166Twistianity

Towrahless

…Without Guidance

 

4

Kauchaomai | Bragging

 

I do not recall…

Could it be? Is it possible that Dowd was right about Paul? Was his bout with the lightning bolt actually an encounter with Satan?

It is interesting to acknowledge, after all, that Paul seemed to concur. And to prove this, we are going to take a stroll through Sha’uwl’s second letter to the Greeks living next to the isthmus of Corinth. Turns out, the more Sha’uwl reveals about himself and about Satan, including that he has become insane and possessed, the better we get to know him.

After shaking down his followers for money, saying in 2 Corinthians 9:7 that “God loves a cheerful giver,” thereby encouraging them to dig deep if they wanted to be rewarded by his god, Paul tried to undermine Yahowah’s most treasured possession, His Covenant. Saying that he was engaged in a war against the flesh – which is a reference to circumcision, the sign of the Covenant (in 2 Corinthians 10:3-4), he went on to say in 10:5 that “we are destroying speculations” and “taking every thought captive.” He was, in essence, removing evidence and reason from the equation so that faith in his message might prevail over knowing God. Paul wanted belief to trump understanding.

Then, contradicting his own overt animosity toward legalism, the founder of the Christian religion hypocritically wrote: “And we are ready to punish all 167disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete.” (2 Corinthians 10:6) Not only is “obedience” something Yahowah opposes, but justice is His not ours.

Paul told his followers in 2 Corinthians 10:7 “not to look outwardly” to avoid observing the Towrah, I suppose, but instead “to consider what is within,” all in support of a faith nurtured by feelings and beliefs rather than conviction derived from observation and contemplation.

In his role promoting such rubbish, the always arrogant self-promoter, wrote: “Even if I should boast somewhat further about our authority...I will not be put to shame.” (2 Corinthians 10:8) I imagine Satan thinking the same thing.

This is followed by another odd and indicting comment: “For I do not wish to seem as if I would terrify you by my letters.” (2 Corinthians 10:9) Sure, the tone is condescending and the prose bizarre, but unless written by a despot with a large and ruthless army, or a legion of demons at his beck and call, why would a letter “terrify” anyone?

An even more peculiar reference is conveyed by: “For they say, ‘His letters are weighty and strong, but his personal presence is unimpressive, and his speech is contemptible.’” (2 Corinthians 10:10) While we ought not care what Paul looked like, and we would have to be delusional to view his rhetoric as weighty, he would be correct in admitting: his speech was contemptible. But alas, this devolves into an incomprehensible clash of egos in 2 Corinthians 10:11 through 18, with Sha’uwl positioning himself as the only one whose boasts are justified.

Paul digresses further in the opening of the 11^th chapter of his second letter to the Corinthians, writing: “I wish that you would bear with me in a little foolishness; but indeed you are bearing with me.” (2 Corinthians 11:1) Unless I’m reading this wrong, to put up with Paul is to be foolish. But 168seriously, why would anyone want to suffer such foolishness if he or she could instead observe God’s brilliance by reading the Towrah?

And even though Sha’uwl errantly wrote that “love is not jealous” in his first letter to those living in Corinth, now he admits his hypocrisy to the same audience: “For I am jealous for you.” (2 Corinthians 11:2)

Ever the chameleon and schemer, the man who loved boys and lorded over women presents those who have been beguiled by his letters as “pure virgins,” which is to say untouched by the Torah and its God. (This is the conclusion of 2 Corinthians 11:2 as presented from the New American Standard Bible.)

Paul’s next statement is among his most beguiling because it is predicated upon being a virgin to the Towrah by the simplicity of Christo. Also rendered from the NASB, it reads: “But I am afraid, lest as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds should be led astray from the simplicity and purity of Christ.” (2 Corinthians 11:3) This is to suggest that if a person ignores everything, and simply believes, that they are pure, and thus free from Satanic deception. And yet Yahowah says just the opposite, that the only way to prevent being beguiled is to observe His Teaching.

If Paul was such a stellar rabbinic scholar, how is it that he does not know that the Serpent deceived Chawah, not “Eve?” Also, not only was Satan more presumptuous than crafty, his ploy was the same as Sha’uwl’s. He took what Yahowah said out of context and misquoted God to mislead.

At issue here is that faith is simple because it is not based upon anything. It requires no knowledge or understanding. But without evidence and reason, Yahowah is unknowable and even the brightest minds can be led astray. So while Yahowah’s desire to build a growing 169family through His Covenant is a relatively simple concept, the means He deployed to facilitate it, so that He could include us within it, is anything but simplistic.

There is a reason that Yahowah’s teaching in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms includes over one thousand pages of precise instructions. If He intended His guidance to be read by simpletons, He would have drawn a couple of pictures and not wasted our time. But that would not have achieved His goal. God wants to spend eternity with those who are eager to learn and who enjoy the adventures of discovery. Therefore, the directions which systematically reveal who God is and what He is offering, while explaining how we can most beneficially respond to Him, are too essential to our relationship to shortchange.

There was no shortcut to understanding then and still isn’t now. The bookshelf at YadaYah.com may appear daunting, but it’s all there for a reason.

Until a person appreciates the connection between Yahowah and Dowd, and between Dowd and the Towrah, there is no way to properly respond to and thus benefit from Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym, and capitalize by becoming one of those harvested during Shabuw’ah. As the Passover Lamb, Dowd’s words and deeds are profoundly revealing, tangibly demonstrating the extraordinary depth and complexity of the only God who is neither shallow nor simple.

Afraid that his simplistic and erroneous caricature of his Greco-Roman death-defying man-god would be exposed and criticized by those who knew better, Sha’uwl wrote: “For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear beautifully.” (2 Corinthians 11:4 from the NASB)

The actual Messiah bears no resemblance to the 170Christian Jesus, a character who has far more in common with Dionysus and Mithras than Yahowah or His Towrah. The Pauline Christian construct no longer represents the Word of God but is instead a parody contrived to annul it. The truth would forever differ from what Paul wrote and said.

As for another spirit, Yahowah has but one Spirit that we can receive, the Set-Apart Spirit, and She exists to help us understand and then share Yahowah’s Towrah. That means Paul’s “different spirit” represents the Adversary.

Turning to an “alternative gospel,” Yahowah only has one healing message and it is found in His Towrah. And it is in wholesale conflict with Paul’s preaching. As for “bear beautifully,” I’ll let you grapple with that one because following “bear foolishly,” it does not make much sense to me. Even if it were projected to mean “remain tactful, cordial, and polite,” Paul wasn’t, and his advice would be wrong because Yahowah wants us to confront and condemn religious schemes and schemers. He does.

This leads to another arrogant and indeed errant announcement: “For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles.” (2 Corinthians 11:5) Paul’s pride became blinding. Perhaps that was the light that dazzled him en route to Damascus. He was the star of his own show.

Incapable of being rational, he considered himself brilliant: “But even if I am unskilled in speech, yet I am not so in knowledge; in fact, in every way we have made evident to you in all things.” (2 Corinthians 11:6)

Fact is, Paul has not said or written anything which would advance our understanding of man or God. And by comparison to Yahowah or Dowd, he is dumb as a stone.

While it is true that by contrast to Moseh or Dowd, I am but a flickering candle and they are galactic, at least I 171know that the only source of knowledge worth considering as it pertains to God is Yahowah’s testimony. If Paul were a fraction as smart as he claimed, he would have educated his audience by drawing their attention to the terms and conditions of the Covenant. He would have explained how the Covenant’s benefits were advanced by Dowd’s fulfillment of the Miqra’ of Pesach. But instead, he condemned the Covenant, created a new one, and denounced the Invitations to Meet with God because they got in the way of his faith.

If it was not so sad, the notion that Paul questioned whether “I committed a sin in humbling myself,” “because I preached the gospel of God to you without charge?” (2 Corinthians 11:7) would be funny. Can you imagine being so full of yourself that you would think self-aggrandizement was a sign of humility? Or worse, write that you might be committing a sin because you did not seek to sell your verbal diarrhea.

But alas, Bible publishers, churches, and preachers have made up for Paul’s momentary blush with philanthropy. They would not only rob the unsuspecting of their souls but have them pay for the service. And what is especially disconcerting about all of this is that by comparison to Paul’s rubbish, Yahowah’s words are sublime. He not only provides them freely, but they also pay dividends.

If you think that I am being too hard on this arrogant, errant, and delusional wannabe apostle, since he has suggested that he shortchanged himself for not bilking the Corinthians for this beguiling message, you might want to consider: “I robbed other churches, taking wages to serve you.” (2 Corinthians 11:8)

It is interesting that Sha’uwl tells us that “for when the brethren came from Macedonia, they supplied my need.” (2 Corinthians 11:9) The Torahless One, known as the 172“Antichrist” to Christians, will also come from Macedonia. For those interested in early recognition, come to know Paul and you will know the “Antichrist” – or more correctly, the Anti-Mashyach.

Recognizing that Paul never quoted Yahowah or even Gospel Christ accurately, he lied when he wrote: “As the truth of Christ is in me,” but not when he concluded: “this boasting of mine will not be stopped in the regions of Achaia.” (2 Corinthians 11:10) Followed by: “Why? Because I do not love you? God knows.” (2 Corinthians 11:11)

Sha’uwl not only knew, but acknowledged, that he was competing with others whose claims were more credible (the prophets and disciples), and that his message was considerably different than theirs... “But what I am doing, I will continue to do, that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting.” (2 Corinthians 11:12) While the disciples did not boast, an insecure individual like Paul views any confident individual as an affront to his credibility.

A systematic review of the literature emanating out of the mid-to-late 1^st century reveals that the only prophets and apostles whom Paul could have viewed as being in competition with him, and whose message was opposed to his, were Yahowah’s prophets. That makes this next statement especially toxic. “For such are false prophets, treacherous and deceitful (dolios – tricky and clever) workmen (ergates – perpetrators) masquerading as (metaschematizo – converted and transformed so as to appear, disguised and pretending to be) [the] Christou (ΧΡΥ – Divine Placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement to usurp the Septuagint’s credibility and infer Divinity) Apostles (apostolos – a prepared messenger who is sent out).” (2 Corinthians 11:13)

173At the time Paul wrote this letter to the Corinth Assembly, he alone was a “false prophet, treacherous and deceitful, masquerading as an Apostle.” And history tells us that no one outside of Paul and his followers feigned Apostleship to the Corinthians. Moreover, since there is no evidence that Paul ever issued an accurate prophecy, there is no reason to view this as a prediction of future events either. (Paul’s lists of human attributes in Romans and elsewhere were already common to his day, especially in Rome. And since it did not occur, Paul’s prediction that a “rapture” would take place during his lifetime was untrue.)

Almost every English translation ignores the inclusion of “autos – himself” in this next statement because of what it implies. And of course, they aren’t keen on providing a complete translation of thauma, because this sounds like a confession. Literally, in the order Paul wrote the words, the next sentence reads: “And (kai) no (ou) wonder, himself a great object of worship (thauma autos – himself a wonderful, marvelous and miraculous vision and individual to be admired).” (2 Corinthians 11:14) But before we conclude that Satan was being called “great,” and a “wonderful object of worship,” a word of caution is in order. There is no direct Greek equivalent to the English word “do” with regard to “do not,” so it could be, and probably should be, supplied. This reshapes the text to read: “And do not marvel (thauma – be amazed or wonder)…”

Also, while autos, translated as “himself,” follows the noun “thauma – wonder” in the Greek text, and proceeds the conjunction “gar – for,” which begins the next thought or sentence, depending upon the punctuation, it is common for conjunctions to follow pronouns if the thoughts are being combined, as opposed to being isolated in separate sentences. But adding to the potential confusion, Paul routinely omits pronouns in his letters, so the specific inclusion of autos, after thauma, would normally convey 174“himself a marvel.” Moreover, there is no denying that Paul was taken in by Satan’s “glorious manifestation and radiant brilliance” in 2 Thessalonians, a passage we will review in a moment.

