter to delegateship the circumcision operated also in me to the nations.” Therefore, these things known, save one glaring issue, the translations which follow are accurate, albeit inadequate renderings of the poison he has presented. KJV: “(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)” The adjective-verb, energesas, which we have been addressing, was accurately translated as “wrought effectually” in its first occurrence, but even though it is singular and masculine in the Greek text, it was not rendered in the third person, making “For ‘he’ that” inappropriate, albeit telling. However, kudos to Francis Bacon who realized that Paul was bragging by using energesas to say “the same was mighty in me.”
And while there was no basis for “he” in the Greek text because “o – the one” is an article and not a pronoun, it is once again apparent that Jerome’s Latin Vulgate served as 47the basis of the King James: “For he who was working the Apostolatum / Apostleship to the circumcised in Petro, was also working in me among the Gentes / Gentiles.”
As usual, the NLT has been presumptuous. Paul did not identify the source of his power: “For the same God who worked through Peter as the apostle to the Jews also worked through me as the apostle to the Gentiles.”
The New Living Translation inappropriately associated the entity working with Paul as “God,” so I am compelled to once again provide the following for your consideration. While I have presented this before and will do so again in other chapters, at this juncture it is especially prudent to consider the implications of Paul’s stunning confession…
“Because (gar – for indeed) if (ean) I might want (thelo – I may decide, desire, propose, or enjoy) to brag (dauchaomai – to boast or to glorify myself) truthfully (aletheia – honestly), I would not be (ouk esomai) unjustified or imprudent (aphron – acting rashly without reason, inappropriate or foolish).
For then (gar – because) I will say (ero) I am presently abstaining (pheidomai – I am currently refraining). But (de) someone (tis) not (un) approaching (eis) me (eme) might ponder (logizomai – may have reason to logically conclude, embrace an opinion, or hold a view) beyond (hyper – over and above and because of) what (o) he sees (blepo – he will be able to view and discern) in me (me), or (e) something (ti) he hears (akouo – he listens to, receives, pays attention to) from (ek) me (emou), (12:6) and of the (kai te – so with regard to the) extraordinary superiority of the preeminent and awe-inspiring (hyperbole ton – exceedingly great, transcendent, magnificent, and admittedly exaggerated aspects of the overstated) revelations (apokalypsis – disclosures with the appearance of instructions concerning the unknown).
48Therefore (dio – it should be self-evident), in order that (hina – for the purpose that) I not become overly proud and be lifted up (me hyperairomai – I not become conceited, exalting myself beyond what would be justified, so as not to be insolent, audaciously lifting myself above the source of my inspiration), there was given to me (didomi ego – there was deposited upon me, allowing me to experience, there was granted and entrusted to me for my advantage) a sharp goad and troubling thorn (skolops – a sharp pointed prod used to control dumb animals, or a poisonous scorpion’s stinger) in the body (te sarx – incorporated into the flesh and as an aspect of my physical, animal, and human nature), a messenger (angelos – a spiritual envoy or demonic spirit) of Satan (Satan – a transliteration of satan, Hebrew for the Adversary), in order to (hina – so as to) strike and restrain me (kolaphizo – adversely harm, beat, and torment me, violently mistreating me to painfully afflict, attack, buffet, and batter me; from kolazo – to prune, control, check, curb, and restrain me), so that as a result (hina) at the present time there is the possibility that I might not be conceited, currently exalting myself beyond what would be justified, lifting myself up (me hyperairomai – I may not be overly proud, excessively exalted, or lifted up, overdoing it (scribed in the present tense, meaning at this time, in the passive voice, affirming that this is being done to him, with the subjective mood indicating that this outcome is a mere possibility, and in the first-person singular, thereby identifying Paulos as the one being possessed and controlled)).” (2 Corinthians 12:6-7)
Sha’uwl revealed the identity of his power. He explained why “the one” providing it was masculine, not feminine. He also admitted why he was so critical of God and so averse to His Son, Family, and Towrah.
In an upcoming chapter in this volume of Twistianity, “Kataginosko | Convicted,” we will consider what Paul just 49said in the context of the Dionysus quote attributed to the flashing light he encountered on the road to Damascus. But suffice it to say, for now, Paul admitted that he was driven by his ego and controlled by a demon. And that does not bode well for Christianity.
Without the clutter of the Greek text, the Adversary’s Apostle testified:
“Because indeed if I might want to brag and boast, glorifying myself, honestly, I would not be unjustified. But then I will say I am presently abstaining. But someone not approaching me might ponder beyond what he sees in me, or something he hears from me, (2 Corinthians 12:6) or of the extraordinary superiority of the preeminent and awe-inspiring, exceedingly great revelations.
[Excuse me for interrupting this diatribe, but what revelations? Paul has not and will not reveal anything accurate or worth knowing. His only fulfilled prophecy was that he would impose a curse.]
Therefore, it should be self-evident, in order that I not become overly proud, exalting myself beyond what would be justified, there was given to me a sharp goad and troubling thorn in the body, a messenger and spiritual envoy of Satan, in order to strike and restrain me, controlling me, so that as a result at the present time there is the possibility that I might not be conceited, currently exalting myself beyond what would be justified.” (2 Corinthians 12:6-7)
After you catch your breath, we will move on.
As we have come to expect with Paul, after stepping sideways, he stumbles backward. He is once again associating his message with his favorite pagan goddesses.
“And (kai) having known and having recognized (ginosko – having become familiar with and having 50acknowledged) the Charis | Grace (ten Charis – the name of the lovely and lascivious Greek goddesses of merriment, known to the Romans as the Gratia, from which “Grace” is derived) of the one (ten – article accusative singular feminine) having been given (didomi – having been offered and bestowed, having been assigned, experienced, and furnished) to me (moi), Ya’aqob (Iakobos – an inaccurate transliteration of Ya’aqob, meaning One who Digs in his Heels, Standing Steadfast, Jacob, renamed “James” in honor of the British King), and (kai) Kephas (Kephas – a transliteration of the Hebrew word for stone in the palm of one’s hand, the nickname of Shim’own | He Listens), and also (kai) Yahowchanan (Ioannas – a tragically inaccurate Greek transliteration of Yahowchanan, a compound of Yahowah and chanan meaning Yahowah is Merciful, commonly known as John), the ones (oi) presently presumed and regarded (dokei – currently considered and supposed, of the opinion and assumed) to be (eimi) pillars (stulos – metaphorically used to symbolize an important, authorized, or authoritative leader, especially someone who establishes, upholds, and supports), the right (dexias – to take the right hand and place of honor and authority) they gave (didomi – they offered, granted, and extended) to me (emoi), and (kai) to Barnabas (Barnabas – meaning Son of a Prophet) fellowship (koinonia – association and participation) as a result (hina). We (emeis) to (eis) the (ta) nations and ethnicities (ethnos – people from different races and places), but (de) they (autos) to (eis) the circumcision (ten peritome).” (Galatians 2:9)
Liars lie, that is what liars do. As proof, lingering hostilities will cause Paul to condemn Peter later in this same letter. Further, there was no mention of John being at this meeting in Acts, and that is because he had moved on to Ephesus. And even then, Sha’uwl will tell Timothy to undermine and refute John and his preaching. Moreover, Shim’own explicitly challenged Paul’s claim to the Gentile 51world, largely because Gospel Jesus had allegedly authorized him to preach to them. Then there is the issue with Ya’aqob | Jacob and his epistle. It was written to say that the kind of faith Paul was promoting was ineffective and deadly.
Beyond all evidence to the contrary, what is the purpose of a supposed endorsement from “presumed and supposed” pillars? It is like claiming that the village idiots applauded at the end of a speech. And as for Barnabas, he would part ways with Sha’uwl as a result of this meeting. They were hardly of one accord.
Conveying the meaning of the same words somewhat differently, the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear reads: “And having known the favor the one having been given to me Jacob and Cephas and John the ones thinking pillars to be right they gave to me and Barnabas of partnership that we to the nations themselves but to the circumcision.”
While the Greek does not flow exceptionally well into English, the message is that Sha’uwl claimed that the three men closest to Gospel Jesus, his brother, Ya’aqob, Shim’own Kephas, and Yahowchanan, all “granted the right place of honor and authority to” Paul. And then as an afterthought, they said that his pal, Barny, could tag along. But it is all as egotistical as it is delusional because the same source claimed that they were and remained bitter enemies.
While it may be a smaller issue among much bigger ones, the distinction between how Paul says he was treated versus Barnabas is revealing. Based upon the way Paul worded this, associating “the right” with him and “fellowship” with Barnabas, it would be inappropriate to suggest that the “right hand of fellowship was extended to Paul and Barnabas.” And with this deliberate distinction, rendering dexias as “the right hand,” when removed from “koinonia – fellowship,” would be misleading. Therefore, 52we are left with what the context thus far has consistently conveyed: Paul wants us to believe that the disciples Yahowchanan, Shim’own, and Ya’aqob stepped aside to position Sha’uwl in “dexias – the place of honor and authority.” And if you believe that, you will believe anything.
But at least now we know with absolute certainty that the men who Sha’uwl was demeaning with “dokei – presumed and supposed” have been named: Yahowchanan, Shim’own, and Ya’aqob. And while that is what we suspected, in this context, it is ironic because in Galatians 2:6 Paulos claimed that their “advice and counsel was utterly worthless” and that they “meant absolutely nothing to him.” But now that Paulos craves their approval, all of a sudden the “presumed pillars” are credible – at least when seen stepping aside and bowing to the ascendency of Paul. With spiritual advisers like this, the Devil becomes superfluous.
While it is another small thing, you may have noticed that “the one” has changed genders from one sentence to the next. He was masculine in 2:8, but in the shadow of the naked goddesses of licentiousness, the alluring Charis, she is now feminine in 2:9. This suggests, at least grammatically, that the Charities inspired Paulos. But even that is farfetched because he was not into girls, just boys.
Everyone in this audience, sneaky spies, presumptive leaders, or otherwise, would have recognized the Greek and Roman goddesses. They would have seen that Paul was associating his faith with the Charities, which is only a good thing for those who prefer paganism.
Beyond his asinine enslaving remarks, associating with false gods, rejecting the Towrah, replacing Dowd, and promoting a religion while rejecting the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Statements Yahowah engraved on the Tablets of Stone, the evidence suggests that Paul’s declaration skirted the truth. 53Even if “dexias – the right” is extrapolated to be “the right hand” as in a “handshake” or “greeting” rather than “the right to take the place of honor and authority,” in Acts we learn that the greeting preceded the discussion. And that would make Paul’s recasting of events, with an inverted chronology, invalid. In Acts, “ginosko – recognition” of his arrival was not an antecedent to acceptance.