Yet since there is a way to avoid the problem of praising Satan here in 2 Corinthians, by adding “do” in front of “not,” and then repositioning the pronoun, I’m compelled to join the first and second halves of the 14^th verse into a single sentence. Combined, they would then read: “And (kai) [do] not (ou) wonder (thauma – marvel at this miraculous vision, nor be amazed in admiration) [at this], for indeed (gar), he (autos), the Adversary Satan (Satanas), changes his appearance (metaschematizo – masquerades, disguising himself, transforming his image) into (eis) a spiritual, heavenly messenger (angelos – divine representative) [of] light (photos).” (2 Corinthians 11:14)

While that solves one problem, it creates another. This is not only a depiction of how Paul saw him, but it is also indicative of Sha’uwl’s personal propensity to change his outward appearances to mislead his audiences. And as always, Paul’s inadequate writing style remains especially prone to misinterpretation, leaving us wondering what he actually meant to say.

Satan’s name, “Halal ben Shachar,” tells us that he “radiates light as if from the rising sun,” so this is hardly news. All Yahowah’s mal’ak | spiritual messengers are comprised of light.

Paul’s next line is as clear as it is telling. It is designed to deflect attention away from his being judged a false prophet. So Paul says that, rather than being evaluated objectively based upon his words, comparing them to God’s, he wants to be viewed subjectively based on his “motivation.”

“[It is] not (ou) surprising (megas – great) therefore 175(oun) when (ei – if) also (kai) his (autou) servants (diakonos – ministers who execute his commands) masquerade (metaschematizo – pretend to be) as (hos) ministers (diakonos – servants) of righteousness (dikaiosyne – whose doctrine is acceptable to and approved by God), of which (o on) the end result and motivation (telos – their ultimate purpose and intent) will be (estai) according to (kata) their works (ergon – deeds).” (2 Corinthians 11:15)

Unless they reveal it and are trustworthy, assessing someone’s motivation, and their intent, often goes well past speculation and more typically reflects the assessor’s personal feelings about them. And since Paul has positioned himself as the right hand and voice of his god, he would have the faithful move from facts and reason to opinions in judging him. That does not sound right to me.

Illuminating this problem, telos, rendered as “end result and motivation,” is based upon tello, and that’s telling because it describes someone who “sets out to achieve a particular goal.” It infers that the ultimate evaluation of these people should be focused on their “motivations,” as opposed to the content of their messages, and it should take place at the end of time, as opposed to when the message is being delivered.

Further, Paul’s evaluation is also predicated upon a person’s “deeds” rather than what they have to say. As such, Paul’s means to determine whether a person is a false prophet bears no resemblance whatsoever to Yahowah’s tests. Of this, we should not be surprised.

But this is Paul’s message, Paul’s test, and Paul’s defense on behalf of his spirit. It also reflects Paul’s less-than-divine grammatical style. “Furthermore (palin – also and again) I say (lego), not (oe) someone (tis) I (me) presume (dokei – be of the opinion) I am (einai) ignorant and irrational (aphron – foolish, stupid, senseless, and 176devoid of reason). But (de) if (ei) not (me) really (ge – even) and (kai) as (os – like) foolishness (aphron – ignorance and senselessness), I (me) you will receive (dechomai – believe and welcome) in order that (ina) and I (kago) little (micron – small) someone who (ti) I boast (kauchaomai – brag and glory in).” (2 Corinthians 11:16)

Or if I may be so bold to reorder the words a bit and interpret them in accord with what Paul was likely thinking, I suspect he meant to say: “Furthermore (palin – also and again) I say (lego), let no one (me) presume of me (oe tis me dokei – someone should not be of the opinion) that I am (einai) ignorant and irrational (aphron – foolish, stupid, senseless, and devoid of reason). But (de) even if I am actually like this and, therefore, foolish (ei me ge kai os aphron – if perhaps ignorant and really senseless), you will receive (dechomai – believe and welcome) me (me) in order that (ina) I (kago) as someone little (to micron – small) may boast about myself (kauchaomai – might brag and glory in me).” (2 Corinthians 11:16)

Let’s consider what the scholastic sources reveal. The Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear conveys: “Again I say not some me might think unthinking to be if but not indeed if also as unthinking welcome me that also I little some might brag.” That was not an improvement.

Moving on to the English Standard Version Interlinear, we find that it departs significantly from the text, ignoring and adding many words: “I repeat, let no one think me [being (omitted)] foolish. But even if [you do (added)], [not also (omitted)] accept me as [a (added)] fool, so [that (added)] I [too may (added)] boast a little.”

The New International Version Interlinear suggests: “Again I say not anyone me think foolish to be [if (omitted)] otherwise [not really (omitted)] even if as foolish receive you me, [in (added)] order [that (added)] I 177also [a (added)] little [bit (added)] [someone (omitted)] may boast.”

Moving from the most scholarly interlinears to the supposedly literal New American Standard Bible, we find: “Again I say, let no one think me foolish, but if you do, receive me even as foolish, that I also may boast a little.”

No matter the interpretation of his word salad (defined as: “unintelligible and disorganized speech or writing which is a symptom of a mental disorder such as schizophrenia”), this statement is worse in content and style than anything we have encountered in Galatians. And once again, we cannot blame this hubris on scribal error. The words are the same in Papyrus 46 (from the 2^nd century) as they are in the Nestle-Aland. The incomprehensible and conceited nature of the text is Paul’s fault. (Of course, if you are a Christian and believe that this is the inspired word of God, then your god is a nincompoop, which is probably worse.)

“What (o) I say (lalo) [is] not (ou) according to (kata) [the] Kurion | Lord’s (ΚΝ) way of speaking (laleo – sayings), but to the contrary (alla) as (os) in (en) foolishness (aphrosyne – recklessness and thoughtlessness, senselessness and folly) in (en) this (houtos) substance and nature (hypostasis – essence or objective aspect and underlying reality behind everything; a compound of hupo, under, and histemi, standing upright) of (tes) boasting (kauchesis – pride and glorifying oneself).” (2 Corinthians 11:17)

If this is correct, Paul is admitting the obvious. He was not speaking for Yahowah but was, instead, foolishly bragging on his own behalf – or worse, on behalf of the spirit possessing him.

Not to belabor the point, but the Nestle-Aland Interlinear isn’t any clearer: “What I say not by Master, I say but as in thoughtlessness in this the substance of the 178brag.”

The NASB supports my conclusion: “That which I am speaking, I am not speaking as the Lord would, but in foolishness, in this confidence of boasting.” Try as they would to shade the meanings to protect Paul’s credibility, this remains incriminating.

This is a Devilish predicament for Christian publishers. If they convey Paul’s words accurately, they reveal that he was not speaking for his Lord but, instead, out of arrogance. But if they change what he wrote, they become coconspirators and are guilty of fraudulently enriching themselves while cheating their readers of their souls.

And Paul was not finished exposing himself. “Because (epei – since) many (polloi) may boast (kauchaomai – brag and glorify themselves) according to (kata) [the] flesh (sarx – their physical prowess), I also (kago) glorify myself and brag (kauchaomai – boast).” (2 Corinthians 11:18)

Sha’uwl’s personality and Satan’s are beginning to morph, becoming indistinguishable. This is similar to Muhammad and Allah in the Quran where it becomes readily apparent that Islam’s first and foremost terrorist was the corporeal manifestation of Satan. But even if you are not yet comfortable with this assessment, surely you recognize that the man who wrote these words was smitten with his own greatness and not inspired by God.

Paul’s testimony has become so self-centered and braggadocious, so irrelevant and incomprehensible, so unlike Yahowah and His prophets, let’s continue to seek verification of these words from other translations: In that regard, the NASB wrote: “Since many boast according to the flesh, I will boast also.”

Funny thing, I do not recall ‘Adam or Noach, 179‘Abraham, Yitschaq, or Ya’aqob, saying such a thing – nor Moseh, Shamuw’el, or Dowd, not Yasha’yah, Yirma’yah, or Zakaryah, either. And yet if there were bragging rights, theirs would exceed Paul’s by an infinite extent.

And it gets worse…

“For indeed (gar – because), gladly (hedeos – with delight and enjoyment) you accept (anechomai – bear, endure, and put up with) the senseless and foolish (aphron – ignorant and irrational) being (ontes) wise (phronimos – shrewd and intelligent).” (2 Corinthians 11:19)

Unless he was speaking for Satan, why was Paul taunting and demeaning his audience? At this point in this letter, it is becoming increasingly difficult to deny that he was psychotic and delusional, likely schizophrenic and obviously demon-possessed. He has not only lost touch with reality, but he is also trying to pull the faithful into the abyss with him. He has so little respect for “Christians” that he cannot help but deride them, pulling back the veil that hides his hideous nature in the process.

Unfortunately, but undeniably, Paul’s arrogant sense of superiority has led him to believe his audience was so stupid by comparison that they’d never figure him out, much less hold him accountable. And once again, this reads just like the Quran where Satan, in the guise of Allah and Muhammad, plays Muslims for fools.

And again, as was the case with Muhammad, those who knew Paul, who heard him convey these words firsthand, rejected him. It is obvious that he was mentally deranged, as was Muhammad. So, as occurred with Allah’s Messenger after the Satanic Verses, everyone abandoned the Devil’s Advocate. We know this to be true because Sha’uwl wrote the following to Timothy in his final letter... “You are aware of the fact that all who are in Asia turned away from me.” (2 Timothy 1:15) But alas, with the advent of Mark’s and Luke’s Gospels and Luke’s Book of Acts, 180coupled with Marcion as a future publicist and promoter, flooded the Greko-Roman world with so much nonsense, billions were fooled. We know their legacy today as “Christians.”

According to the NASB, Paul wrote: “For you, being so wise, bear with the foolish gladly.” While this is no better, to achieve this translation, they had to upend Paul’s arrangement of words.

This onslaught of “foolishness” demonstrates that we are witnessing serious psychosis in Paul (from the Greek psyche – mind and soul which is osis – deranged, denoting a pathological state of neurosis). Almost every aspect of his behavior, his attitude, and his testimony fit the textbook definition of psychotic. His letters increasingly demonstrate that he has lost contact with reality. He has suffered hallucinations that he calls revelations, and his claims are delusional. He has been violent and his judgment is seriously impaired. In the immediate aftermath of his interlude with Satan on the way to Damascus, he was nearly catatonic.

As a result of Paul’s psychosis, we are in the throes of another “word salad.” Merriam-Webster defines what we are witnessing in Paul’s rhetoric as: “unintelligible, extremely disorganized speech or writing manifested as a symptom of a mental disorder such as schizophrenia. It results in the loss of semantic associations whereby trying to speak results in garbled, nonsensical juxtapositions which neuroscientists call a ‘word salad.’ It is a string of empty, incoherent, unintelligible, or nonsensical words or comments…in a one-sided debate.”

It is obvious, so we might as well admit it. Paul is displaying signs of the psychosis of schizophrenia. There has been a complete breakdown of rational thought processes in his writings. His arguments, even the best of them, are irrational and insane. His emotional outbursts are 181atypical and inappropriate. His speech and thinking are disorganized. His antagonism toward perceived rivals screams paranoia – a most telling symptom.

Paul is even projecting bipolar tendencies, a mood disorder characterized by manic or prolonged periods of irritability. This manic expression of bipolar psychosis is evidenced by his extravagant claims, by his egotistical self-esteem, and by what is known as the “pressure of speech.” Here, the psychosis is present in his frenzied style, an approach that is cluttered and often unintelligible, tangential and unrelenting, all motivated by an urgency which is not apparent to the audience.

Therefore, when we compare what we are reading in Paul’s letters to the most common and telling symptoms of psychoses, we discover a near-perfect match. It has become evident that the founder of the Christian religion was mentally ill. Although, he was not alone. Those who have read God Damn Religion will see all of these same symptoms in Muhammad – the only other man who, while claiming to speak for his god also admitted to being demon-possessed.

Should you wonder why God hates religion, consider this: the two most popular religions in human history were instituted by demon-possessed psychopaths. And billions believed them, over the word of God, anyway.

This is nauseating, making my stomach churn...

“Because (gar) you put up with (anechomai – you accept as valid or true and accept) someone who and something which (ei tis – whosoever and whatever (singular masculine)) makes you subservient, completely enslaving you (katadouloo umas – imposes their unrelenting authority over you), someone who and something which (ei tis – anyone and whatever) is exploitive (katesoiei – devouring and destructive, taking complete advantage by being divisive), someone who and 182something which (ei tis – anyone and whosoever) is controlling (lambano – grasps hold of and acquires, possesses and takes advantage of), someone who and something which (ei tis – anyone and whatever) is exalted (epairomai – is highly regarded), even someone who or something which (ei tis) flays the skin (dero) of your (umas) person (prosopon – being and head, frontal proximity, appearance, and presence).” (2 Corinthians 11:20)

Before I share why I’m especially troubled by this, let’s first consider the rendering proposed by the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear: “Endure for if some you enslaves thoroughly, if some eats up, if some receives, if some lifts up on, if some into face you beats.” The reason for the wide variation is that ei, as a standalone concept, conveys “if,” but when used in conjunction with an indefinite pronoun, ei tis becomes “whoever, whatever, anyone who, or whosoever.” Also, while the verbs “katadouloo – make subservient,” “katesoiei – is exploitive and destructive,” and “dero – flays the skin” are decidedly detrimental, “anechomai – put up with,” “lambano – grasp hold of and control,” and “epairomai – is exalted” can be good or bad depending upon the subject and context. Also, while prosopon means “face” in Greek, it also conveys “person, frontal appearance, outward presence, and a particular place in front of an individual demonstrative of a relationship.” It is a compound of “pros – before and with regard to” and opt, a “visage or feature which allows one to be seen in a particular way.”

Moving from grammar and etymology to content, Paul’s statement is tragically inappropriate for multiple reasons. It starts off suggesting that the Corinthians willingly accepted someone who and something which enslaved them, making them subservient. To this ill-treatment the Corinthians allegedly endured, Paul added exploitation and control mechanisms. What is bothersome 183about this is when we return to Galatians, we will discover that Paul contends that Yahowah and His Towrah are responsible for this abusive influence. He refers to them as “paidagogos – a pedagogue who instructs in a particularly pedantic and dogmatic manner using strict, old-fashioned methods, with an overbearing demeanor as if a slave-trainer.” A paidagogos is a harsh, arcane, and enslaving taskmaster,” in Galatians 3:4. Furthermore, in the context of history and Paul’s letters, apart from Yahowah and His Towrah, there are no other candidates. None.

At this time, the Greeks living in Corinth weren’t being enslaved, they weren’t being exploited or controlled, much less flayed, by anyone. They had become esteemed and often emulated members of Roman society. And since there was no political, religious, economic, or military presence in Corinth between 50 to 55 CE that was enslaving Greeks, forcing them to be subservient, that was exploiting and controlling them while savaging their bodies, Paul’s assessment is delusional and demeaning. This pronouncement is added proof that he was psychotic.

Recognizing how horrendous this statement and the one which follows becomes in light of Paul calling Yahowah and His Towrah enslaving, exploitive, destructive, controlling, and mutilating, I investigated to see if something else may have been afoot in Corinth at this time. But there was no Roman Legion garrisoned there. In fact, Corinth enjoyed a return to prominence during the 1^st century CE. Paying homage to Poseidon, the Isthmian Games were recommenced as a celebration of the death of Melicertes, who was worshiped as a god throughout the region. These annual funeral games became nearly as popular as the Olympics. Paul even alluded to them in 1 Corinthians 9:24-26, speaking of everyone running a race in honor of the deceased god-man but only one receiving the prize. Further, the isthmus put Corinth in control of two major harbors, both of which were booming, as well as in 184command of the most popular trade route between Asia and Rome.

While much of Corinth had been torched by Rome in 146 BCE for being a member of the Achaean League, the Romans left the old marketplace and Apollo’s Temple intact. And then showing that bygones could be bygones, between 46 and 44 BCE, Julius Caesar used Roman capital to rebuild the city, naming the shining new metropolis “Corinth – the praise of Julius.” All the old temples were restored, even enlarged, while new shops and public buildings were constructed. The Romans even bestowed upon this thriving metropolis a grand 14,000-seat amphitheater and a combined agora forum edifice that was larger and more beautiful than any in Rome. New waterways were built to quench the growing city’s thirst. The population, which was almost entirely Greek, with a smattering of retired Romans, Phoenicians, and Phrygians, lived in what historians consider then to be the most beautiful, modern, and industrious community in the whole of Greece.

Further, if nefarious Christians were looking for the mythical “Judaizers,” there was only a small Jewish presence in Corinth. They had no political power or religious authority in this overtly pagan place. Roman law made it illegal for them to proselytize. There is no rational way to bring rabbis or their oral law into this equation. They were doing their best to blend in and be inconspicuous. Fact is, Jews idolized Greeks, adopting as many Greek ideas as did the Romans.

Therefore, recognizing that the Pauline adversary could be none other than Yahowah and His Torah, the final atrocity becomes circumcision – which Paul sees as a cruel and counterproductive mutilation of the flesh. The symbol of the Covenant would become his primary foe. Therefore, set in the midst of his insane Corinthian lecture, and aware of what Paul has written in Galatians, the most rational 185interpretation of this irrational train of thought is that Satan is suggesting through Paul that Yahowah is deliberately abusive. It is as if we were watching a scene from The Devil’s Advocate, as Al Pacino lectures Keanu Reeves.

The NASB published: “For you bear with anyone if he enslaves you, if he devours you, if he takes advantage of you, if he exalts himself, if he hits you in the face.” Considering that Paul will soon say that his enemies are “Hebrews, Yisra’elites, and descendants of Abraham” who ran afoul of him by promoting the merits of the Torah, this is clearly an attack on Yahowah and His people. And when we witness a bias against Yahowah and Yahuwdym of this magnitude, the instigator is Satan. As it was with the New Testament, so it would be with the Quran.

In his next statement, Sha’uwl is inferring that Yahowah and His Towrah are an “atimia – disgrace.” He wants us to see the Word of God as “disparaging and dishonorable.” Rather than prescriptions for living, according to the pretend-apostle, God’s guidance “astheneo – weakens” mankind, “incapacitating” people, while causing humanity to be “powerless.” And so in these words, we see Satan clawing his way above God by demeaning his rival.

According to Sha’uwl, the correct response is “tolmao – to dare to become extremely” “aphrosyne – stupid, irrational, and ignorant, indeed, completely thoughtless.” While it is the perfect recipe for belief, it is also, well, aphrosyne. If not psychotic and delusional, then Merriam-Webster needs to redefine its terms.

“Relative to (kata) this disgrace and shame (atimia – this dishonorable approach, this vile ignominy and disparaging way), I say (lego), in this manner (os) that (oti) we (emeis) have been weakened and have become powerless (astheneo – we have become incapacitated and diseased, infirmed and feeble, through corruption and 186perversion).

But (de) in (en) this (o), whomsoever (an tis) might dare be so extreme (tolmao – may be so bold and fearless, defiantly go so far regardless of the opposition (present active subjunctive)) in (en) foolishness (aphrosyne – thoughtless ignorance, foolish folly without reflection or consideration, reckless stupidity, and rash senselessness and irrationality), I say (lego), I also (kayo) am extremely daring and bold in opposition (tolmao kago – have the courage to actually and actively defy (present active indicative)).” (2 Corinthians 11:21)

Well, finally we agree on something. It is extremely foolish and exceptionally daring to be in opposition to God.

However, if you think that the Creator of the universe, the Architect of life, the Author of the Towrah, the Father of the Covenant, and the one committed to making us immortal and perfect, to adopting us, enriching, empowering, and enlightening us, is a “disgrace” seeking to “weaken” us instead, and believe that “the way” He provided for us to “approach” Him is “dishonorable and ignominious, disparaging” us, in addition to being “enslaving, exploitive, and controlling,” then you may be aphrosyne. But better that than tolmao – or, if you prefer English, psychotic and delusional.

Ladies and gentlemen, we now have Paul’s answer to God: Ignore Him. Disregard His Towrah. Do not think. Ignorance is bliss. Faith rules.

You can almost hear him saying, “Sure, my opposition to God is senseless, and you would have to be an idiot to believe that I’m speaking for Yahowah when I am constantly contradicting and demeaning Him, but if you don’t think about any of this, none of it will bother you.”

To be “bold and senseless,” at the same time, is to be blindly patriotic, to be resolutely religious, or to be a 187political zealot as a Progressive or Conspiratorialist. This mantra reflects Machiavelli’s approach to power, where the end justifies the means, where truth is irrelevant, and where daring in the extreme becomes the ultimate weapon.

The Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear renders Paul’s words in this fashion: “By dishonor I say as that we have weakened. In what but some might dare in thoughtlessness I say dare also I.” Also dealing with 2 Corinthians 11:21, the New American Standard Bible ignored “lego – I say” toward the beginning of this rather ignorant and irrational statement, and added “my,” “must,” “by comparison,” and “else,” as well as the parenthetical, without textual support. “To my shame I must say that we have been weak by comparison. But in whatever respect anyone else is bold (I speak in foolishness), I am just as bold myself.”

Noticing the parenthetical, I am compelled to tell you that the NASB added “(I speak as if insane)” in the midst of Paul’s comments in the 23^rd verse of 2^nd Corinthians 11. And should you wonder, it is in the 22^nd and 24^th verses that Paul lists his adversaries who, as I have mentioned, are not so coincidently Satan’s foes: “Hebrews, Yisra’elites, the descendants of Abraham, and Yahuwdym (Jews).”

Yahowah’s Chosen People were now ensconced as Paul’s enemies. As a result, Christianity would dehumanize and demonize Jews for a millennium, subjugating and persecuting them. And while there is something exceedingly creepy about Paul’s continued self-indulgence, his delusions and paranoia, and his inability to even feign respect for Gospel Jesus, my concern and God’s is the hell his mental illness and demon-possession brought upon Yisra’el.

Frankly, Yahowah does not much care how believers squander their souls so long as they don’t harm His people in the process. But alas, that is what Christianity, Judaism, 188Islam, Conspiracy, and Progressivism have done.

Before we move on, note that “astheneo – we have become incapacitated and diseased, infirmed and feeble, weakened and powerless through corruption and perversion” is the verbal form of astheneia – something Paul will revel in and boast about. Here he is attributing the incapacitation borne of corruption to God and His Torah. But soon he will ascribe this condition to himself, to Satan, and to the Graces. It is one of the most astonishing and awkward juxtapositions ever recorded.

So now that Sha’uwl has openly acknowledged that he is more daring in his pursuit of stupidity than anyone, and that he is in bold opposition to evidence and reason, let’s examine his list of those whom we must assume are his foes, and thus irrational representatives of the truth. Paul, like Muhammad after him, was a self-loathing Jew.

“Are they (eisin – presently and actually existing as) Hebrews (Hebraios – a transliteration of the Hebrew ‘Ibry – a Realm Set Apart and a Place Beyond Passover), as am I (kayo – and likewise me)? Are they (eisin – presently and actually existing as) Israelites (Israelites – an adaptation and transliteration of the Hebrew Yisra’el – Individuals who Engage and Endure with God), as am I (kayo – and likewise me)? Are they (eisin – presently and actually existing as) the seed (sperma – the descendants and offspring) of Abraam (Abraam – a transliteration of ‘Abram – Uplifting Father (from ‘ab – father and ruwm – to uplift)), as am I (kayo – and likewise me)?” (2 Corinthians 11:22)

As is the case with most duplicitous individuals, Sha’uwl wants to claim every scrap of legitimacy for himself, even when trying to undermine the very same sources with which he is claiming affiliation. It is as if he wants the reader to believe that since he is a Hebrew Yisra’elite, it is somehow appropriate for him to discredit 189them. I suppose it is like some African Americans believing that it is excusable for them to refer to their race using the “N” word, while it would be considered hateful for someone outside their community to say it.