In Galatians, the inference is that the supposed disciples had listened to Paul’s presentation of his preaching and dogma, and then approved it, offering him the position of power and authority. Thereby, the use of “ginosko – knowing and recognizing” at this juncture portends that Ya’aqob’s, Shim’own’s, and Yahowchanan’s acknowledgment should be equated to an acceptance of Sha’uwl’s Towrahless message. But in Acts we learn that this welcoming greeting occurred before, not after, Paul presented his case, and therefore it did not serve as support of his ministry. And this deliberate sleight of hand was designed to mislead readers regarding something absolutely essential to Christianity’s credibility demonstrates that Sha’uwl was as deceitful as the Devil. Saint Paul, indeed.
On the positive side, the Greek word stulos is related to stauros, the “upright pillar” upon which Dowd hung, opening the door to life on Passover. The Messiah’s sacrifice as the Upright Pillar (the ‘edon) on the upright pole (stauros) was “symbolic of the authorized and authoritative leader who establishes and upholds (stulos).”
Stulos, which means “a pillar or column which stands and supports something,” is used several times in the Greek texts. The next two occurrences are found in Revelation 3:12 and 10:1. The ‘edon concept of the “Upright One who is the Foundation of the Tabernacle” is advanced by: “All who are victorious will become pillars (stulos) in the Tabernacle of My God and will never have to leave it. And I will write on them the name of My God.” 54(Revelation 3:12).
In Revelation 10:1, the stulos symbolism is reminiscent of Yahowah going before the Children of Yisra’el by day as a pillar-shaped cloud and by night as a pillar of light. “Then I saw another mighty messenger coming down from heaven, surrounded by a cloud, with a rainbow over His head. His face shone like the sun, and His feet were like pillars (stulos) of fire.”
Okay, so I’m grasping for straws to find something positive to write about in the midst of the Christian swamp. Obviously, the Christian writers knew nothing of any of this. So, I promise not to do it again.
On the less-than-admirable side of the ledger, there is a disturbing tone to some of this which needs to be considered. While dokei can convey the idea of “choosing to think, and of thought,” its primary meaning is more along the lines of “supposition and presumption,” and thus of “imagination and opinion.” That is not to say that dokei cannot be translated as “recognized and regarded,” as evidenced by the verb dokimazo, which means to “examine, to regard as worthwhile, and to judge as good, genuine, worthy.” But recognizing and acknowledging that Sha’uwl’s intent was to label Ya’aqob, Shim’own, and Yahowchanan “the supposed, presumed, and opinionated” pillars would be more accurate – especially since he has already equated this word to these men to say that they were meaningless and worthless.
We must ask: “Why would Sha’uwl choose to refer to the three most acclaimed disciples as the “dokei – assumed” pillars when he could have used “epiginosko – acknowledged” pillars? Epiginosko speaks of “a thoughtful conclusion which is formed after becoming thoroughly acquainted with the evidence.” Epiginosko is the “synthesis of knowledge and understanding, of having sufficient information and the ability to process it rationally.” Epiginosko is “objective” while dokei is “subjective.” 55Epiginosko speaks of “an informed conclusion” while dokei is “an unfounded opinion.” Therefore, in our search for truth, in our desire to know that which is trustworthy and reliable, epiginosko is the epitome of that quest, while dokei leads us backward into the murky and mystical religious realm of faith. Further, dokei continues to pit the Christian messengers as a house of cards in conflict pursuing disparate missions.
Twice now Paulos has divided the room, each time inaccurately and unfairly, claiming that the outreach of Shim’own, Ya’aqob, and Yahowchanan was limited to the Jews, while his mission encompassed the remainder of the world – the nations and races. This simply was not true on either side while unacceptable to Yahowah and discordant with the mythos associated with Gospel Jesus.
According to Iesou Christou, John’s mission was not limited. If anything, it was focused on the “uncircumcised,” especially the Greco-Roman world. He lived in Ephesus – the largest, most influential Greco-Roman city in the world. And for better or worse, Yahowchanan was the leader of the ekklesia there, not Sha’uwl. It is even likely that the Gospel attributed to John was written in Ephesus, a city which lies well beyond the province of Galatia from the perspective of Yahuwdah | Judea. Also telling, according to his second letter to Timothy, everyone, who knew Paul intimately, ultimately rejected him.
Further, Revelation, which is also attributed to an aging John at the conclusion of the 1st century, and thus fifty years removed from this debacle, was cobbled together on the Greek Island of Patmos. And it provides a set of clues which associates the early church with Satan. And so if Sha’uwl’s sentiments were accurate and Yahowchanan had been retired since he was no longer relevant outside Judea, why was this “Revelation” given to him and not to Paul?
56Therefore, considering the way things played out, Sha’uwl was wrong in limiting Yahowchanan’s influence while claiming it for himself. And he should not have been so dismissive or disparaging regarding Yahowchanan’s status. And as a result, this letter has taken on an undeserved and undeniable egotistical tint, bordering on delusional.
And as we have just discovered, Paul’s ego was so enormous, by his own admission, the Devil had to prod him to control him – to keep him in line. And even after demonic modification, Sha’uwl was still so full of himself that his words elicit a gag reflex. He would have us believe he was an expert on all things pertaining to Rabbinic Judaism, and that as a Roman citizen from Tarsus, he was the purveyor of enlightenment to the Greco-Roman world. And this nonsense is overshadowed by his claim of being God’s anointed and exclusive choice of Apostles committed to demeaning and contradicting Him.
Burnishing his hellish résumé, Sha’uwl claims to have studied in Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem under Gamaliel, whom he paints as the foremost religious scholar of his day. So astute was he, Sha’uwl brags that he was known as the most extraordinary student due to his superior intellect. He considered himself a soaring orator and an accomplished writer. By comparison, Ya’aqob was a lowly stonemason, and Shim’own and Yahowchanan were fishermen from backwater towns in Galilee. While Sha’uwl protests (when it serves his interest) that men hold no rank with God, among men, Paulos routinely ranked himself far above all others. So at least he was a hypocrite extraordinaire.
Continuing to deal with this controversial passage, we find the KJV affirming the “supposed” connotation of dokei: “And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they 57unto the circumcision.” But that is not what Paul wrote. The “right” was only associated with Paul and “fellowship” was all that was attributed to Barnabas.
Remember... “And having known and having recognized, becoming familiar with the Charis | Grace of the one having been given to me, Ya’aqob, Kephas, and also Yahowchanan, the ones presently presumed to be pillars, and thus leaders, the right place of honor and authority they granted to me, and to Barnabas fellowship as a result. We to the nations and ethnicities, but they to the circumcision. (Galatians 2:9)
Jerome’s Vulgate blend of Old Latin texts revealed: “And so, when they had acknowledged the gratiam / grace that was given to me, Iacobus, Cephas and Ioannes, who seemed like pillars, gave to me and to Barnabæ the right hand of fellowship, so that we would go to the Gentes / Gentiles, while they went to the circumcisionem / circumcised,” Jerome also picked up the less than flattering nature of dokei with “seemed to be” and “seemed like.” And while we may also see glimpses here into the secret handshake of fellowship associated with the Mithraism mysteries, Jerome is to blame for creating the myth of “the right hand of fellowship” being offered to both men.
Writing their own Bible, the New Living Translation authored the following verse, repeating every mistake while creating some of their own: “In fact, James, Peter, and John, who were known as pillars of the church, recognized the gift God had given me, and they accepted Barnabas and me as their co-workers. They encouraged us to keep preaching to the Gentiles, while they continued their work with the Jews.” Their chutzpah is stunning. In this case, they were not even consistent with their beloved charis, translating it as “gift” rather than transliterating the Roman goddesses’ name. This malfeasance highlights the most serious problem with Galatians 2:9. This is the second of 107 times that Paul blurred the line between his religion 58and paganism. He said: “having known the Charis of the one given to me.” Charis is the name given to the Greek “Charities,” just as Gratiam identifies the Roman “Graces.”
Should you be curious, had Paul wanted to say “favor,” he would have used eunoia. If he had wanted to say “gift,” didomi would have been the perfect choice. If his intent was to say “fortuitous,” tucheros would have worked. “Love” is agape. “Joy” is chara.
More appropriate still, the Greek word for “mercy” is eleeo, and “merciful” is eleemon. Eleeo speaks of “demonstrating mercy through helping the poor and afflicted by providing aid in the form of an unearned gift.” As such, eleeo would have been a vastly superior term. But there is more. Eleos also conveys “mercy, loving kindness, and goodwill toward those who are troubled.” Ideally, eleos “demonstrates a willingness to help the unpretentious by offering them clemency.” The related eleemosune even speaks of a “merciful gift which is charitably donated to the otherwise impoverished.” So why did the Hebrew Sha’uwl, now the Latin Paulos, choose the name of the Greek goddesses known as the Charis with so many much better options?
Even if there is no acceptable answer, it must be asked why, with a plethora of inoffensive words at his disposal, and especially chrestos and eleos, did Paul choose to promote the name of pagan goddesses and select Charis? And since his motivation is as important as his execution, we know the result. He discredited himself and led billions of souls the wrong way, down a dead-end street. Christians would culture a faith-based relationship with the pagan deities Charis and a mythological person, Iesou, predicated upon the lore of Dionysus. It would be the Devil’s version of potpourri.
Since Paul’s path has led so many souls away from the Towrah, it is important to recognize that the concepts of 59“favoritism, mercy, compassion, loyalty, and love,” wrongly incorporated into “grace” as a result of Paul’s poison pen, are advanced more assuredly and pervasively throughout Yahowah’s Testimony than they are in Paul’s letters. While shocking to Christians, the fact remains that God inspired His prophets to write chen and its verbal form, chanan, the Hebrew words for “the unearned gift of mercy and loving kindness, unmerited favor and acceptance,” twice as often as Sha’uwl scribed charis. So, the problem is not with the concept of “favoritism and mercy” as we know them today, but instead with Paul’s choice of words – and his proposed means to them.
The alleged stonemason and fishermen evidently added a caveat to the self-proclaimed scholar’s euangelion…
“Only (monon – just, alone by itself) the (ton) lowly and poor (ptochos – worthless, of little value, beggars, destitute, and impoverished) that (hina –the purpose of) we might remember (mnemoneuo – we could call to mind, be mindful of, and possibly think about) which (hos – who) also (kai) I was eager and quick (spoudazo – I was giving the best effort, always ready) same (autos) this (houtos) to do (poieomai – to accomplish).” (Galatians 2:10)
This is funny in a way since Paulos means “lowly” in Latin. With tongue planted smugly in his cheek, I am sure he was all too eager to profess that he was ever ready to serve his interests. He was doing so at this very moment. But alas, even if I am being a little too cynical, what are the chances that, after allegedly spending three years walking in the footsteps of Iesou, witnessing everything that their god-man said and did, these three men would distill his words and deeds down to: “alone, by itself, the lowly that we might remember?”
Should this have been the sum total of the life’s work of Gospel Jesus, there would have been just one unidentified and unspecific statement etched on a singular 60tablet. There would have been no reason to die under such circumstances – especially if working for the poor there would have been no point in putting oneself out of commission. But I digress since the only reason that God-Man died was that the dastardly Jews killed him. They must have been uncharitable back in the day.