This propensity is seen in American and European Jews marching alongside Muslims in support of Islamic terrorism being deployed against Israel. It is seen as Paul’s insistence on misquoting the Towrah to support his positions which are all opposed to the Towrah.

In this light, it is telling that Sha’uwl not only changed his Hebrew name to Paulos, which is of Latin (and thus Roman) origin, but also chose to disregard the name Yahowah gave to ‘Abram after he responded to the terms of the Covenant – ‘Abraham | Merciful and Enriching Father. It speaks volumes about Sha’uwl’s disrespect for all things Yahowah and His Covenant.

There is another aspect of this statement which is troubling to those who are informed and rational. In Galatians, Paul’s first letter, he intensifies his assault against the Towrah by stating in Galatians 3:16 that the “seed” of Abraham was singular, and that it referred exclusively to “Christos,” thereby excluding all other descendants of Abraham, and thus the Hebrews and Yisra’elites – and by implication, the Towrah as well as Dowd. But now, he has expressly stated that he, himself, is the “seed of Abraam.” This either means that Paul is presenting himself as the “Christos,” and thus as the Christian Messiah, or that he is an irrational hypocrite because by doing this he just undermined his premise for discarding the Torah.

The next “are they” should have been cataloged with the previous three. It is designed to undermine Hebrews, Yisra’elites, and the offspring of Abraham, disassociating them from the religion started by a Jewish cast of characters, all so that their testimony can be disregarded. 190After all, according to Paul, unlike him, they are not attending to Christou. And no wonder, because there is no Christou in the Towrah.

“Are they (eisin – presently and actually existing as) servants running errands (diakonos – helpers, attendants, and ministers) for Christou (ΧΡΥ – Divine Placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement to usurp the Septuagint’s credibility and infer Divinity)?” (2 Corinthians 11:23)

And here is the payoff line, proving that our diagnosis of Paul continues to be valid. This man who was obviously psychotic and delusional, indeed, schizophrenic, wrote:

“Having become insane (paraphroneo – having become deranged, completely irrational, and out of my mind, being senseless and devoid of understanding, manic and mad; from para – of, with, and from, and phroneo – to hold a high opinion of oneself regarding the inability to be perceptive and rational (scribed in the present tense, this is his current status, in the active voice he is doing this to himself, in participle form he is defining himself as deranged using a verbal adjective, in the singular masculine this pertains to Paul alone, and in the nominative the verb should be written to be irrational or having become insane)), I speak (lalo – I currently, actively, and actually say (present active indicative)) for the sake of and about (hyper – for and of) Myself (ego – I, me and my) with (en – in) exceedingly great works and labors beyond compare (kopos perissoteros – extraordinary burdens in abundance and superiority, but also beatings and bothersome difficulties beyond what others could bear) through (en – with) overwhelming imprisonment by an abundance of guards (phylake perissoteros – an exceedingly great number of prisons, jails, and posted guards, all beyond compare) with (en – in) extremely severe beatings and blows (plege hyperballontos – floggings and punishments beyond measure, a greater 191degree of wounds and sufferings than endured by anyone else, exceedingly severe plagues and diseases), in (en – with) dying (thanatos – death) many times (pollakis – often, again and again).” (2 Corinthians 11:23)

The man, who admitted to being demon-possessed during this same delusional hallucination, has now acknowledged being insane – to being completely out of his mind. Paul has lost all touch with reality. He has become the very definition of psychotic.

He is so unhinged, after admitting that he is insane, he proves it. But before revealing the imaginary battles being waged in his mind, Paul acknowledges what we have concluded based upon what he has written – this has always been about Paul, not God.

Fantasizing about himself, Sha’uwl claims to have endured more than his alleged god-man – the aforementioned Iesou Christou. With all evidence to the contrary, he lies and says that he was imprisoned by an abundance of guards in a great many jails and being flogged and beaten beyond what a mere mortal could endure. Now a god in his own tortured mind, he presents himself dying for his cause over and over again – necessitating many resurrections. According to Paul, he has done more for the cause than even his coconspirator, collaborator, and Lord – Satan.

This is getting so out of hand, so obviously delusional, egomaniacal, and psychotic, ha Satan would soon intervene to restrain the Devil’s Advocate. As Sha’uwl will admit, he has gone off the rails and overstepped his bounds. The kind of fame Sha’uwl was seeking requires a patron and sponsorship, one whose ego won’t tolerate a rival. Paul’s assignment had been to convince Greeks and Romans to worship Satan as if he were God, and to repudiate Yahowah, His Towrah and People in the process. But now Paul was claiming that role for himself.

192So how is it that the ravings of this madman have become the basis of the world’s most popular religion? How is it that billions believe him, even when he rants about himself while contradicting and demeaning God? Why would anyone in their right mind consider this rubbish to be “Scripture?”

Evidently, the answer is that psychosis is contagious – much like a plague. And when the pandemic affects a lot of people, they call it religion. And while psychosis in the individual is tragic, mass psychosis becomes known as religion.

While Paulos will soon blame Satan for his indiscretions and foibles, including being beaten and guarded, at this point in his narrative, he would like us to believe that it was all the fault of those dastardly Jews. Satan’s enemy had become Paul’s foe. They had made him crazy and then they had excessively burdened him, constantly imprisoning him, savagely beating him, only to kill him multiple times – well, that is if you’re prone to believe Paul.

However, if you prefer sanity, Yahuwdym (Jews) did not have the authority or the inclination to do any of these things in Corinth, Thessalonica, Galatia, Rome, Damascus, Tarsus, or any of the other places Paulos traveled, proving once again that the founder of the Christian religion was delusional. And if you would prefer simple logic over history, anyone who claims to have been killed often, as in many times, might not be entirely sane.

While I have had more than my share of near-death experiences, having nearly lost my life a number of times, boasting about them would never occur to me. More to the point, I did not die on any of these occasions, much less during many of them.

And while I have taken more than my fair share of lumps for opposing Muhammad and Paul, as well as 193Rabbis, the abuse I have endured pales in comparison to the satisfaction associated with sharing Yah’s Word. I have never once been anxious, not even during the many thousands of radio interviews I have done against religion and in support of my God. I have never wanted for anything that Yahowah did not provide. I have never felt alone. I have always recognized that I have gained vastly more than I have given. I am protected and loved, uplifted and enriched, enlightened and liberated while conveying Yahowah’s message. Therefore, it is obvious that there was something dreadfully wrong with Paul’s approach.

Continuing to hallucinate, the delirious and deranged false prophet wrote...

“By Yahuwdym | Jews (Ioudaios – a rather pathetic attempt to transliterate Yahuwdym – Beloved of Yah; further corrupted to Jews) five times, forty besides one, I received. (2 Corinthians 11:24) Three times I was beaten with sticks, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked. A night and a day (nychthemeron – for 24-hours), I was caused to drown in the depths (bythos – plunge to the bottom, sinking into the deep or abyss; from bythizo – sinking, plunging, and drowning as cause and consequence and bathos – deep and depth). (2 Corinthians 11:25)

Many times in perilous journeys, in dangerous rivers, in threats from bandits, from perilous kin, from hazardous races, in a threatening city, in perilous solitude, in a dangerous body of water, by pseudo brothers, (2 Corinthians 11:26) in bothersome and difficult work and in toilsome hardship, in constant sleeplessness, in prolonged, severe hunger and thirst, infrequently going without food, in cold and nakedness, (2 Corinthians 11:27) independently and by myself (choris – without help, apart, alone, disassociated, and separated, estranged without a relationship), beyond the constant stopping to quell rebellions (o epistasis – of 194halting to suppress attacks and upheavals, of the pressure, concern, the burden of authority, and disturbing hindrance associated with riotous mobs) of the extent of my daily anxiety and distracting care of all of the called-out assemblies. (2 Corinthians 11:28)

Not only was Paulos killed multiple times, but he also facilitated his own personal resurrections. He would outdo the fables of Jonah, having spent twenty-four hours at the bottom of the sea. In that the maximum depth of the Aegean Sea is 11,624 feet just east of Crete, it is easy to see why he put this remarkable feat on his résumé.

Every reference to that which was perilous, dangerous, and threatening came from kindynos. It was repeated after journeys, rivers, bandits, kin, races, a city, solitude or perhaps a desert, and a body of water, which I suppose was a lake because he had already mentioned his derring-do on the high seas. So maybe it’s just me, but if in addition to all of this, I had been overburdened, severely beaten, and killed multiple times, and had received thirty-nine lashes five times, had been attacked by sticks and stones, even shipwrecked, I might look for a better god. But I suppose, since their crucifix presents a tortured and dead god on a stick, it may never have occurred to Christians that their god cares about such things.

I realize that Yahowah is not a micromanager, but He protected the Children of Yisra’el when they were in the wilderness with Him. He kept those who sought to harm them at bay. He fed them, quenched their thirst, and tended to their clothing. He bore their burdens, doing all the heavy lifting Himself. He even endured their embittered betrayals while assisting them. So, it is obvious that the God of Yisra’el and Paulos’ god are different.

Pathetic as ever, the naked, emaciated, and mutilated apostle of an absentee god was annoyed because he had to “epistasis – constantly stop what he was doing to quell 195rebellions, to halt upheavals, and to suppress attacks from riotous mobs which became a disturbing hindrance.” Therefore, if even marginally true and stripped of hyperbole, the world’s most infamous punching bag must have simultaneously been the forerunner of the Zombie Apocalypse.

And all the while, there was anxiety over the distracting care of all of those assemblies. In his own mind, he was superhuman, a phenomenon of epic proportions. He was also demon-possessed and insane, but who of us is perfect?

Rather than conveying the extent and purpose of Dowd’s Passover sacrifice and how it relates to our immortality, rather than explaining what transpired during UnYeasted Bread to perfect us, enabling our adoption, on Firstborn Children, Sha’uwl | Paul made this all about himself, claiming imaginary ordeals without reason or merit. The Devil’s Advocate was fixated on delineating his personal afflictions, some self-inflicted, others imagined, even though they are absolutely of no value to anyone, nor do they have any bearing on salvation.

Beyond the anguishing litany of abuse, if we are to judge the validity of a message by the extent of the messenger’s torments, rather than the merit of their testimony, we should turn to the Quran and worship Allah based upon a jihadist’s desire to sacrifice his life killing others. Sure, the motivation is delusional, and the result is counterproductive, but the terror is real.

Ironically, Sha’uwl | Paul described his ordeal on the road to Damascus similarly. He was incapacitated, crippled, and blinded by his god. If only he had been killed.

That said, Paul’s depiction of his conversion experience, of the Jerusalem Summit, and of his interactions with Jews were all contradictory and inaccurate – even inarticulate. Therefore, the likelihood 196that Paul endured any of these things was remote. And yet it is hard to miss the intent: Sha’uwl had surpassed his god in the quotient of personal sacrifices. Or, Paul, like Muhammad after him, became the corporeal manifestation of his Lord.

Problems abound in his last statement. First among them: by using “parektos – in addition” and “choris – separately and estranged” in succession, we are compelled to render choris as “without any help,” as in “independently, apart from any relationship,” as opposed to translating it “besides.” In other words, Paul is not saying “in addition as in besides,” but instead, “beyond being beaten up, and going to bed hungry and cold, I alone have borne the burden of suppressing riots and caring for all of the assemblies.” So now, even the pretense of representing the Messiah is gone. It is Paul against the world in addition to being against God.

It is not often that we are afforded such a window into a deranged and psychotic mind. But Paul, in addition to being insane, was a megalomaniac. He was ever ready to expose his mental illness. It is as if he was celebrating it.

And now he seems to be telling us that when he is empowered, Yahowah and His Towrah are weakened, becoming incapacitated and impotent. And that so long as he is not shot down in flames, God’s credibility is questioned, with His Towrah becoming unbelievable as a result of having been slandered and scandalized.

“Who is weakened and incapacitated (tis astheneo – what is powerless, incapable, and impotent by being corrupted and perverted) when I am not incapacitated nor weak (kai ouk astheneo)? Who stumbles, ceasing to be credible (tis skandalizomai – what is slandered and scandalized becoming unbelievable, even offensive, being trapped, distrusted and deserted) when I am not (kai ouk ego) myself destroyed in the fire (pyroomai – myself 197consumed by flames, burning with passion, greatly worried and distressed, tempted with desires, or aroused sexually, incensed or indignant)? (2 Corinthians 11:29) So since it is necessary to brag (ei kauchasthai dei) of my limitation and weakness (ta tes astheneia mou – of this infirmity, lack of insight, frailty, incompetence and inadequacy of mine), I will boast (astheneia – I will brag, glorifying myself).” (2 Corinthians 11:30)

Commenting upon 2 Corinthians 11:21, I previously alerted you to the fact that Paul would transition from attributing the process of astheneo, and thus the concept of astheneia, from God to himself. That is beginning here. He is saying that the negative aspects of astheneo / astheneia befall God when they are not attributed to him. Therefore, it is germane for you to realize that astheneo / astheneia depict: “perversions which have made us ill, inadequacies and infirmities caused by our corruptions.” They speak of “sicknesses borne of our dishonesty, weakness which results from our tendency to defile and profane, dishonoring that which is set apart.”

We are witnessing “incapacitation, weakness, and lack of insights derived from a willingness to pollute and sully the established conditions.” I will demonstrate the authenticity of this amplified definition in the context of the Passover Lamb when we consider 2 Corinthians 12:9. We will do so in concert with Satan’s influence on Sha’uwl’s life, and with the effect of the Graces.

When we consider the implications of what this man just wrote in this light, the implication is that Paul is suggesting that, even bridled by his Lord, even beaten and bruised by Jews, even starved and naked, even distracted by riotous mobs, even fighting off pesky thieves, even fording perilous rivers and dangerous waters, oh my, he is still able to thwart God by perverting His testimony. And if these afflictions are not what he is bragging about overcoming to incapacitate the most trustworthy and 198noteworthy foe, then what and who is he boasting about besting?

The notion of glorifying oneself in association with God should make us nauseous. For example, when someone credits something I have written with being responsible for them coming to know Yah, I cringe. All I am doing is sharing His message. It is His testimony, not mine, and He is doing all the work. I am nothing more than a flawed implement who is a beneficiary of the same guidance. So to brag about besting God is beyond my comprehension. It is beyond my capacity to understand why anyone would purposefully try to slander and undermine the most brilliant, loving, and generous individual in the universe. I love my Dad, and I am grateful for everything He has done for us – especially since we are offering relatively little in return.

After what we have just read, Paul’s next statement is that of a delusional megalomaniac...

“The God (o ΘΣ – the Divine Placeholder for Theos | God) and father (pater) of the Lord (tou ΚΥ – a placeholder used to convey kurios, giving the Greek word for lord and master a divine sheen) Iesou (ΙΗΥ – placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Iesou which became “Jesus” in the 17^th century after the invention of the letter “J”) has known (oida – has actually and completely been aware of and has recognized and acknowledged) the one being (o on) praised and worthy of commendation (eulogetos – one being blessed; from eulogeo – with praiseworthy words and beneficial speech) throughout the universe and forever (eis tous aion) because (hoti) I absolutely cannot lie (ou pseudomai – could never deceive or mislead by speaking falsely or conveying anything that is not true).” (2 Corinthians 11:31)

Paul wants us to believe that he, like Yirma’yah | Jeremiah and Yasha’yah | Isaiah, was known to God before 199he was born. He has become the most highly praised individual in the universe. Therefore now, simply laying claim to the Gentile world was insufficient. So in the midst of this braggadocious diatribe, and with Sha’uwl presenting himself as the source of universal truth, the most rational conclusion is that this may be Sha’uwl’s most presumptuous and delusional statement thus far.

However, there may be a glimmer of truth in these words, especially when we recognize that Sha’uwl’s Lord is auditioning for the role of God. Through Paulos, Satan wants to father a different covenant by way of his New Testament, thereby causing the existing one to be considered obsolete. And as the means to this madness, the Adversary must recast Iesou as his ally and Yahowah’s adversary.

What the Devil could not achieve by tempting the feigned Messiah in the wilderness, he would accomplish by having Paul claim that he was the lone authorized apostle for the Christou. This enabled Paul to construct a revisionist and preplacement identity, to corrupt the testimony attributed to him, and to counterfeit every aspect of the Messiah’s life. By claiming to be the chosen one, the one whose words were praiseworthy and commendable, the one whose message was universal and eternal, and as the one who could never lie, for the gullible, it was mission accomplished. All Sha’uwl and his Lord had to do now was play the cards from the hand they had dealt to themselves from the bottom of the deck.

While every aspect of this premise is invalid, once the poison is ingested, the antidote, which is Moseh’s presentation of the Towrah and Dowd’s fulfillment of it, is discarded. And with the remedy removed, the venom paralyzes its victims. For example, this statement by itself is irrational. In the midst of discrediting and invalidating God’s previous testimony, Paulos is claiming that this same unreliable God can be trusted to provide him with a 200universal endorsement. Equally absurd, the God whose testimony is to be forgotten is then presented as knowing and remembering, while the newly minted source of universal and everlasting truth is unaware and forgetful.

Only a deceptive man would say that he cannot lie. It is yet another telling sign of this delusional man’s craving for acclaim and validation. Those who suffer from his infirmity habitually deceive, all while claiming that they are “truth tellers.” Paul is a classic case. And few things he said were more incriminating than what he had previously stated to this same audience:

“And (kai) I became (ginomai) to the (tois) Jews (Ioudaios – a crude transliteration of Yahuwdym, meaning Related to Yahowah) like (hos) Jews (Ioudaios) in order that (hina) I might make a profit by procuring an advantage over (kerdaino) Jews (Ioudaios).

To those (tois) under (hypo) Towrah (nomon), in such a way to show a weak relationship (hos) under (hypo) Towrah (nomon), not being himself (me on autos) under (hypo) Towrah (nomon), for the purpose that (hina) those under (tous hypo) Towrah (nomon) I might make a profit by procuring an advantage over (kerdaino). (1 Corinthians 9:20)

To those (tois) Towrahless and thus without the Towrah (anomois), in such a way to show a relationship with (hos) Towrahless (anomois), not being (me on) Towrahless (anomois) of God (theou), to the contrary and making a contrast (alla), in the Torah (ennomos) of Christou (Christou – foolishly transliterated from the Greek as “Christ” and errantly used as if a name; from chrio – which speaks of the application of drugs and medicinal ointments) in order that (hina) I might make a profit by procuring an advantage and winning over (kerdaino) those without the Towrah (tous anomois). (1 Corinthians 9:21)

201I came to exist (ginomai) to the (tois) incompetent and morally weak (asthenes), incapacitated and inadequate (asthenes), in order that (hina) those (tous) impotent and sick (asthenes) I might make a profit by procuring an advantage over (kerdaino).

To everyone (tois pasin) I have become (ginomai) every kind of thing (panta) in order that (hina) surely by all means (pantos) some (tinas) I might save (sozo).” (1 Corinthians 9:20-22)

More simply stated, Paul was deliberately deceptive. He even lied about lying.

I would be remiss if I did not tell you that when Paul admitted to being “weak and sick” he used asthenes, the adjective variation of the verb astheneo and the noun astheneia. Therefore, he was admitting to being: “weak as a result of his corruptions and sick due to his perversions.”

We do not have to look far to find another deliberate deception. What follows is not only inaccurate, it is both irrelevant and incongruous.

“In Damascus (en Damasko), the official appointed by (ethnarches – the governor with the royal authority of) King Aretas (tou basileus Areta) was posting guards against the city (phroureo ten polis) of Damascus (Damaskenon) to capture and arrest me (piazo me – to catch and seize me). (2 Corinthians 11:32) But through a small opening in a wall (kai dia thuridos – and by a diminutive aperture, tiny window, or little door) in a woven basket (en sargane – with a twine hamper), I was let down (chalao – I was lowered, released gradually by slackening the line) through a city wall (dia tou teichos) and I fled, escaping (kai ekpheugo – I ran away to avoid) the hands of him (tas cheir autou).” (2 Corinthians 11:33)

In Galatians 1:18, Paul wrote that three years transpired prior to his initial visit to Yaruwshalaim. He said 202that he traveled throughout Syria and Cilicia thereafter in Galatians 1:21. Then in Galatians 2:1, Paul stated that another fourteen years passed before he, Barnabas, and Titus went back to Yaruwshalaim for the summit with the disciples Yahowchanan, Shim’own, and Ya’aqob. That meeting took place in 50 CE. This totals 18 years.

King Aretas is a bit of an enigma. The notion that Aretas controlled Damascus between the death of Herod Philip in 33 to 34 CE and his death in 40 CE is contradicted by substantial proof against the possibility that Aretas had any influence over the city prior to 37 CE. There is also considerable evidence to demonstrate that control could not have been a gift from Caligula between 37 and 40 CE. In fact, from a historical perspective, there is no support for the Pauline proposition that troops belonging to Aretas controlled Damascus at that time, or at any time.

Putting the historically inaccurate reference to King Aretas aside, even the timeline is fictitious. Subtract eighteen years from 50 CE and the Moses-wannabe is in the basket circa 32 CE, a year before Dowd’s fulfillment of Passover. And if Paul’s revisionist timeline prevails, then there could not have been a Damascan official present appointed by Aretas. Moreover, there would be no reason for Sha’uwl to have been sought out for arrest by anyone, much less by a Nabataean king, following his encounter with a lightning bolt.

Further discrediting Sha’uwl’s testimony, in Acts 9:23-26, we were told that “Jews plotted together to do away with him,” and that “their plot became known to Sha’uwl.” These same Jews “were watching the gates day and night so that they might put him to death,” which is why “his disciples took him by night and let him down through the wall, lowering him in a basket.” But now the foe is King Aretas, a Nabataean, and therefore not a Jew.

Even more incriminating, Aretas would never have 203deployed Jewish guards. This is because his daughter had married Herod Antipas. But when Herod divorced Phasaelis to take his brother’s wife, Aretas, to avenge his daughter’s honor, invaded Yahuwdah and defeated Herod. In the process, he captured the West Bank of the Jordan River. In response, Herod complained to Emperor Tiberius, who dispatched the governor of Syria to deter Aretas. The attack, however, was not actually carried out because of Emperor Tiberius’ death in 37 CE. But with all of this positioning and intrigue, suffice it to say, there is no chance that Aretas had control over Syria, and thus Damascus, during this period. And even if so, the last people he would have assisted would have been Jews. Therefore, by reviewing Aretas’ history, Paul’s evolving and conflicting stories are exposed as contradictory fabrications – not that we needed additional proof of psychosis.

Collectively, this means that Paul was not only a false prophet, he was unable to keep his own history straight. So much for the myth that he was not able to lie.



Paul is doing such a great job incriminating himself to the Corinthians, let’s stick around a little longer to see how this plays out. After all, this psychotic megalomaniac bamboozled billions of people with this soaring rhetoric.

“It is necessary to brag (kauchaomai dei), not advantageous (ou symphero – not beneficial). But now (de) as affirmation (men – indeed, surely and truly), I will go (erchomai – I will come) onto supernatural visions (eis optasia – to what appears to the mind by supernatural means) and (kai) revelations (apokalypsis – revealing disclosures, uncovering and unveilings) of the Lord (ΚΥ – a placeholder used to convey kurios, giving the Greek word for lord and master a Divine sheen).” (2 Corinthians 20412:1)

I stand corrected. Paul has finally conveyed something that is true. While only an idiot would brag about doing something that is disadvantageous, Paul has provided proof that his visions and revelations came from the Lord. And since the Lord is Satan, that indeed is detrimental.