Should “only the lowly we might remember” have been the gist of the message, then the purpose of creation would have been to observe and memorialize human poverty and suffering. After all, in Paul’s summation and acceptance of Peter’s proclamation, there was no mention of helping the destitute, or even a reason to elevate their status – nor any correlation of this to Iesou the Christou. Moreover, should they have conquered poverty through the implementation of a new economic system, they would have eliminated the principal object of their new faith.
Should Peter and Paul have been right, God could have dispensed with the rest of the Torah, including the Covenant. The Prophets would have been a waste of time. And why bother with all the pain associated with fulfilling Passover and UnYeasted Bread? All one needs to do is avoid circumcision, renounce the Torah, believe Paul instead of God, and remember the poor. That being the case, why did Paul trouble himself by writing fourteen letters? And how does doing this fit into a faith-based religion where works are strictly forbidden?
The NAMI reads: “Alone the poor that we might remember that also I was diligent same this to do.” One can only hope that Shim’own, Ya’aqob, and Yahowchanan were slightly more articulate than this portends. But I’m not sure which was more impoverished, Sha’uwl’s Greek or Bacon’s English. KJV: “Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.” (So much for the notion that Francis Bacon wrote the Shakespearian plays.)
Jerome wrote fluidly and fluently. LV: “Asking only 61that we should be mindful of the poor, which was the very thing that I also was solicitous to do.” But for readability, the NLT is always smooth as silk: “Their only suggestion was that we keep on helping the poor, which I have always been eager to do.”
Recapping Sha’uwl’s eighth paragraph, we find:
“Because then namely, the one having previously functioned in Petro to an apostle for the circumcision, it actually functioned also in me to the nations and ethnicities. (Galatians 2:8)
And having known and recognized, becoming familiar with the Charis | Grace of the one having been given to me, Ya’aqob, and Kephas, and also Yahowchanan, the ones presently presumed and supposed to be pillars, and thus leaders, the right place of honor and authority they granted to me, and to Barnabas fellowship as a result. We to the nations and ethnicities, but they to the circumcision. (Galatians 2:9)
Only alone by itself the lowly and poor, the worthless beggars of little value that we might remember and possibly think about which also I was eager and quick same this to do.” (Galatians 2:10)
There is considerable reason to believe that Paul was self-serving and disingenuous regarding the purpose and outcome of this meeting. I say this because the Jerusalem Summit, also called the “Council of Jerusalem” and the “Apostolic Conference,” between Paul and the disciples, is also presented in the book of Acts, dominating the 15th chapter. And Luke’s account stands in stark contrast to what Paul has written here in Galatians.
Keeping in mind that Luke was Paul’s leading 62publicist, propagandist, promoter, and healer (having failed to serve as his exorcist), beginning with the 15th chapter of Acts, we read:
“And some (kai tis) having come down from (katerchomai apo) Yahuwdah (tes Ioudaia – transliteration of Yahuwdah, meaning Related to Yah, known today as Judaea) were teaching (didasko – were instructing) the brethren (tous adelphos– the brothers) that if (oti ean) you might not be circumcised (me peritemno) as prescribed by Moseh (to ethos to Mouses – per the manner or practice customary of Moseh), you are not able (ou dynamai – you are incapable, lacking the capacity) to be saved (sozo – to be healed, rescued, or delivered).” (Acts 15:1)
Luke just conveyed something Paul had been unable or, at least unwilling, to write. He not only identified Moseh as the author of the book Paul was assailing, thereby identifying it as Yahowah’s Towrah, but he unambiguously told us what they were arguing about. Specifically, and recognizing that this was directed at “the brothers,” the question before them was: can a man who is not circumcised in accordance with the Towrah’s prescriptions be saved?
Before we consider the impact of the New Testament revisionism in relation to Sha’uwl’s preaching, let’s check to see if there was any possibility that circumcision might be considered optional, or even unnecessary, for those seeking to benefit from the Beryth or Miqra’ey and form a relationship with Yahowah. Quite frankly, no matter how the supposed disciples responded to the question of circumcision pursuant to salvation is irrelevant. Neither they nor their words were capable of saving anyone. They couldn’t even save themselves. The only answer which matters is Yahowah’s. So to answer this question, we must turn to the Towrah | Guidance that Sha’uwl is trying to disavow and consider Yahowah’s instructions regarding 63circumcision. They initially presented in Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17…
“So then (wa) God said (‘amar ‘elohym – the Almighty affirmed and declared, making a request (qal imperfect – literally with unfolding consequences)) to (‘el) ‘Abraham (‘Abraham – father who raises and lifts up those who stand up and reach up, father of the abundantly enriched, merciful father, or father of the multitudes who are confused and troublesome), ‘As for you (wa ‘atah ‘eth – in addition and with regard to you), you should continually examine and genuinely consider (shamar ‘atah – you should consistently observe, always focusing upon, look at and pay attention to, learn from and care about, diligently and literally contemplating the details which comprise (qal imperfect – literal interpretation of the relationship with ongoing and unfolding consequences throughout time)) My Family Covenant Relationship (beryth ‘any – My Household Accord and Agreement).
In addition, so should the offspring you conceive and the seeds you sow (wa zera’ ‘atah – as well as your seed, descendants, and prodigy) following you (‘achar ‘atah – after you) so that they might approach throughout their generations (la dowrym hem – for them to draw near and reach the goal no matter when or where they live, for every age, period, lineage, race, or class of individual).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:9)
In this statement, we find the fourth of five conditions of Covenant participation. It may be the most important because it explains the other four. If you were looking for the meaning of life, for the grand unification theory, for the answer to everything, you have found it: “shamar beryth – focus upon Yahowah’s family relationship” and everything you could ever imagine will be yours: eternal life, absolute perfection, adoption into the first family, becoming enlightened, enriched, and empowered.
It should be noted that “zera’ – seed” and “dowr – 64generations, dwelling places, lives, and epochs of time” were both scribed in the construct form, not only linking the zera’ and dowr together but also connecting them with beryth. Therefore, the “Covenant” is the “seed” from which “generations come to dwell throughout time” with Yah.
According to God, our responsibility regarding His Covenant is to “shamar – observe” it – literally and continually examining every nuance of it. It is the same instruction He gives us regarding His Towrah – which not so coincidentally represents the one and only place where we can go to “observe” Yah’s Covenant, as it is the only place where its conditions and benefits are recorded.
The means to become a “zera’ – offspring” of the “beryth – family-oriented covenant relationship,” and thereby “dowr – live throughout time in God’s dwelling place” is simple: “shamar – closely examine and carefully consider every detail” associated with Yahowah’s Covenant as it is presented in His Towrah. And in this regard, zera’ speaks of “seeds which are sown in cultivated and receptive ground such that they take root and grow, producing the fruit of a productive harvest.” Shabuw’ah and Taruw’ah are a product of the Covenant.
Although “shamar – observe” serves as the operative verb with respect to our participation in the Covenant, shamar is among the least understood words in the Towrah. It is almost always translated as “keep” in English Bibles even though etymologically shamar is based entirely upon the ability to “use our sense of sight to be watchful, carefully examining and scrutinizing that which can be seen,” of “being focused and visually alert by keeping one’s eyes open,” and of “viewing things from the proper perspective so as to be aware of what is occurring.”
You may have noticed that this proclamation from Yahowah regarding what He expects from those who want to participate in His Covenant was direct and unequivocal. Simply stated: shamar beryth is a requirement. If you want 65to have a relationship with God, you do so by carefully and continually observing His written Towrah testimony regarding His Covenant. At least, that is what God, Himself, had to say regarding our participation, and He ought to know. And by inference, there would be no reason to consider any other source of information other than that which Yahowah has conveyed regarding His Beryth.
What many miss, especially those who are religious, is that this statement from God is utterly devastating to Pauline Doctrine. Paul’s thesis, more commonly known as “Faith in the Gospel of Grace,” is based upon the notion that Abraham was saved, not because He closely examined and carefully considered what Yahowah had personally revealed to him regarding His Towrah Teaching and Covenant Relationship, but instead because he “believed God.” According to Paul, Abraham’s salvation was a product of his faith and not his willingness to engage as Yahowah had instructed. But “being observant,” especially during personal experiences like this one, leads to knowing, to understanding, to trusting, and to relying, while “belief” is the product of not knowing and of not understanding. In fact, belief all too often leads to faith in things which are neither reliable nor true.
And this is no small point because the fulcrum upon which Paul’s Christian mantra pivots away from God is upon his invalid claim that Abraham wasn’t observant, didn’t actually know God, wasn’t responsive, but dispensed with all of that and replaced twelve chapters of Bare’syth / Genesis with belief.
The fact is that those who know, trust. Those who do not know often resort to believing. Moreover, the means to “knowing” is “shamar – careful observation.” Faith is substituted when observation is lacking or fails.
Clearly, God did not ask Abraham to believe Him, nor did He suggest that we should believe Him. He asked Abraham and those who would benefit from the Covenant 66to observe what He had to say. And to accomplish this, we must read the Towrah, closely examining and carefully considering its every word.
Let’s continue to do what Yahowah requested and see where His words lead…
“This specific (zo’th – this one and only, singular entity being discussed as the (demonstrative singular feminine pronoun from zeh – lamb and sheep)) Familial Covenant of Mine (beryth ‘any – My Family Agreement, My Household Accord, and My Home (singular feminine construct)), which beneficially marks the way to the relationship (‘asher – which to show the way to this fortunate and joyful place that is found by walking the correct way, thereby revealing the steps which lead to life), you should continuously observe, closely and literally examining, while carefully considering (shamar – focus upon, look at and pay attention to, be aware of, learn about and remember, care about and cling to, retain for protection, diligently contemplate in great detail (qal stem imperfect conjugation – literally and genuinely, consistently and continually, with actual and ongoing implications regarding the relationship)).
You should strive to be discerning and make an intelligent connection to understand Me (bayn ‘any – to pay attention while being observant and diligently join things together in a rational and prudent way which lead to perceiving, properly regarding, and comprehending Me). This is for you to be perceptive and prudent regarding the association (wa bayn ‘atah – for you to make the appropriate connection after exercising good judgment).
To form a thoughtful relationship and to make a comprehensible connection between (wa byn – to consider the instruction provided and make an intelligent association with) your offspring (zera’ ‘atah – your descendants and children, your seed and posterity, those you conceive who are harvested) following you (‘achar 67‘atah – after you), you should circumcise (muwl – you should cut off and remove the foreskin, warding off a deadly and debilitating curse by way of this oath, changing priorities while making a binding promise to undergo the benefits of circumcision (scribed with the niphal stem denoting the genuineness of this relationship while stressing the advantages accrued to the parent, while the infinitive absolute intensifies the importance of the act, and in the imperfect conjugation, revealing that this instruction on circumcision will endure uninterrupted throughout time with ongoing benefits)), accordingly (la – to facilitate their approach), your every male to help them remember their status (‘atem kol zakar – every son of yours, every man and every boy to remember, memorialize, and honor the status and renown associated and implied with this celebration of the relationship).’” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:10)
Not only was this request clear and unequivocal, not only does this affirm Yah’s previous appeal, not only does it reinforce the uniqueness of the one and only Covenant, it encourages us to think so that we come to understand precisely what God is asking of us.