In that this soliloquy is condemnable in the extreme, as we make our way through it, let’s also consider the Christian spin of Sha’uwl’s stunning confessions. Here is what was scribed in the King James Authorized Version: “It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.” Francis Bacon, the egotistical occultist and humanist who I have concluded guided the publication of the King James Bible on behalf of his pontiff, purposefully deceived Christians with this rendering. Turns out it was an inaccurate paraphrase of the Latin Vulgate: “If I must glory (it is not expedient indeed) but I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.”

Always ready to put lipstick on their favorite swine, the authors of the New Living Translation published: “This boasting will do no good, but I must go on. I will reluctantly tell about visions and revelations from the Lord.”

One way to avoid lying, I suppose, is to say that you cannot remember. But when these events are allegedly transformative episodes in your life, encounters which provide your authority, that will not fly. Nonetheless...

“I am aware of (oida – I know, recognize, recall, or acknowledge) a man (anthropos) in (en) Christo (ΙὨ – placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement to usurp the Septuagint’s credibility and infer divinity) before fourteen years (pro etos dekatessares) whether if (eite) in (en) body (soma – as a physical being) I do not know (ouk oida – I am unaware and do not recall) or if (eite) outside the 205body (ektos tou somatos – disassociated from a physical being) I do not recall or remember (ouk oida – I do not know, I am unaware, and I will not acknowledge).

The God (ΘΣ – placeholder for theos | god), He has known and has remembered (oiden – he has recognized, recalled, and acknowledged) having been violently seized and snatched away (harpazo – having been viciously attacked, ravenously plundered, forcibly possessed, harshly controlled, carried away, swindled, and extorted) like this (ton toioutos – in this kind of way) until (heos – as far as) the third heaven (tritos ouranos).” (2 Corinthians 12:2)

If he cannot remember how he allegedly met with his god, whether he was out of his body or just out of his mind, how does he know whom he met or what he was told? And if he cannot recall what happened, why did he provide three detailed, albeit conflicting, accounts for Luke to record in Acts? Also, if his god can be counted upon to remember them, there would be no reason for Paul to ask us to forget what he said. Or should we stop trying to make sense of the senseless and consider all of these deranged musings and hallucinations as the product of an insane mind?

It is a minor point, but Paul seems to have forgotten his prior testimony, leaving off the three years he claims that he spent in Arabia getting his message straight from his Lord, and his subsequent march through Syria and Cilicia. And while that means he lied about how he claimed his god had prepared him for his mission, it also suggests that he went directly from killing to preaching, one week to the next. Also, if you are doing some recalculations, Paul’s claim to have fled Damascus as a basket-case is further suspect.

And speaking of psychotic delusions, since this god is the subject of both “oiden – he has known” and “harpazo – having been violently seized and snatched away,” in the 206sequential application of verbs, this means that “god, himself, acknowledges that he has been viciously attacked, controlled and extorted in this way.” To some extent this is true. Sha’uwl and Satan have attacked God, snatching away that which is most dear to Him, His Covenant, swindling Him of His Towrah, and plundering Him of countless children.

Sha’uwl, whom we now know is the wolf in sheep’s clothing, in a previous letter (1 Thessalonians 4:17), associated the term “harpazo – snatched away,” with his false prophecy regarding the “harpazo – rapture,” the vicious snatching away that he errantly predicted would occur during his lifetime. He remained fixated upon the characteristics so often ascribed to wolves: violently seizing and snatching away the most vulnerable prey, viciously and ravenously attacking.

It is interesting here that Gospel Jesus’ description of the harvest of souls, known to Christians as “the rapture” (from Matthew 24:40), is transcribed using the Greek word paralambano, which means “to receive at an appointed time, to welcome and accept as a companion, to gather individuals, bringing them together, and joining with them.” It is from para, meaning “with, beside, and near, speaking of proximity and association,” and lambano, “to take someone by the hand, to remove them, and to carry them away.” So, Gospel Jesus and the Epistle’s Apostle are not on the same page.

Speaking of this same event, Sha’uwl used harpazo (in 1 Thessalonians 4:17) to say that he, and those who believe him, will be “seized and violently snatched away, attacked and controlled, possessed and physically harassed such that they are carried away by force, plundered and looted.” The verbs paralambano and harpazo describe the difference between the myth and the man.

Also relevant, “shamaym – heavens” is always plural 207according to Yahowah. That is likely because we can see the sky above us and the stars beyond. These comprise everything from the earth’s atmosphere to the furthest galaxies, and thus everything within the physical universe. Then an unseen heaven exists within the spiritual realm. But why let God’s testimony get in the way of a good story?

Once again, the KJV: “I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven” copied the LV: “I know a man in Christ: above fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I know not, or out of the body, I know not: God knoweth), such a one caught up to the third heaven.” NLT: “I was caught up to the third heaven fourteen years ago. Whether I was in my body or out of my body, I don’t know—only God knows.”

Having invested six years studying everything that can be known about Muhammad and his formation of Islam, I realize that he made the same pronouncement, albeit his claim was to have flown upon a winged ass, making it a bit more colorful. Even Muhammad’s initial confrontation with Satan’s envoy in the cave was described identically to harpazo. Muhammad said that he was “forcibly and violently seized by the spirit,” that it “attacked and controlled him,” also revealing that it “possessed” him. The only difference is that Muhammad went from the “third heaven” to the “seventh heaven,” where he met Allah, who told him that he wanted to be “mooned,” 50 times a day, with repeated prostrations. (These parallel stories are revealed in the “With Whom Am I Speaking” and “Allah’s Delusions of Grandeur” chapters of God Damn Religion.)

Beyond the galactic tour, Muhammad’s “I cannot say for sure. Allah knows best,” line sounds similar. Rivaling Paul’s credibility, according to the Islamic scriptures, a succession of Adam, then men with camel mouths and 208rocks emerging from their behinds, followed by tortured women hanging from their breasts, lived adjacent to the first heaven. There was even a damsel with red lips who pleased Muhammad much. Issa (the Quranic “Jesus”) and Yahya (the Quranic “John”) were relegated to the second heaven. Rising above them in Allah’s third heaven, Sha’uwl would have met “Joseph,” at least according to Muhammad. Climbing the prophetic ladder, the Quran and Hadith reveal that Sha’uwl would have encountered Enoch and then Aaron in the fourth and fifth heavens. According to Muhammad, the sixth heaven was occupied by the man whose Torah both he and Sha’uwl renounced – Moseh. Then in the seventh heaven, we find the Pen, Allah’s House, angels performing prostration prayers, a tree whose fruit resembled clay jugs, and the headwaters of the Euphrates and Nile Rivers. Muhammad’s myths were more imaginative than Paul’s. But then again, there may have been more ergot to go around.

Nevertheless, from a stylistic perspective, the out-of-body experience is pretty weird...

“And (kai) I recall (oida – I know and remember, I am aware and acknowledge) as such (ton toioutos – like this) a man (anthropos) whether if (eite) in (en) body (soma – as a physical being) I do not know (ouk oida – I am unaware and do not recall) or if (eite) without the body (choris tou somatos – apart from a physical being) I do not recall or remember (ouk oida – I do not know, I am unaware, and I will not acknowledge).

The God (ΘΣ – placeholder for theos | god), he has known and has remembered (oiden – he has recognized, recalled, and acknowledged) (2C12:3) because (oti) he was viciously attacked and plundered, harshly controlled and extorted (harpazo – He was violently seized and snatched away, forcibly controlled, carried away, and swindled) approaching (eis – inside and with reference to) the paradise (ton paradeisos – a Babylonian 209/ Persian Sanskrit word for garden enclosure and hunting preserve) and he heard (kai akouo) words which cannot be spoken (arretos rhema – unspeakable and unsaid statements or matters which cannot be expressed; literally the unexpressed words) which it is not permissible, possible, or lawful (a ouk exesti – which ought not be obligatory; literally out of existence) for a man (anthropos) to speak (laleo).” (2 Corinthians 12:4)

There are no physical beings in the spiritual realm. Bodies would bar entry and be counterproductive. But beyond this, what is the purpose of revelation if we are left to believe someone who cannot remember?

Not recognizing that an “unspeakable word” is an oxymoron, the KJV wrote: “And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.” LV: “And I know such a man (whether in the body, or out of the body, I know not: God knoweth): That he was caught up into paradise and heard secret words which it is not granted to man to utter.” There is nothing “secret” about arrhetos. It is simply “the negation of rhetoric,” which speaks of “the nullification of effective communication.” It is the antithesis of “studying credible written texts” such as the Torah.” NLT: “Yes, only God knows whether I was in my body or outside my body. But I do know that I was caught up to paradise and heard things so astounding that they cannot be expressed in words, things no human is allowed to tell.”

They all missed the point: Satan took Sha’uwl to the place where the Word does not exist, and where its benefit has been nullified. It is the same place Paul has taken Christians. Today they call this godless place a “church.”

Loosely translated, he just told us: “I can’t say what I didn’t hear.” It reminds me of the old line: “I realize you 210think you understand what you thought I said but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.” So why bother?

But to Paul, hearing what he did not hear and saying what he could not say was the reason for him to brag, which he did while not boasting, unless self-glorification is evidenced by incapacitating timidity. I kid you not.

“On behalf of such things like this (hyper tou toioutos), I will actually boast (kauchaomai – I will brag, engaging in self-glorification, expressing pride in myself) for the sake of it (hyper). But myself (de emautou – so on my own accord) I will not brag (ou kauchaomai – I will not engage in self-glorification) if not (ei un) in the (en tais) incapacitating inadequacy of corruption and perversion (astheneia – infirmity and illness borne out of dishonesty, timidity and limitations associated with fraud, weakness and sickness derived from defiling and profaning, inadequacy and lack of insights caused by polluting and sullying the established conditions).” (2 Corinthians 12:5)

As promised, the transition is complete. Paul is associating “astheneia – the incapacitation of perversion and the inadequacy of corruption” to himself, bragging about the sickening fraud he is perpetrating. But other than to say a person would be unwise to trust this man, I am unable to make sense of this. So let’s move on to the payoff line – the reason we took this tour through Paul’s chaotic mind of devils and demons.

This will be the first time that we have approached Paul’s astonishing admission to having been demon-possessed from his perspective. He is on the cusp of explaining how he became “astheneia – inadequate, corrupt, incompetent, perverted, incapacitated, and defiled.

I realize that this has been a gut-wrenching journey to a place more horrible than anyone could have imagined. 211All we can hope for at this point is to keep as many souls as possible from following Sha’uwl into Satan’s Abyss – and that is why we are continuing to evaluate this material. KJV: “Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities.” LV: “For though I should have a mind to glory, I shall not be foolish: for I will say the truth. But I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth in me, or any thing he heareth from me.” NLT: “That experience is worth boasting about, but I'm not going to do it. I will boast only about my weaknesses.”

Next, we discover what incapacitated Paul’s capacity to glorify himself and learn what made him ill. Although to be fair, all attempts at the latter failed, and with regard to the former, it made billions spiritually sick.

“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 (hyperbole ton – preeminence and exceedingly great, transcendent, magnificent, and awe-inspiring aspects of the exaggerated and overstated) revelations (apokalypsis – disclosures with the appearance of instructions concerning the 212unknown).