But also, this condition is additive, providing us with the fifth and final Covenant requirement: circumcise our sons so that we and they remember the Covenant. So, I ask you, when Paul screamed out against circumcision in his letter to the Galatians, claiming it was unnecessary and counterproductive, demeaning the Towrah in the process while promoting a second and different covenant, why did anyone believe him? Why have billions of souls been beguiled into believing a man who wrote poorly, admitted to being demon-possessed, and blatantly lied to them?
This reminds me of a letter I received this past week from a self-proclaimed agnostic who, as part of a Christian community, thought it was appropriate to accuse me of being demon-possessed and in league with Satan, hiding 68from religious accusers so that I could deceive them – all without finding fault in anything I had written. She concluded her letter by telling me that I must answer her accusations so that she can decide whether to circumcise her young son against his father’s adamant protestations. My response was to say that it was foolish for her to make a decision based upon my credentials rather than Yahowah’s instructions, particularly after her insistence on relying upon the ad hominem fallacy to slander me and denigrate Yada Yahowah without cause. That is the same thing that is happening here. Since Yahowah has clearly stated His position, why not read it and rely upon His answer? What does discrediting or venerating me or anyone else have to do with salvation?
Sometimes, if we pause long enough, if we dig deep enough, if we are especially observant and thoughtful, we learn something we would otherwise miss. Such is the case here. You see, “muwl – circumcise” was scribed using the niphal stem. The niphal, as the passive form of the qal, conveys three ideas. First, it is a relational stem, affirming the fact that circumcision is germane to our relationship with God. Second, it requires a literal interpretation of the testimony, meaning that the circumcision is actual and not merely symbolic. And third, the niphal, as the reflexive counterpart of the qal, indicates that the subjects, the parents in this case, receive the benefit of the verb’s action, which is circumcision.
Collectively then, when the niphal stem is used in conjunction with muwl in this context, we discover that by circumcising our sons, we as parents benefit from the act. It is as if we, ourselves, are being circumcised, or cut into the Beryth. And that is a very good thing because circumcision is the sign of the Covenant. It affirms our acceptance, demonstrating our willingness to be cut into this relationship with God. We are in essence saying: we will raise our children to become sons and daughters within 69God’s Family.
Along these lines, it is intriguing to note that, while the primary definition of muwl is “to circumcise,” the secondary connotation speaks to its purpose: “to ward off and incapacitate a potentially negative influence through an oath.” Similarly, while the primary connotation of zakar is “male,” it is equally appropriate to consider it as a “memory aid – making something known and helping us remember it.”
Through the repeated use of ‘achar ‘atah, we are being encouraged to follow Abraham’s example. And the only way to do so is to listen to Yahowah’s instructions, come to understand them, accept them, and then act upon them – just as Abraham has done.
God has systematically presented the guidance and instructions necessary for us to know Him, for us to relate to Him, and for us to live with Him. After asking us to walk away from all forms of “babel – confusion,” including family traditions, national allegiances, and religious corruption, Yahowah encouraged us to trust and rely upon Him instead. He then asked us to walk to Him and become perfect in the process, with His Towrah providing the directions.
God’s fourth and fifth requests of us, indeed His requirements with respect to our participation in His Family, were presented in the previous two statements. He wants us to continuously and genuinely observe His Covenant, focusing upon and diligently considering the conditions and benefits of this relationship. He knows that when we come to appreciate what He is offering we will respond appropriately. And so now, to demonstrate our understanding, to help us remember everything He has shared with us, God is asking us to circumcise our sons. Consider it a signature, a vow to accept and embrace this extraordinary gift – the opportunity to engage in a personal relationship with our Heavenly Father.
70Written in the infinitive absolute, and followed by “kol – all,” there is no room for negotiation or interpretation regarding circumcision. We can either accept Yahowah’s terms or reject them – but we cannot alter them to suit some other agenda as Paul has done.
Sha’uwl’s position and God’s are irreconcilable. This then begs the question: why would anyone in their right mind want to claim the “uncircumcised” as Sha’uwl / Paul has done? Without exception, they are all estranged from God – and will remain that way.
Since Yahowah has established only one prerequisite and four requirements for participation in His Covenant, that we walk away from Babylon (away from mankind’s confounding and intermingled political, religious, economic, military, patriotic, cultural, and conspiratorial schemes), that we come to trust and rely on Him (which necessitates us coming to know Him and understand what He is offering), that we walk to Him (along the specific path which He prepared in the Torah) so as to become perfected (by way of UnYeasted Bread), that we carefully and continually observe His Covenant, and that men and their sons be circumcised, let’s consider why He has asked this specific thing of us…
“And (wa) you all shall make a declaration by cutting off and separating (malal – you shall truthfully proclaim and speak about being circumcised, announcing the truth regarding the principle of circumcision as a sign, as a subtle means of communicating what it means to be set apart (the niphal stem is used to convey the voice of genuine relationships where the subject, which is “you” as a parent, receives the benefit of the verb, which is circumcision, in the perfect conjugation designating that this instruction and resulting action should be accomplished and considered whole and complete, and in the consecutive associating it with our basar – flesh)) your foreskin’s (‘arlah – the fold of skin covering the conical 71tip of the masculine genitalia; akin to ‘aram and ‘arak – the tendency of people to gather together before the cunning and crafty, to be drawn in by the clever counsel and calculating tendencies which are conceived, arranged, set forth, ordained, and esteemed to appear comparable) association with (‘eth) one’s mortal human nature and propensity to preach (basar – the physical body and animal nature but also separating from mankind’s propensity to proclaim and publish what the people yearn to hear).
And (wa) this will exist (hayah – this is and will be (scribed in the qal perfect, signifying the relationship is genuine and that the act is only performed once and is considered complete)) as (la) the sign to remember (‘owth – the example to visually illustrate and explain, the symbol and standard, the pledge and attestation of the miraculous nature (singular, as in the one and only sign, construct form, linking the sign to)) the Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth – mutually binding familial agreement, household promise, relational accord, marriage vow based upon home and family (feminine singular, scribed in the construct form, eternally associating the beryth – covenant with ‘owth – the sign of muwl – circumcision)) between Me, for the purpose of making a connection (byn – in concert with coming to know and understand Me as a result of being perceptive, prudently considering the insights which are discernible regarding Me) and between you, promoting understanding (wa byn – to cause you to be aware and to more readily comprehend the association).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:11)
It is interesting to be sure. Yahowah did not explain the reason that He wanted us 1) to disassociate from our country and its customs and culture, 2) to trust and rely upon Him, 3) to walk to Him and become perfected, or 4) to closely examine and carefully consider these conditions. 72He must have considered, as I do, that the reasons were either self-evident or that we were smart enough to figure them out for ourselves, especially considering the context in which they were presented. However, with circumcision, God wanted us to appreciate the merits associated with this sign. So let’s explore them.
Yahowah wants us to “muwl – be cut off and separated from” our “‘eth – association with” our “basar – physical bodies, animalistic, and mortal human nature, as well as our tendency to get preachy.” To be associated with God, we are to disassociate ourselves from man and man’s message.
But more than this, by disassociating from our physical bodies, Yahowah is denouncing the absurd and counterproductive Christian notion of bodily resurrection. The intent of the Miqra’ey is to do the opposite and remove the limitations of being a physical being. To enter Heaven and be with God, to be perfected, to become immortal, and to travel through time and space, we must be upgraded from matter to energy, from bodies to light.
Therefore, the “‘owth – sign” of the “beryth – covenant” is a reminder that we must walk away from Babylon and our physical limitations before we can walk to God. It signifies that to be adopted into our Heavenly Father’s family, symbolically, we are evolving from physical beings, with mortal, imperfect, substantially limited, and decaying bodies to spiritual beings who are cut into this relationship through separation, and thereby elevated, empowered, and enriched.
It is interesting to note that, while circumcision is a symbolic sign, the act itself is literal and physical. Further, hayah, which was scribed in the third-person masculine singular and rendered as “this will exist” in the passage, was more literally scribed as “he shall exist” as the sign. Therefore, when we accept the terms of Yahowah’s Covenant, we, ourselves, become symbolic of the 73relationship.
Hebrew verbs do not designate the past, present, or future, as is the case with English tenses, but instead they reflect truths which remain unchanged throughout all time. Such is the case with hayah, meaning “was, is, and will be” all at the same time. Therefore, we were, we are, and we will always be signs of the Covenant.
“‘Owth – sign to remember” and “‘uwth – to consent and agree” are written identically in Hebrew. So not only is circumcision, this separation from our physical and animal nature, a “visual means to illustrate and explain the miraculous nature” of the Covenant, it is our way of showing our “consent and agreement” to raise our children in harmony with the conditions Yahowah has outlined. Circumcision is a parent’s pledge to honor God’s family-oriented agreement. It is our signature on their adoption papers – telling our Heavenly Father that we want our children to become His children; that we will dedicate ourselves to encouraging this desirable result. And not so coincidentally, the best way to accomplish this is to recite the Towrah to our children and thereby expose them to its Covenant, sharing its lone prerequisite, requirements, and benefits.
Also interesting, while Iesou the Christou was an amalgamated myth concocted by blending one part Dowd and two parts Dionysus, had it been true and not a fable, he would have been circumcised by his parents on the eighth day. So, if Christians are to follow “Jesus’” example rather than Paul’s rhetoric, why are there so many uncircumcised Christians?
“Therefore, with (wa – it follows that with) a son (ben – a male child) of eight (shamonah – from shamen, meaning olive oil, which is symbolic of the Spirit, of light, of being anointed, and of being rooted in the land) days (yowmym), you shall circumcise (muwl – you shall cut off and separate his foreskin (scribed using the niphal stem 74denoting a relationship which is genuine whereby the parents benefit from doing as God has requested, and in the imperfect conjugation which tells us that this must continue to occur over time because it is designed to produce ongoing results)) with regard to your (la) every (kol) male to remember (zakar – masculine individual; from zakar: to commit to memory, to remind, and to remember) throughout (la) your dwelling places and generations (dowr – your protected households and extended families, elevating and extending your lives), those naturally born (yalyd – those naturalized as a member of the extended family through natural childbirth) in the home (beyth – into the household and family (singular absolute)), and also (wa) those wanting to be (kasap – those desiring, yearning, and passionately longing to be) acquired and included (miqnah – purchased and obtained; from qanah – to be redeemed (speaking of adoption)), of (min) every (kol) son (ben – male child) of foreign lands (nekar – of places where they were not properly valued and appreciated, and yet who are nonetheless observant) who relationally (‘asher – by way of making a connection) are not (lo’) from (min) your seed (zera’).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:12)
Eight denotes eternity, which is why the symbol for infinity (as a line which never ends – ∞) and the numeral (8) are so similar. In the Towrah, this association is celebrated on the eighth day of the Miqra’ of Sukah | Shelters, which is symbolic of us camping out with God throughout eternity. Additionally, the Hebrew word for “eight,” shamonah, is based upon sheman, meaning “olive oil.” This oil is used as a metaphor for the Set-Apart Spirit because She enlightens us, nurtures us, anoints us, heals us, and cleanses us. The olive tree is not only native to Yisra’el, it is one of the world’s longest-lived organisms.
We ought to be reassured by the realization that we were designed by the Author of this instruction to receive 75the benefits of circumcision. The eighth day is the perfect time to perform this minor procedure, because bleeding is minimized, as is infection, because human blood coagulates most effectively on the eighth day of our lives.
You may have noticed that this is the second time Yahowah has used “zakar – male” in association with circumcision. Since the instruction is directed toward, albeit not exclusive to, young boys, literally “ben – sons,” the reason for using zakar becomes obvious when we consider the word’s etymology. Zakar means: “to establish in one’s memory, to remind, to remember, to reflect, to recall, and to memorialize something important, making it known.” It also conveys the idea that “truth can cleanse and purify, causing us to shine brightly and brilliantly.” When we are enveloped in the Set-Apart Spirit’s Garment of Light, we are cleansed and purified by Her so that we can radiate Yahowah’s pure and brilliant light. Moreover, each time a parent bathes their son, they will be reminded of their commitment to raise him such that he is prepared to follow us into the Covenant.
Relevant in light of Paul’s argument with the disciples, and his claim to the uncircumcised world, is that there are two different classes of individuals described in this statement. And both are to be circumcised, which signifies that two distinct groups of people can become part of Yahowah’s Covenant Family. ‘Abraham’s direct descendants through Yitschaq and Ya’aqob (who became Yisra’el) are “yalyd – naturally born” into Yahowah’s “beyth – family.” But since Yahowah has routinely promised that the benefits of the Covenant would also be available to “gowym – people from different races and places,” He has provided a provision for adoption. That is what “kasap miqnah – those deeply desiring to be acquired and included” from “nekar – foreign lands” represents. These are adopted children – gowym. And in this regard, as we progress, we will discover that the root of nekar, nakar, 76speaks of “an observant individual.”
Hiding this reality, most English Bibles base their translations of this verse on the Masoretic Text, where the ksp root of “kasap – longing” is pointed “kesep – money.” As kasap miqnah, the clause speaks of those who “really want to be acquired and included.” But as kesep, the order of things has to be reversed, and miqnah kesep becomes a string of nouns: “acquisition money,” which is then corrupted to read “purchased with money.”
And yet while the “kasap miqnah – wanting to be acquired and included” translation is more consistent with the Covenant and more informative, the miqnah kesep vocalization does address adoption, and thus provides us with two distinct ways to be included in the Covenant: natural childbirth as a literal descendant of Abraham, and by choice through adoption. And thus, both renderings are acceptable when viewed from this perspective.
By chance, should you have an aversion to adoptive parents “purchasing” a child when they value that child more than his or her natural parents, be aware that this is how Yahowah adopts us. He and His Son paid the price for us to live with Him as His children. This is what Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children represent.
There was a subtle pronouncement in Yahowah’s invitation into His Covenant Family that I may have been the only one to see but don’t want you to miss. And to highlight it, I will translate nekar as nakar, which is equally justifiable, albeit more familiar and pertinent, than ‘asher and zera’ as I have come to know and love them.
“Therefore, a son (wa ben) of eight (shamonah) days (yowmym), you should circumcise (muwl) for yourselves to draw near (la ‘atem), every (kol) male to remember (zakar) throughout (la) your dwelling places and generations (dowr ‘atem), those naturally born (yalyd) in the home (beyth), and also (wa) those wanting to be 77(kasap) acquired and included by longing to be adopted (miqnah) of (min) every (kol) child (ben) of the observant foreigner, recognized by the discerning individual from a different ethnicity and place, speaking another language, who having paid attention will comprehend and acknowledge that which deserves the attention of the astute (nakar) who, to show the way to benefit from the relationship (‘asher – who, to reveal the way to make the proper connections to get the most out of life), is not (lo’) derived from, part of, or on account of (min) what you individually have scattered, sown, and produced of it and regarding him (zera’ ‘atah huw’).” (Bare’syth 17:12)
From this perspective, as we return to God’s instructions, it is important that we consistently approach Yahowah’s Word from the proper vantage point and with an open mind. In this light, when a word is repeated in Hebrew, it serves to substantially increase its importance. Such is the case with “muwl muwl” in this next statement.
Also, while its primary definition is “to circumcise, to cut off, to separate, and to remove the foreskin,” you may be surprised by muwl’s secondary and tertiary definitions – both of which are listed below. Additionally, because of what we learned about kasap versus kesep, the following translation includes both renderings…
“He should absolutely circumcise, definitely cutting off the foreskin because he can ward off a deadly and debilitating result by way of his oath promising to cease what is currently being done by changing priorities while making a binding promise relative to circumcision (muwl muwl – he (masculine singular) can affect the relationship beneficially by acting as a parent for the advantage of his children by emphasizing the importance of being cut into this agreement (scribed with the niphal stem denoting the genuineness of this relationship while stressing the benefits 78accrued, in the infinitive absolute which intensifies the importance of the act, and in the imperfect conjugation, telling us that this instruction on circumcision will endure uninterrupted throughout time with ongoing results)) of the naturally born (yalyd – naturalized as a member of an extended family through natural childbirth) in your home and as part of the family (beyth – into your household) and also (wa) those desiring to be (kasap – those wanting, strongly yearning, and passionately longing to be) included (miqnah – acquired, purchased, redeemed, and obtained) as well as those who are acquired and adopted (miqnah – purchased through adoption and included) with the investment of your money (kesep – your precious metals; born out of a deep longing and love for adoption).
This shall be (hayah – this was, is, and will be, existing as (qal stem denotes a genuine relationship between the subject and the action of the verb which is existence, in the perfect conjugation revealing an act that is complete, lacking nothing, when accomplished, in the singular conveying that there are no other options or contingencies, and in the consecutive form, associating our existence with the beryth – family-oriented covenant relationship and its sign, muwl – circumcision)) My Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth-y – My mutually binding familial agreement and relational accord), in the flesh and with the Herald (ba basar – in the physical realm with humanity and through the one conveying this message), serving as a means to approach toward (la – to the goal of) an everlasting and eternal (‘owlam – forever existing and never-ending) Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth – mutually binding agreement and promise, relational accord and marriage vow based upon home and family (feminine singular)).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:13)
Based upon this unequivocal declaration from Yahowah, a “New Covenant” of any kind, much less one 79where circumcision is not required, is impermissible and impossible. Do not believe anyone who tells you otherwise, and that includes Paul.
Also, if someone condemns “the flesh,” calling it evil, as Paul will do in this epistle, please note that Yahowah’s Covenant was cut with us in the flesh. In addition, in Bare’syth / Genesis 1:31, we read: “And God saw all that He had made and perceived that it was good. And there came to be evening and there came to be morning, the sixth day.” It is only in Gnosticism and Pauline literature that the flesh is considered bad.
But just as there is more to nakar, ‘asher, and zera’, muwl, kasap, and miqnah that meet the eye of a superficial reader, such is also the case with basar. While as a noun it reads as I have rendered it, the actionable root – basar – speaks of the Nakar | Observant Foreigner reminding Yisra’el about the conditions and signs of the Beryth as the Basar | Herald so that Yahuwdym can return Home. And indeed, he has invested his considerable wealth to encourage the world to approach Yahowah’s eternal Beryth | Covenant Family.
God’s instructions have been complete and clear on circumcision. He asked parents to circumcise their sons on the eighth day. The request is easy, safe, and inexpensive when done shortly after birth. It is man who has messed this up. Very few parents read the Towrah, much less consider its implications. Fewer still observe its instructions or share what Yahowah had to say with their children, as God has so often asked. And as a consequence, circumcision is one of many things which separate the preponderance of people from God – largely due to Sha’uwl’s | Paul’s toxic diatribe.
As for Paul being authorized by God to contradict Him on a subject as essential as the Covenant and its sign – circumcision – you’d have to be a fool to believe him. Yahowah said one thing, and Paul said the opposite. One 80of them was not telling the truth. Guess who? And there ends any chance that Christianity could be credible. It is a horrible hoax foisted by an appalling liar.
Beyond this, if God changed His mind, if He decided to do something new which was counter to His previous promises, He would cease to be trustworthy and reliable. The entire notion of placing one’s faith in a god prone to make exceptions to his instructions is indeed a fool’s folly. Hell, you might as well read the Quran and deal with abrogation.
God is serious about circumcision. We should be as well. This next statement is as enlightening as it is unequivocal. And especially relevant is ‘arel, a word which, when fully amplified, explains the nature of those who are uncircumcised.
“Therefore (wa), the uncircumcised, the stubborn, unresponsive, and untrusting (‘arel – the self-reliant, those unwilling to listen who are unobservant, those who are not separated and who are unwilling to be set apart) male (zakar – man who fails to remember to do this) who relationally (‘asher – by association does not know the proper way or the benefits of the relationship and) is not circumcised, who is unwilling to change his direction and priorities to embrace this binding promise to ward off the negative repercussions (lo’ muwl – who continually remain uncircumcised as a result of their inaction) with regard to (‘eth) the flesh of his foreskin and the crafty and cunning counsel (basar ‘arlah – the physical, human nature of the one who is separating and estranging by preaching and publishing what mankind wants to hear in association with man’s propensity to be drawn together by crafty counsel and cunning tendencies which are conceived, arranged, set forth, ordained, and esteemed to appear comparable), that soul (ha nepesh ha hy’ – speaking of what makes each individual unique, alive, aware, and conscious) shall be cut off, be excluded, 81and banished (karat – it shall be severed and cut down, it shall be uprooted and die, perishing and destroyed, ceasing to exist (nifal perfect – they will not only have caused their soul’s banishment, they will suffer the effect of their exclusion as a result of this singular failure during their brief lives)) from (min) her / Her (hy’ – addressing the nepesh which is now severed from the Ruwach Qodesh’s Covenant) family (‘am – people who are kin, related biologically or through a common language or experience).
By way of association (‘eth – therefore as a result), they violated and broke by creating two separate variations, thereby dissociating themselves from (parar – they nullified the agreement and injured themselves by revoking the Covenant’s promises, tearing asunder and thwarting the relationship’s benefits, splitting away and harming themselves in the process by severing the agreement through the process of tearing into two parts (hifil perfect – their act of creating a new covenant led to their own demise such that neither they nor their new covenant will endure)) My Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth-y – My mutually binding agreement and promise, My relational accord and vow based upon home and family (feminine singular, scribed in the construct form, connecting and associating the beryth – covenant with God’s ‘am – family; written with the first-person singular suffix: My – reminding us that this specific and unique Covenant is God’s)).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:14)
There are many questions which are answered by this passage, so let’s pause here and consider them one at a time. First, karat, like so many Hebrew terms, has a dark and light side. Its divergent implications influence us differently depending upon the choices we make. On the bright side, karat was used by Yahowah to tell us that He has “karat – cut” a “beryth – agreeable deal” with us – one which separates those who accept it from those who do not.