Therefore (dio – it should be self-evident), in order that (hina – for the purpose that) I not become overly proud and become conceited (me hyperairomai – 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, with the likely root, skorpios meaning poisonous scorpion or 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 (me hyperairomai – I may not be overly proud or 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 12:7)

“Skolops – a sharp pointed stick used as a prod” by association with skorpios, “a stinger and a scorpion,” is akin to Paul’s use of “kentron – a sharp-pointed stick used to prod animals or the stinger of a scorpion” in Acts 26:14. There, Paul says that he was told by Dionysus in the guise 213of “Jesus,” that it would be hard to rebel against him. And that means Acts 26:14, which describes Paul’s meeting with the flashing light on the road to Damascus where he was told that he could not repel the goad, and 2^nd Corinthians 12:7, which describes the way Satan possessed and controlled Paul, are related. The common denominator is a false prophet and a wannabe god.

Greek words which are related to “skolops – a sharp-pointed prod,” include skopeo: “something dangerous to be on the lookout for, to notice by being carefully observant, and to be very concerned about.” Skopos is “a goal toward which someone is being directed, striving for a specific purpose.” Skorpizo is “to scatter, disperse, and separate.” Skorpois is “a supernatural demonic power and stinging scorpion.” Skotia depicts “a dark and evil realm.” Skotos describes “the abode of evil and demonic spirits.” And skolios is “to be unscrupulous and morally corrupt, to be perverse and deceitful, and to make serpentine what was once straight.”

Here are the Christian interpretations of 2 Corinthians 12:6-7 for your consideration. KJV: “For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me. And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.” LV: “For though I should have a mind to glory, I shall not be foolish: for I will say the truth. But I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth in me, or any thing he heareth from me. And lest the greatness of the revelations should exalt me, there was given me a sting of my flesh, an angel of Satanae / Satan, to buffet me.” NLT: “If I wanted to boast, I would be no fool in doing so, because I would be telling the truth. But I won't do it, because I don't want 214anyone to give me credit beyond what they can see in my life or hear in my message, even though I have received such wonderful revelations from God. So to keep me from becoming proud, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger from Satan to torment me and keep me from becoming proud.” The influential Catholic translation, the “Authorized” Protestant translation, and the recent Evangelical paraphrase, all say that “a messenger from Satan” was used to control Paul. And yet not one Christian in a million associates Paul’s “thorn in the flesh” with Satan, or with demon possession. Their religion has blinded them.

And now speaking directly to the Lord of demons, Satan, Sha’uwl wrote...

“Regarding this (hyper toutou – because of and about this), three times (tris) of the Lord (ton kupion – of the supernatural master who controls a person, the owner of slaves to whom someone belongs, the one who lords over and exercises supremacy, and the power to possess), I asked (parakaleo – I begged, urged, and pleaded) in order that (ina) it might be repelled (aphistamai – at some point it might possibly leave and be kept away, departing (aorist active subjunctive)), separated from me (apo emou – out of and disassociated from me).” (2 Corinthians 12:8)

Paul’s admission is even worse in context.

I do not suspect that Paulos enjoyed being demon-possessed. It must have been maddening and manipulative. So he pleaded with his spiritual accomplice, begging Satan to “aphistamai – to repel” the demon, not only “making it leave” but also “keeping it away.

Sha’uwl knew, of course, that every “messenger of Satan,” and thus every “demon,” served the Adversary and thus would obey its Lord. And just as arrhetos was the “negation of the word,” aphistemi is the antithesis of God’s purpose. Therefore, to be aphistemi is to be separated from 215Yahowah.

If you are looking for God’s help, if you want Him to respond to you, that will never happen if you call Yahowah “Lord.” This is not only Satan’s title and the name God uses to identify the Adversary, in that the name Ba’al means “Lord,” it is the antithesis of the way our Heavenly Father wants us to relate to Him in the Covenant. This is why the author of the Sermon on the Mount is recorded saying:

“Not any one saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord (kyrie – master, owner, one who rules over, controls, or enslaves),’ will actually enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but by contrast the one presently acting upon the purpose and desire of my Father, the One in the heavens. (Matthew 7:21)

Many will say to me in that specific day, ‘Lord, Lord, in your name, did we not actively speak genuinely inspired utterances? And in your name, we drove out demons. And in your name, many mighty and miraculous things we made and did.’ (Matthew 7:22)

And then I will profess to them that because I never at any time knew you, you all must depart from me, those of you who are opposed to the Towrah.” (Matthew 7:23)

Also relevant is Howsha’ / Hosea 2:16-17, in which Yahowah looks forward to the day when He is never called “the Lord” ever again.

In context, this insightful declaration reads…

“‘I will take an inventory and record (wa peqad – I will recount and keep a record) against her (‘al hy’) for the time in association with (‘eth yowm) ha Ba’alym | the Lords (ha Ba’alym – those who seek to control, to be masters and lord over, to possess and seek to own) because (‘asher) she blew smoke, burned incense, and made offerings to them (qatar la hem).

216Then she was adorned, playing religious dress-up (wa ‘adah – she wore clothing designed to show off her status) with her ornamental rings and circular objects (nezem hy’ – with round sun disks on her ears, nose, and fingers). Bejeweled (wa chelyah), she went after (hy’ wa halak ‘achar) her lovers, pursuing her desires and illicit relationships (‘ahab hy’).

And she ignored and then forgot Me (wa ‘eth ‘any shakach),’ prophetically announces (na’um) Yahowah (Yahowah – the proper pronunciation of YaHoWaH, our ‘elowah – God as directed in His ToWRaH – teaching regarding His HaYaH – existence and our ShaLoWM – restoration). (Howsha’ / He Saves / Hosea 2:13)

‘Therefore, and by contrast, long thereafter (la ken – to facilitate an upright and honest approach), behold (hineh – please pay attention), knowing that she has been deceived, I will leave the way wide open to persuade her should she become open-minded (‘anoky pathah hy’ – since she is easily seduced and enticed, having been readily misled and gullible, I will provide ample space (piel participle – God is enabling the receptive to benefit in a demonstrable and active way)).

At that moment, I will walk with her (wa halak hy’ – I will go with her (hifil perfect – Yah is making it possible for them to walk together in one accord at this time)) to ponder the word, even in the place where these statements are questioned (ha midbar – in the desolate wilderness; from my – to question and consider dabar – the word), such that I speak words (wa dabar – so that these statements are transmitted) to her heart, making an impression upon her judgment and thinking (‘al leb hy’ – upon her inclinations, motivations, and thoughts, thereby enabling sound decision-making). (Howsha’ 2:14)

Beginning then and there (min sham), I am prepared to give to her, so that she can approach (wa 217nathan la hy – I will offer her at that time to draw near (qal perfect)), her vineyards and vinedresser, her garden and resulting fruit (‘eth kerem hy’).

The Valley of ‘Akowr | Troubles (wa ‘eth ‘emeq ‘Akowr – accordingly, the deep depression and profoundly cunning plot to deviate from what is known and is, therefore, disturbing, stirring up trouble, addressing the approaching Time of Israel’s Troubles) will become the open doorway (la petach – a portal to a more expansive realm, the gateway to liberatopm, an opening for the free to encounter) of hope, of confidently expecting a good and beneficial future (tiqwah – a way to be optimistic and move forward).

Then and there, along with the name (wa sham), she will respond with the answer (‘anah – she will reply, offer her declaration, and sing, lifting up her voice (qal perfect)) as in the days of her youth (ka yowm na’uwrym hy’ – consistent with her childhood, early in life, when she was served), and as in the day (wa ka yowm) when lifted up, she ascended (‘alah hy’ – she was taken away and withdrawn) out of the land (min ‘erets) of Mitsraym | the Crucibles of Political and Religious Oppression (Mitsraym – the cauldrons of cruel persecution where the people were confined and restricted by military and economic institutions; plural of matsowr – to be delineated as a foe and besieged during a time of testing and tribulation, from tsuwr – to be bound and confined by an adversary, assaulted and shut up in the likes of a concentration camp by those showing great hostility).” (Howsha’ 2:15)

This is unequivocal and impactful. Yahowah is equating His people’s association with religion to the conditions they endured while enslaved in Mitsraym | the troubling Crucibles of Religious and Political Oppression.

“During (wa ba – in, with, and on) this specific day 218(ba ha yowm ha huw’), it shall be (hayah – it will happen and come to exist at this moment (qal perfect)),’ prophetically declares (na’um – reveals in advance of it occurring) Yahowah (YaHoWaH – our ‘elowah | God as directed in His ToWRaH | teaching regarding His HaYaH | existence and our ShaLoWM | restoration), ‘you will invite, welcome, and meet with Me as an individual (qara’ ‘iysh ‘any – you shall move toward and greet with Me as your marriage partner, summoning Me as if I were a husband, as One who is extant, present, and in existence, even as a person in your midst).

And then you will never again call Me (wa lo’ qara’ la ‘any – you will not summon Me or recite aloud to Me (qal imperfect – literally never refer to Me and forevermore never proclaim)) Ba’aly | ‘My Lord’ (ba’al ‘any) ever again (‘owd – now or forevermore). (Howsha’ 2:16)

For I will remove (wa suwr – renounce and reject, separating Myself from, revolting against, repudiating and abolishing), accordingly (‘eth), the names and reputations (shem – the designations and renown) of ha Ba’alym | the Lords (ha Ba’alym – of the false gods seeking to possess and control) from (min – out of) her mouth (peh hy’ – her lips and language), and (wa) they shall not be remembered, recalled, or mentioned (lo’ zakar – they will not be proclaimed or be brought to mind) by (ba) their name (ba shem hem) ever again (‘owd – any longer).’” (Howsha’ / He Saves / Hosea 2:17)



Demon possession is yet another thing Paul and Muhammad had in common. And that is relevant because the Islamic Quran and Hadith reveal that Allah was modeled after Satan. Describing the vicious bout with Satan in a cave outside Mecca, Muhammad’s Hadith 219reports: “The commencement of divine inspiration to Allah’s Messenger was in the form of dreams that came true like a bright light. The prophet loved the seclusion of a cave near Hira. The angel came to him and asked him to read. The Prophet replied, ‘I do not know how to read.’ Then the angel caught me forcefully and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any more...Then the Apostle returned from that experience; the muscles between his neck and shoulders were trembling, and his heart was beating severely. He went to Khadija and cried: ‘Cover me! Cover me!’ She did until his fear subsided. He said, “What’s wrong with me? I am afraid that something terrible has happened to me.’” (Bukhari’s Hadith: Volume 1, Book 1, Number 3 & Volume 6, Book 60, Number 478)

“The truth came upon him while he was in a cave. The first form of revelation was a true vision in sleep. He did not see any vision but it came like the break of dawn.” “The Prophet said, ‘I had been standing, but fell to my knees and crawled away, my shoulders trembling. When the terror had left me, he came to me and said, “You are the Messenger of Allah.’” Muhammad said, ‘I had been thinking of hurling myself off a mountain cliff… I feared for my life.’” (Tabari’s History: Volume 1, page 67)

“He pressed me so tightly that I was near death. When I thought that I was nearly dead, he said: ‘Read in the name of your Lord who created man of coagulated blood. Read! Your Gracious Lord taught by the pen.’” “I remained gazing at him and that distracted me from committing suicide. I could not move. Khadija sent her messengers in search of me and they gained the high ground above Mecca so I came to her and sat by her thigh. I said, ‘Woe is me. I am possessed.’ ‘I’m afraid I’m going out of my mind and being possessed by an evil spirit.’” (Ishaq’s Sira: page 106)

“In the beginning of the Messenger’s prophetic mission he used to spend a month every year in religious retreat on Hira. This was part of the practice of Tahannuth in which the Quraysh used to engage during the Jahiliyyah [period of ignorance before Muhammad’s recitals]. Tahannuth means self-justification.” (Tabari’s History: Volume 1, page 70)

Then, at the end of his life, we find: “Aisha, the wife of Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him), reported: ‘Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) left my apartment during the 220night. Then he came and he saw me in an agitated state. He said: “Aisha, what has happened to you? Do you feel jealous?” I said: “How can it be that a girl like me would not feel jealous in regard to a husband like you?” Thereupon Allah’s Messenger said: “It is your devil who has come to you.” I said: “Allah’s Messenger, is there a devil with me?” He said: “Yes.” I said: “Is there a devil attached to everyone?” He said: “Yes.” I said: “Allah’s Messenger, is there a devil attached to you also?” He said: “Yes. But my Lord has helped me against my devil and as such I am absolutely safe from his mischief.”’” (Muslim’s Hadith Chapter 14, Book 39, Number 6759)

And by way of confirmation: “Allah’s Messenger said: ‘There is none amongst you with whom is not an attaché from amongst the jinn, a devil.’ The Companions said: ‘Allah’s Messenger, is there a devil with you too.’ Thereupon he said: ‘Yes, but Allah helps me against him so I am safe from his hand and he does not command me but for good.’” (Muslim’s Hadith Chapter 14, Book 39, Number 6757)

Evidently, Muhammad’s and Sha’uwl’s Lord did not trust his messengers any more than we should, because in both cases the Devil was unwilling to remove the demon he had used to possess and control them. So now completely and forever estranged from Yahowah, Satan offered Paulos an attractive pagan substitute...