82But as for those who ignore Yahowah’s Covenant, who reject it, or try to change it, they will endure the cutting and divisive side of karat. They shall be “cut off” from Yahowah’s Family. They will be “excluded” from His Covenant. And they will be “banished” from His Home. Those who choose not to sign their name on Yahowah’s Covenant by way of circumcision, those who are unwilling to “muwl – change their direction and priorities” will be “karat – uprooted” from the land. They will “karat – die” and their souls will “perish, ceasing to exist.” This is Sha’uwl’s | Paul’s legacy – making him an object of scorn.
Second, while “muwl – circumcision” is a physical act in the flesh, our “nepesh – souls” are everything but physical. The nepesh represents our “consciousness.” While it is an essential part of our nature, as all animals have a “nepesh – soul, a unique personality, and an awareness of their environment,” it has no physical properties. A soul has no mass and it is not matter. And yet, by failing to be circumcised, our soul dies, because it is expressly excluded from Yahowah’s Covenant Family. Therefore, the choices we make in our mortal, material bodies influence whether or not we are elevated to a spiritual status.
Third, circumcision is not the sole means to salvation. But it is a barrier to salvation. While few of those who are circumcised will be adopted into God’s family, no one uncircumcised will be admitted.
Fourth, we either agree to God’s terms or we nullify the opportunity He has given us to survive our mortality and to live with Him. There is no hint of leniency here, no sense of compromise, and no opportunity for a future revision to alter this condition. We either accept it or not. No circumcision, no Covenant. No Covenant, no relationship with God. No relationship with God, no salvation. And therein is why such souls die.
God is not about to compromise. He not only isn’t 83going to change the terms of His agreement, He cannot change them without becoming unreliable. There is a singular narrow path to life, and we either walk to God along it without wavering, or it is goodbye and good riddance. There is no accommodation for individual approaches to salvation, or for the collective appeal of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.
The implication here is something no Christian or Muslim seems willing or able to appreciate. Most believe it matters not if their beliefs comply with God’s instructions, because “He knows their heart.” Contradictions become irrelevant. To them, God is God no matter what you call Him. To them, observing the Sabbath is not relevant, and Friday prayers and Sunday worship are perfectly acceptable. Jihad and Grace are both embraced by the faithful, and many paths are thought to lead to Heaven. Sure, Christmas and Easter are pagan, but since that is not what they mean to the celebrant, they believe that their god will be understanding. For them, mercy invokes a level of capriciousness which they do not see as either unjust or untrustworthy. Their god would not condemn them for getting some of this wrong.
And yet, all of these musings are inconsistent with the God who inspired these words. With Yahowah, you accept the Covenant on His terms or you will be considered to have rejected it. Not only are we in no position to negotiate with God over something integral to His very nature, but we have everything to gain if we agree to His terms, and He loses nothing if we don’t.
Fifth, the “nepesh – souls” of those who do not accept God’s instructions “karat – are cut off and perish and cease to exist.” Throughout the Towrah and Prophets, this is the prevailing outcome for human souls. At the end of a person’s mortal life, they will cease to exist. Their souls will simply perish. But this is not a penalty or a Divine punishment. In fact, Yahowah has little to do with this 84eventuality. It is by “karat – disassociating from” God that this fate occurs naturally. You see, eternal life with God requires us to associate with Him in the specific manner He has delineated. If we do not accept His terms, if we do not avail ourselves of the path He has provided, then our souls, disconnected from the source of life, will perish, which means that individual consciousnesses will simply cease to exist.
While eternal separation from God is a penalty, having one’s soul perish is not. Each individual is given the gift of life and freewill. Everyone can do with them as they please. If a person chooses to avail themselves of Yahowah’s Covenant, to walk away from Babylon and to walk to Him along the path He has provided, God has promised to give him or her the gift of eternal life, to mercifully forgive their sins, to empower such an individual, to enrich them, and to adopt that soul into His family so that he or she can spend an eternity in His presence.
But if we choose instead to ignore God’s provision, as Paul is encouraging, even dictating, and come to rely on a different scheme, altering the deal He has cut with us, or simply reject it, we will be ignored by God and remain unaltered by His Covenant promises. It is ashes to ashes and dust to dust. Such souls do not know God and God does not know them. As a result, death will be the end of life.
The sixth lesson brings us back to Paul. Circumcision is the fulcrum upon which those who rely on Yahowah’s Word move in a different direction than those who believe the “Thirteenth Apostle.” In Acts, the moment we are introduced to Paul, we learn that he advised against circumcision. As a result, he was called to Yaruwshalaim to explain his departure from Yahowah’s Covenant instructions. When they did not concur with his contrarian approach, Paul wrote Galatians to demean his rivals, especially Shim’own / Peter, Yahowchanan / John, and Ya’aqob / James. Therefore, Christians have a choice. 85They can trust Yahowah, or they can believe Paul. Their claims are diametrically opposed and irreconcilable.
Seventh, just as the Covenant and circumcision have a Herald, so do “the uncircumcised, the stubborn, unresponsive, and untrusting, the self-reliant, those unwilling to listen who are unobservant.” And according to the God of the Covenant, the man who is not circumcised, who is unwilling to change his direction and priorities to embrace this binding promise to ward off the negative repercussions of the flesh isn’t welcome. The souls who believe the Apostle of the Uncircumcised will be cut off, excluded, and banished.
And eighth, Yahowah impugned the notion of a New Testament by estranging those who “by their associations violated and broke, indeed, nullified by creating two separate variations, thereby dissociating themselves from My Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship.” There is one Covenant, not two. Sorry Twistians, but by wanting two, you have none. By creating a replacement Messiah and God, you have neither.
It is also instructive to know that we cannot blame this conflict between Yahowah and Sha’uwl / Paul on scribal error. While not a word from Bare’syth | Genesis 8:21 to 17:11 can be found among the Qumran scrolls, these passages on circumcision are not only extant, they are unchanged. There is not a single discrepancy between the Dead Sea Scrolls, dating to the 2nd century BCE, and the Masoretic Text from Bare’syth 17:12 through the end of the chapter. And on the other side, we have a complete copy of Paul’s letter to the Galatians dating to the late 1st century CE.
And that means the conflict between Yahowah and Paul cannot be resolved. If you side with Paul, you have invalidated the benefits of the Covenant. Those who have done so are excluded from God’s family. There are no exceptions. Such souls cease to exist. And that is why the 86choices we make in the flesh, and in deciding which Basar | Herald is telling the truth, are so important.
Simply stated, as a sign of our desire to participate in Yahowah’s Covenant, we are to be circumcised. The foreskin of the male genitalia, responsible for consummating a marriage and producing children, is to be “cut off and separated” – set apart. Our Heavenly Father’s Covenant is about bearing children and building a family by way of a beryth | family relationship. Yahowah does not want anyone to miss this point.
There should be no doubt and no debate. According to Yahowah, circumcision and the Covenant are related. They go hand in hand. Preclude one and you exclude the other.
Circumcision is a signature, signed in blood, physically symbolizing our desire to be born spiritually into God’s family. And in that light, there is an interesting affirmation of the purpose our Spiritual Mother plays in our adoption at the end of this passage. Yahowah told Moseh to write “Her family,” not “the family,” or “His family.” As a result, those willing to “shamar – closely examine” His “beryth – Familial Covenant Relationship” recognize that God was connecting several aspects of His message together for us.
While the more subtle innuendos were instructive, the primary message here was clear and unmistakable. Yahowah established circumcision as the sign of the Covenant for all of the descendants of Abraham – naturally born or adopted – for all of God’s children, for every male member of Yahowah’s Covenant, regardless of race, place, or time. According to our Heavenly Father, there will be no uncircumcised males in Her Family or in His Covenant. And that means that circumcision is required to enter into heaven.
For those of you who cringe at the notion that Yahowah might have established a “requirement,” which 87somehow negated freewill, relax. Circumcision is optional. We are afforded the choice to be circumcised, and to circumcise our sons, or not. The choice is ours to make. All Yahowah is saying is that it is His “beyth – home,” His “beryth – covenant,” and His “‘am – family.” If we want to participate and desire to be included then we must respect the sign of the Covenant and be circumcised – spiritually and physically. As with all fathers, it is His Home, and therefore His rules. You do not have to do what He says unless you want to live under His roof.
There is one final lesson we can learn from this passage, and that is that we should not trust English Bible translations. Yahowah actually said…
“Therefore (wa), the uncircumcised, the stubborn, unresponsive, untrusting, and self-reliant, those unwilling to listen and those who are unobservant, those who are not separated and who are unwilling to be set apart as a (‘arel) male who fails to remember to do this (zakar) who relationally (‘asher) is not circumcised, who is unwilling to change his direction and priorities and make this binding promise to ward off the consequence (lo’ muwl) with regard to (‘eth) the flesh, becoming separated by the preaching in association with (basar) his foreskin, symbolic of man’s propensity to be drawn together by crafty counsel, by cunning tendencies, and that which is ordained and esteemed to appear comparable (‘arlah), that soul (ha nepesh ha hy’) shall be cut off, be excluded, and banished (karat) from (min) Her (hy’) Family (‘am).
By way of association (‘eth), they violated and broke by creating two separate variations, thereby dissociating themselves, they nullified the agreement and injured themselves by revoking (parar) My Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth-y).” (Bare’syth 17:14)
While not as revealing or complete, the Roman 88Catholic Vulgate was accurate up to the point of identifying from whose family a soul would be excluded. “The male whose flesh of his foreskin shall not be circumcised, that soul shall be destroyed out of his people: because he hath broken my covenant.” Not only is the pronoun “Her” scribed independently in the Hebrew text via huw’, “‘am – family” was suffixed in the third-person feminine singular, reinforcing the fact that it is “Her Family” – speaking of the Set-Apart Spirit and the Covenant. Also, the reference to “his people” suggests banishment from the villages and land of Yisra’el, rather than from our Spiritual Mother’s family.
The King James Version reads identically, and thus promotes some of the same myths, reinforcing the authority of the church to excommunicate those who they opposed.
Recognizing that both translators had made a mistake, the New Living Translation, not knowing how to deal with “Her,” added a second “covenant” and substituted it for “Her.” “Any male who fails to be circumcised will be cut off from the covenant family for breaking the covenant.” Since it is God’s Word, and since accuracy is therefore important, you should know that there is no basis for “any” in the Hebrew text. They combined “‘arel – uncircumcised and unresponsive” with “lo’ muwl – is not circumcised or changed,” as if only one of these words was spoken by God. Then they completely ignored “‘eth basar ‘aralah – with regard to the flesh of their foreskin”—ostensibly to avoid destroying Pauline Doctrine. Then reversing course, they not only repeated “beryth – covenant,” even though it was written only once, they neglected to convey that beryth was scribed with the first-person singular suffix, making it “My Covenant.”
Simply stated, as a sign of our desire to participate in Yahowah’s Covenant, we are to be circumcised. The covering of the male genitalia responsible for 89consummating a marriage and producing children is to be “cut off and separated” – set apart. Our Heavenly Father’s Family is focused on bearing and raising children while building a family by way of a mother and father. Yahowah does not want anyone to miss this point because it is the point of Creation and the purpose of the Covenant.
And yet in direct opposition to God, Paul has used “not being circumcised” as the fulcrum of his assault on the Torah, calling it irrelevant and even counterproductive with regard to one’s salvation – even enslaving. Therefore, Yahowah’s message is the antithesis of Paul’s.
There is only one path to God, not two, nor two doorways to heaven, one for Jews and the other for Gentiles. There is but one Covenant, one Towrah, one God, and one Way. And according to Yahowah, men must be circumcised to demonstrate that they have accepted the terms and conditions of the Covenant and are prepared to participate in Passover, leading to UnYeasted Bread and Firstborn Children.
By ignoring the sign of the Covenant – circumcision – the likes of Sha’uwl / Paul have treated Yahowah’s Home with contempt. And considering that the author of the New Testament’s principal argument with the Towrah has been circumcision, his ministry and letters sit at the crosshairs of this prophetic warning. It is hard to imagine Yahowah’s disgust being directed at anyone other than Sha’uwl / Paul in this regard. No one else in all human history even came close to Paul’s influence regarding the specific topic of disassociating circumcision from salvation.
Yahowah is predicting that there will be a devastating consequence, indeed, a curse associated with Paul’s position on this matter in which he flaunted his rejection of the Towrah, the existing Covenant, and especially circumcision. And that is because disassociating circumcision from the Covenant, demeaning the Towrah, and nullifying Yahowah’s instructions for living has 90precluded billions of souls from approaching God and entering Heaven.
Yahowah has entered this debate. He has rendered His evaluation of Sha’uwl’s / Paul’s position on circumcising Greeks in particular and Gentiles in general. And it is God’s conclusion, His judgment, that Sha’uwl’s / Paul’s claims were dead wrong, so much so that He views his epistle to the Galatians as a “repulsive abomination.”
Therefore, it matters not if “Peter” was important or what his opinions may have been. In this regard, the views of “John” and “James” do not matter. Luke’s summation of the meeting becomes as immaterial as Paul’s revisionist account is irrelevant. When it comes to the consequence of circumcision in concert with God’s Home, being part of His Family, and entering Heaven, all that matters is what Yahowah revealed. Period. End of conversation.
Of course, now that you know this, the notion that Paul spoke for God must be discarded. Sha’uwl has done nothing but lie from the very beginning.
Sha’uwl corrupted and defiled the Word of God. And by so doing, he violated and revoked Yahowah’s one and only Covenant on behalf of all those who foolishly believe him. His overt willingness to corrupt and contradict Yahowah’s instructions has led to the nullification of the Covenant for every Christian. And this problem has become ubiquitous as a result of Galatians, earning Sha’uwl the designation – Plague of Death. It is the sign of Christianity from God’s perspective, His preference over the tortured image of a Dead God on a Stick.
Paul’s antagonism toward circumcision is mixed with references to the body of the Passover Lamb, represented by “bread,” and the Spirit, represented by “oil.” The sacrifice the Messiah Dowd made as the Lamb opened the Doorway to Life and to his Father’s Home is impugned and negated. By demeaning one, Paul demeaned all. He broke 91the connection between them and thereby nullified the Covenant and thwarted the intent of the Invitations to be Called Out and Meet.
For Yahowah to be this explicit and unequivocal, promising to permanently estrange men for rejecting the sign of the Covenant, God is shutting the door on Paul’s upstart religion. God is using Sha’uwl’s most notorious act of rebellion against His Towrah to alert us to the devastating consequence of this man’s message. Pauline Doctrine, by severing the connection between Yahowah, the Covenant, and the Towrah, rendered God’s promises moot for billions of Gentile Christians.
While Sha’uwl | Paul has invited people of every race and place into his “New Covenant,” Yahowah has put us on notice that his invitation was fraudulent, and that the self-acclaimed messenger of god was the greatest abomination in human history. And this is not the first, nor will it be the last time Yahowah lashes out at Sha’uwl prophetically. He has just begun.
Paul’s fourteen ill-advised letters, his influence over Mark, Luke, and Matthew, and his litany of speeches were sufficient to separate Christians from God. As a direct result of the canonization of Paul’s epistles, far too few Christians observe the Towrah or even know that there are immutable conditions for engaging in the Covenant.
Indeed, whether it is Paul or Akiba, the most notoriously failed or ignominiously influential rabbis, such men have not only failed to consider Yahowah’s requirements, replacing His explanations of what is essential with their own, they have done far worse. They have sought to change God and His plans, telling the faithful what they claim their god is going to do for them – such as love and save them.
Yahowah is responsible. He is going to do, and has done, what He has promised. In so doing, He has created 92the opportunity to spend eternity with Him, so long as we capitalize on what is required of us. It is our responsibility to observe His Towrah and consider His Covenant so that we come to appreciate what God views as essential, and then act accordingly.
There are requirements to participate in the Covenant and responsibilities for us as parents. And while we are free to ignore them, even reject them, we are not at liberty to enter God’s home when we do either. When God makes a promise, such as those delineated in His seven-step plan of reconciliation, He is committed to fulfilling and honoring what He has vowed. And that is what makes Him and His Torah trustworthy.
During the Millennial Shabat there will not be any uncircumcised males because the one-thousand-year commemoration of Sukah is a celebration of the Covenant. As a celebration of the Invitation to Camp Out with God, the Millennial Sabbath embodies all that the seventh Festival Feast represents, including restoring the Earth to the conditions enjoyed in the Garden of Eden. It was perfect, devoid of religion and thus of the likes of Paul. Corruptions of Yahowah’s word will not be tolerated.
With Yahowah’s position on circumcision being so clearly stated, so vital, unequivocal, and nonnegotiable, there are only four reasons that Sha’uwl chose this unwinnable issue to pick a fight with God. First, his target audience – Greeks and Romans – were very proud of their junk and equated circumcision to the mutilation of their crowning jewels. Since those he was playing for fools were foolish in this regard, Sha’uwl appealed to their manhood and sense of superiority. And at the same time, he could capitalize upon the Roman and Greek disgust of Jews who were circumcised.
Second, Paul was a homosexual and thus loved his lover’s genitalia as much as his own. And this sexual fascination caused him to prioritize one head over the 93other.
Third, Sha’uwl was a Gnostic and appealed to Gnostics. These philosophical Greeks perceived the flesh to be a flawed and faulty reflection of the perfect rendition of the spiritual world. Therefore, by equating circumcision with the flesh and with the Towrah and its Covenant, Paul was able to attack and demean each while promoting the superiority of faith since it was not of the flesh.
And fourth, since Sha’uwl / Paul served Satan, by negating the benefits of the Covenant, the Devil’s Advocate served his lord and master. Without circumcision, Passover’s Door is shut, precluding a continuation of life. And if everyone dies, Satan wins because there would be no harvest on Shabuw’ah, no gleaning on Taruw’ah, no homecoming on Kipurym, and no camping out during Sukah. It is all for naught.
While the debate regarding the efficacy of circumcision is over, we are still obliged to compare Galatians with Acts to ascertain the lengths Paul went to deceive his audience. So, let’s return to the book of Acts.
Recognizing that the testimony the Yahuwdym from Yahuwdah (Jews from Judea) had delivered in Antioch, regarding the connection between circumcision and salvation, was accurate, Luke’s depiction began, saying…
“And some having come down from Yahuwdah were teaching the brethren that if you might not be circumcised as prescribed by Moseh, you are not able to be saved.” (Acts 15:1)
So (de) a rebellion (ginomai stasis – a heated quarrel and open discord, an insurrection and uprising) and also (kai) a disputed argument (zetesis – a debated 94controversy) which were neither limited in scope, degree, or time (ouk oligos – not among a few, not to a small degree, and not for a short while), pertained to the individual (to) Paulos (Paulo – of Latin origin meaning Little and Lowly) and (kai) to (to) Barnabas (Bar-Naby – meaning Prophet’s Son).
Regarding them (pros autous – against them), they gave the order and assigned the task (tasso – they proposed, decided, and instituted the plan) to come up to (anabaino – to stand up to, to rise up and embark on the mission to reach) Paulos (Paulon – Little and Lowly) and (kai) Barnabas (Bar-Naby –Prophet’s Son) and some others (kai tinas allos) among (ek – from) them (autos) on behalf of (pros – concerning) the Apostles (apostolos – those who are prepared and sent out) and elders (kai presbyteros – leaders) in Yaruwshalaim (Ierousalem – transliteration of Yaruwshalaim, meaning the Source of Reconciliation) with regard to (peri) this (toutou) controversy and question (zetema – point of dispute and inquiry, debate and argument).” (Acts 15:2)
So much for the notion of Sha’uwl going to Yaruwshalaim because of a “revelation.” In actuality, there was an all-out rebellion which prompted this investigation. Paul’s message denouncing circumcision and the Torah was under attack by those who knew better.
In that we will be comparing these two presentations, Luke’s Acts and Paul’s Galatians, I would like to proceed by reviewing what Paul had written regarding this meeting when he said:
“Later, through fourteen years, also, I went up to Yaruwshalaim along with Barnabas, having taken along also Titus. (Galatians 2:1)
I went up from uncovering an unveiling revelation which lays bare, laying down to them the beneficial messenger which I preach among the races pertaining 95to my own, uniquely and separately, but then to the opinions, presumptions, and suppositions, not somehow perhaps into foolishness and stupidity, without purpose, I might run or I ran (2:2) – to the contrary, not even Titus, a Greek being, was compelled or pressured to be circumcised – (2:3) but then on account of the impersonators who faked their relationship brought in surreptitiously under false pretenses, who sneaked into the group to secretly spy upon and clandestinely plot against the freedom from conscience and liberation from the constraints of morality that we possess in Christo Iesou in order that us they will actually make subservient, controlling for their own ends, (2:4) to whom neither to a moment we yielded, surrendered, or submitted in order that the truth of the God may continue to be associated among you. (Galatians 2:5)
But now from the ones currently reputed, presumed, and supposed to be important based upon some sort of unspecified past, they were actually and continue to be nothing, completely meaningless and totally worthless to me.
It carries through and bears differently in the face of God for man not take hold of or receive, because to me, the ones currently presuming and supposing, presently dispensing opinions based upon reputed appearances, are of no account, utterly meaningless and totally worthless was their advice and counsel, their cause and contribution in the past. (Galatians 2:6)
Contrariwise, notwithstanding the objection or exception, having seen that because namely I have been believed entrusted with the healing message and beneficial messenger of the uncircumcised inasmuch as Petros of the circumcised (2:7) because then namely, the one having previously functioned in Petro to an apostle for the circumcision, it actually functions in me to the nations and ethnicities. (Galatians 2:8)
96And having known and having recognized, becoming familiar with the Charis | Grace of the one having been given to me, Ya’aqob, Kephas, and also Yahowchanan, the ones presently presumed to be pillars, the right place of honor and authority they granted to me, and to Barnabas fellowship as a result. We to the nations and ethnicities, but they to the circumcision. (2:9) Only alone for the lowly and poor, the worthless beggars of little value that we might remember and possibly think about which also I was eager and quick to do this similarly.” (Galatians 2:10)
That was Sha’uwl’s version of the events. Now, let’s return to the book of Acts and consider his associate’s perspective on the Yaruwshalaim Inquiry. This monumental meeting was dated to 50 CE – seventeen years after Dowd’s fulfillment of Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children in the spring of 33 CE.
Now that we know the pretext for this meeting was misrepresented by Paul, how about the spies? Were they false brothers unknown to the Ekklesia in Yaruwshalaim?
“But (de) having arrived in (paraginomai eis – having approached and appeared in) Yaruwshalaim (Ierousalem – transliteration of Yaruwshalaim, meaning the Source of Reconciliation), they were acknowledged and received (paradechomai – were welcomed hospitably as visitors) by the (apo tes) Called Out (ekklesia), the (kai ton) Apostles (apostolos), and elders (kai ton presbyteros– and the leaders). And then (te – so then likewise) they reported (anangello –they announced and proclaimed) as much as (hosos – to the degree that) Theos | God (o ΘΣ) did (poieomai – worked and performed) with (meta) them (autos). (15:4)
But (de) some important individuals (tines – certain specific people) steadfastly stood up (exanistamai – resolutely rose up to take a stand), the ones (ton) who had been from (apo – as in separated from and disassociated 97with) the religious party (tes hairesis – the faction based upon false teaching and heresy; from haireomai – to think and choose for oneself) of the Pharisees (ton Pharisaios – rabbinical religious fundamentalists; a transliteration of the Hebrew parash, meaning to separate, some of whom likely left their ranks in response to what Dowd had done), who having come to trust and to rely (pisteuo – to think and be persuaded, thus becoming confident), said (lego – and affirmed) that (hoti) it is a necessary requirement (dei – it is a must, it is inevitable, it is proper and established, right and beneficial) to circumcise (peritemno) individuals (autous) not only (te) to provide instruction as a messenger (parangello – to convey the message or to announce or proclaim the teaching), but also (kai) to observe (tereo – to attend to by focusing upon, closely examining and carefully considering) the Towrah of Moseh (Mouseos nomon – a Greek transliteration of Moseh, meaning: the One who Draws us Out and nomon – an allotment which is parceled out, an inheritance which is given, nourishment which is bestowed to be possessed and used, precepts which are apportioned, established, and is received as the means to be proper and approved, prescriptions to become heirs; from nemo – that which is provided, assigned, and distributed to one’s children to nourish them).” (Acts 15:4-5)
These individuals were advocating and endorsing the Towrah which Yahowah had dictated to Moseh. And that means that they were not speaking on behalf of Rabbinic Law or the Talmud. And since they were Paul’s antagonists, it would be ridiculous to suggest that Paul’s foe was anything other than this very same Towrah. This is a devastating blow relative to Paul’s credibility – and it was provided by his biographer, Luke, Christianity’s most respected voice.
The lone excuse that could have been deployed to somewhat exonerate Paul, the notion that he was assailing 98and demeaning Rabbinic Law rather than the Torah, has just been obliterated by this testimony. If you are an informed and rational person, the debate is over, as is any possibility that Christianity is valid. It is impossible to speak on behalf of God while opposing the Word of God.
The men who “stood up had come to trust and rely,” which means that they were not “false brothers.” They did not “sneak into the meeting under false pretenses,” as they were elders among the Called Out in Yaruwshalaim.
Should there have been any truth in the Gospel attributed to John, one would suspect that Nicodemus, the Pharisee who is shown meeting with Gospel Jesus in John 3, was among them. But either way, they did not come to “secretly observe,” but to the contrary, to stand up and speak. Like Paul, these individuals were former Pharisees. But unlike Paul, they, like Dowd, were Towrah-observant.
While Paul’s first five statements regarding this meeting have all crumbled in the face of evidence to the contrary, Sha’uwl’s sixth, seventh, and eighth assertions are also in jeopardy. Paul had written in Galatians 2:9 that he had presented his case, and then after having done so, he had been accepted by Ya’aqob, Shim’own, and Yahowchanan. But Luke reports that the welcome occurred prior to Paul’s presentation of his message and ministry. He also suggests that the “greeting” was little more than “an acknowledgment that these visitors had shown up.” And that means even the false notion of a “right hand of fellowship” could not have been the ringing endorsement Paul would have his readers believe. Rather, the false Apostle was putting a carefully designed “spin” on the actual events to deliberately mislead his audience.
Also, contrary to Paul’s claim that everyone was accepting of the uncircumcised condition of his Greek associate, Titus (in Galatians 2:3), we find that the elders strongly encouraged circumcision, calling it: “a necessary requirement, proper, established, right, and beneficial 99to circumcise individuals to provide instruction as a messenger, to announce and proclaim the teaching, and also to be observant by focusing upon the Towrah of Moseh.” Therefore, Paul’s eighth recollection, that he was only told to “remember the poor,” was also untrue. He was told to remember the Torah generally and circumcision specifically.
Now, let’s see if Paul’s claim that an agreement was allegedly reached in the meeting to divide the world, limiting Yahowchanan, Shim’own, and Ya’aqob to the circumcised, while granting Paul authority over every other nation and race, is valid. Luke writes:
“So then (te) demonstrating leadership (sunago – drawing people together; from sun, with, and ago, to lead), the Apostles (apostolos – those who were prepared and sent out; speaking specifically of the Gospel’s Disciples) and (kai) the elders (presbuteros – the leaders) paid attention (horao – looked at, perceived, recognized, were aware of, and understood) concerning (peri – because of and with regard to) this (toutou), the Word (tou logou – statement, reason, account, declaration, affirmation, treatise, decree, and mandate).” (Acts 15:6)
In other words, the Apostles and elders supported the men who stood up and affirmed the Towrah – the Word of God – putting everyone in attendance at odds with Paul. They were, in a word, “observant.” Further, this testimony affirms that “the Word” and the “Towrah of Moseh” were considered one and the same.
As we continue, we are confronted with additional testimony which invalidates Paul’s “all they said was to remember the lowly,” and that they agreed that “the nations and ethnicities belonged to Paul with Shim’own limited to the circumcised.” Turns out they had a lot more to say, and it all was in direct opposition to Paul’s recollection.
“But then (de) with considerable and extensive 100(polys – very great) debate (zetesis – questioning and controversy, mediating and reasoning, contentious argument and deliberation, seeking information and dispute) happening (ginomai – having come to exist), the Rock (petros – meaning rock, a translation of Shim’own’s nickname, Kephas, of the same meaning in Hebrew and Aramaic) having stood up (anistamai – having taken a stand, rising, standing upright), said (eipen) to and about (pros – regarding) them (autos),
‘Men (andres), brothers (adelphoi), you all (umeis) have examined the evidence, thought about it, and have come to understand (epistamai – through intelligent evaluation of what you have come to know, possessing sufficient information to comprehend and take a resolute and confident stand) that (hoti) from (apo) in (en) the beginning (archaios – existing for a long time in the past) you all (umin) chose for yourself (eklegomai – selected) God (ΘΣ – a placeholder used in the Septuagint to convey ‘elohym, the Almighty, and thus Yahowah) on account of (dia – through and as a consequence of) my (mou) spoken words (stoma – message from my mouth), listening to and considering (akouo – receiving, hearing, paying attention to, comprehending, and understanding) the Word (legos) of the healing messenger and beneficial message (tou euangelion) to the races and nations (ethnos – to the ethnicities), and considered it to be trustworthy and reliable (pisteuo – were convinced and became confident).’” (Acts 15:7)
If we are to believe anything attributed to him, Gospel Jesus had trained Shim’own, teaching and guiding him in the way, equipping him to articulate God’s healing and beneficial message to the world. And then he authorized Shim’own, as well as Yahowchanan and Ya’aqob, to convey that message to everyone. There were no limitations, no restrictions, no ethnicities off limits. And as proof of this, every one of those Called Out in 101Yaruwshalaim on this day, save Paul, knew the Towrah well enough to cite and support the Word of God.
By acknowledging his history and theirs, Shim’own Kephas confirmed what is recorded of Gospel Jesus’ instructions to him, thereby pulverizing Paul’s ninth claim. It matters not if a word in any of the Gospels is correct regarding the myth of Iesou Christou because Paul and Christianity fail either way. If “Jesus Christ” existed and told Peter these things, then Paul was lying. If “Jesus Christ” was a fable and all of this was a gross cover-up to replace Dowd, then Paul lied because he claimed otherwise. Simply stated, the ministry of the so-called Disciples and Apostles had never been limited to Jews as Paul had claimed.
These things known, when we place Luke’s account of this meeting as it is presented in the Book of Acts next to Paul’s description of it in Galatians, we find that the more detailed account, which was told from the perspective of the attendees, is markedly different.
Therefore, while it is obvious that Paul misrepresented these events to demean his presumed rivals, to bolster his dubious credibility, to validate his opposition to the Torah and circumcision, and to claim the world as his own, it does not actually matter if Paul lied, Luke lied, or if they both lied. If Luke’s account is untrue in Acts, then it cannot be trusted in the book bearing his name. And since Luke is predicated upon Mark and serves as the basis of Matthew, the credibility of the Gospels crumbles along with his own. And if Luke’s representation is accurate, then Paul’s is not. If Paul lied, there is nothing left of Christianity.
If Paul cannot be trusted to accurately present what happened during the three most important alleged meetings of his life (the mythical encounter approaching Damascus, the meeting in Arabia, and the trial in Yaruwshalaim), he cannot be trusted with regard to his contrarian message. This is a wake-up call for those who have been led to 102believe that Paul was right when he said that the Torah had been replaced by “faith in his Gospel of Grace.”
If you have not already recognized that it is rationally impossible for Paul to be a reliable witness when he contradicts the God he claimed to represent, then the realization that Paul cannot be trusted to accurately relay conversations between men should be sufficient for you to discount his testimony regarding God.
To be clear, I am not saying that everything Paul wrote has been discredited, just the first third of Galatians (everything we have read up to this point), and with it, the foundation of Christendom. The remainder of Paul’s letter to the Galatians, along with other letters, are awaiting our examination. But the realization that the first third of his first epistle has been deficient in every conceivable way should suffice to indicate that his remaining words are not reliable either. It is obvious that they never should have been published or included in the Christian Bible. God’s standard is perfection. Paul had no standards.
Therefore, while it requires study and thought, Paul’s epistle to the Galatians has taught us a valuable lesson: we must be careful. Only Yahowah is trustworthy.