“And he has actually spoken this to me (kai eiphon moi), ‘It is sufficient and satisfactory for you (arkeo soi – it is currently enough and presently adequate, so you should be content to possess) my (mou) Charis (Charis – the name of the lovely and lascivious Greek goddesses of merriment, known to the Romans as the Gratia, from which “Grace” is derived), because (gar) the ability and power (dynamis – the mighty miracles, supernatural capability, authority, and strength) in (en) weakness and sickness (astheneia – illness, timidity, inadequacy, infirmity, limited insights, and incapacitation, being frail, feeble, profaned, and defiled as a result of perversions and corruptions) is fulfilling and complete (teleo – is brought 221to fruition).’

Gladly (hedeos – with delight), therefore (oun), more willingly and readily (mallon – to a greater degree) I will boast (kauchaomai – I will brag, expressing pride in myself, glorifying myself) in the (en tais) lack of insights and inadequacy derived from corruptions (astheneia – weakness, illness, timidity, sickness, infirmity, incapacitation, being frail, feeble, polluted, profane, and defiled through perversions) of mine (mou) in order that (hina) it might take up residence (episkenoo – it may reside and indwell) on me (epi eme) the (e) ability and power (dynamis – the mighty miracles, supernatural capability, authority, and strength) of the (tou) Christou (ΧΡΥ – placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement to usurp the Septuagint’s credibility and infer divinity).” (2 Corinthians 12:9)

Translating Jerome’s Latin, the King James Bible published verses 8 and 9 as saying: “For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.” LV: “For which thing, thrice I besought the Lord that it might depart from me. And he said to me: My gratia/grace is sufficient for thee: for power is made perfect in infirmity.” NLT: “Three different times I begged the Lord to take it away. Each time he said, ‘My grace is all you need. My power works best in weakness.’”

Satan is a proponent of the Graces, which is why he called the Charis his own. Cavorting naked, they were the principal pagan proponents of lust and licentiousness, after all. And considering Paul’s admission to uncontrollable cravings in this regard in Romans 7, Satan’s declaration that the aphrodisiacal Charis / Gratia were “arkeo – sufficient and satisfactory” for Paulos, and that “he should be content” with the goddesses’ contribution to his 222“astheneia – sickening weakness” is creepy. And the idea that he is disclosing this to us, even boasting about it, is insane.

Sha’uwl has become overly fixated with “astheneia – inadequacy and infirmity, being corrupt and sick, being frail and feeble, incapacitated and weak, lacking insights and being defiled as a result of corruptions and perversions.” This is doubly bizarre because God perfects, empowers, and enriches His Covenant children. Our imperfections and infirmities, our relative weakness and our lack of insights are resolved.

So why is Paul wallowing in his? More troubling still, Paul is writing about his “astheneia – illness” while simultaneously admitting that he is both insane and demon-possessed. And even if a Christian apologist might suggest that this is Paul’s way of demonstrating humility, that becomes laughable in the midst of constant bragging. And speaking of being hypocritical, how can a man who has the ability to survive multiple deaths, drowning, lashings, stoning, etcetera, be “astheneia – inadequate and weak?”

In Matthew, Gospel Jesus is shown defining astheneia. This is accomplished by referencing Yasha’yah / Isaiah 53:4 in Hebrew. The scribe translated choly, the word Yasha’yah wrote, into the Greek astheneia. So, since choly / holy became the descriptor of the Christian Spirit, and since we can correctly define Sha’uwl’s astheneia | sickness by referencing it, let’s reconsider its use in the prophecy addressing Dowd’s fulfillment of Chag Matsah (Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and Bikuwrym)…

“Surely (‘aken – it can be verified as accurate and true that indeed), the malignant and malevolent pandemic of twisted perversions which plague and weaken us (choly or holy ‘anachnuw – the infectious and injurious diseases which sicken us and our religious maladies which mortally wound us by distorting the truth), he will lift from us, 223accept, and carry away (huw’ nasa’ – he [the Zarowa’] will, himself, sustain on behalf of the relationship and remove at this moment in time, actually forgiving).

The cause and consequence of our pain and suffering (wa mak’ob ‘anachnuw’ – the questions which anguish us and make us miserable and the implications of our grief), he will incur and bear them (sabal hem – he [Dowd] will pull them away, initiating the process to carry them as if they were his burdens to remove).

And yet (wa), we assess his overall contribution as (‘anachnuw chashab huw’) poignantly inflicted (naga’) and (wa) stricken (nakah – beaten and slain, made to suffer (hofal passive – the beatings were imposed upon him in a vivid and demonstrable way)) by God (‘elohym), in addition to being humiliated for his testimony and abused for his response (wa ‘anah – even denied and mistreated for his [Dowd’s] answers and punished for his reply). (Yasha’yah / Yahowah Delivers / Isaiah 53:4)

Obviously, Paul didn’t get the message. He must have been standing alongside the rabbis in the religious line rather than next to the Passover Lamb. To have still been suffering from what the Messiah resolved for the Covenant Family, Paul was clearly playing for the wrong team.

Now based on what we just discovered, the Greek translation of Gospel Jesus reads:

“The purpose was to fulfill (opos pleroo – the intended result was to completely proclaim, providing meaning which prompts thinking, and to perform as promised) the statement having been spoken (to rethen – the word having been prophetically declared in advance) through (dia) Isaiah (Esaiou – an inept transliteration of the Hebrew name Yasha’yahuw – Deliverance and Freedom are from Yahowah), the prophet and inspired spokesman (tou prophetou), saying (legontos – communicating to instruct): ‘Himself (autos), the 224perversions which have made us ill (tas astheneia emon – the inadequacies and infirmities caused by our corruptions, the sicknesses borne of our dishonesty, the weakness which results from our tendency to defile, to profane, and to dishonor that which is set apart as common, the incapacitation, weakness, and lack of insights derived from our willingness to pollute and sully the established conditions), he received and took hold of (lambano – He grasped, acquired, and relationally experienced), and the (kai tas) mental anguish and physical suffering (nosos – sicknesses, diseases, and illnesses, grief, sorrow, and pain), he removed and bore (bastazo – He accepted, endured, provided for, and carried away).’” (Matthew 8:17)

Since Yahowah told the truth, and Dowd performed as promised, then why would this be “astheneia – inadequate, infirmed, incapacitated, and weak as a result of perversions and corruptions?” If you are a Christian, if you are prone to believe Paul, do not move on with your life until you can answer this question.

It should be noted here that Satan’s Gratia is said to fulfill and satisfy as a result of incapacitating corruptions, while the same sickening perversions promoted by Paul reside with Christou. As a result, Satan’s fingerprints appeared on Paul’s letter when he wrote, speaking of the Lord:

“And he has actually spoken this to me (kai eiphon moi), ‘It is sufficient and satisfactory for you, and you should be content to possess (arkeo soi) my (mou) Charis (Charis), because (gar) the supernatural ability and power (dynamis) in (en) weakness and perversion, sickness and corruption (astheneia), is fulfilling and complete, brought to fruition (teleo).’ Gladly (hedeos), therefore (oun), more willingly and readily (mallon) I will boast, glorifying myself (kauchaomai) in the (en tais) lack of insights and inadequacy derived from such perversions and corruptions (astheneia) of mine (mou) 225in order that (hina) it might take up residence (episkenoo) on me (epi eme) the (e) ability and power (dynamis) of the (tou) Christou (ΧΡΥ).” (2 Corinthians 12:9)

Not only is Sha’uwl’s Christou a perverted corruption, but he also isn’t nearly as satisfying, nor are his fulfillments as relevant, as those of the Charis who were offered to the Devil’s Advocate by Satan, himself.

While we have received more than we could have anticipated through this review of Paul’s correspondence with the Corinthians, let’s remain a little longer. It is not often we are invited to visit such insanity and can still walk out of the asylum of our own accord. Seldom is malignant malfeasance so prominently displayed as it is in these words…

“Therefore (dio – for this reason it should be self-evident), I am pleased with and prefer, delighting in (eudokeo en – I enjoy and take pleasure in, I consider good and consent to) sickening perversions (astheneia – the inadequacies and infirmities caused by corruptions, illness borne of dishonesty, weakness which results from the tendency to defile, to profane, and to dishonor that which is set apart as common, incapacitation, weakness, and lack of insights derived from a willingness to pollute and sully the established conditions), in (en) presumptuous maltreatment and outrageously damaging insults (hybris – injurious treatment and harmful behavior, the invasion of the basic rights of others, ignominious hardships and impudent insolence, pride and haughtiness, wanton violence, and tempestuous wrongdoing), in (en) the necessity and inevitability of compulsion and punishment (anagke – obligatory trouble, unyielding pressure, the destiny and advantage of distress and tribulation as well as imposed calamity), in (en) persecution and oppression (diogmos – harassment and molestation which causes people to flee in fear, driving 226them away through terror), and (kai) the difficulty of the distressing restrictiveness (stenochoria – the troublesome narrowness and resulting calamity and extreme affliction) regarding (hyper – associated with and because of) Christou (ΧΡΥ – placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement to usurp the Septuagint’s credibility and infer divinity) is the reason (gar – indeed, because) I am sickened by my perversions (astheneia – I am inadequate and infirmed through my corruptions, ill as a result my dishonesty, weakened by my tendency to defile, to profane, and to dishonor that which is set apart as common, incapacitated with a lack of insights derived from my willingness to pollute and sully the established conditions), and at the same time (tote) I am (eimi) empowered, competent and capable (dynatos – plausible, expert, and important, mighty, powerful, and influential).” (2 Corinthians 12:10)

If nothing else, we have Paul’s stamp of approval on our working definition of “astheneia – sickening perversions,” and we now know that he is in favor of them, and worse. But this is so bad, it is almost impossible to fathom, requiring a second bite of the apple. So, once again, the primary author of the Christian New Testament wrote...

“Therefore, it should be self-evident (dio), I am pleased with and prefer, delighting in, I enjoy and take pleasure in, even consider good and consent to (eudokeo en) sickening perversions, the inadequacies and infirmities caused by corruptions, and weakness borne of dishonesty (astheneia) in (en) presumptuous maltreatment and outrageously damaging insults which are injurious and arrogant (hybris), in (en) the necessity and inevitability of compulsion and punishment, the advantage of obligations and unyielding pressure (anagke), in (en) persecution and 227oppression, harassment and molestation (diogmos), and (kai) the difficulty of the distressing restrictiveness and troublesome narrowness (stenochoria) associated with (hyper) Christou (ΧΡΥ) is the reason (gar) I am sickened by my perversions and made inadequate by my corruptions (astheneia), and at the same time (tote), I am (eimi) empowered, competent and capable, plausible, expert, and important, mighty, powerful, and influential (dynatos).” (2 Corinthians 12:10) That may be the single most perverted and twisted thing we have read. If this man is your apostle, if he is a spokesman for your god, I would recommend replacing both.

So, is Paul a tragic figure, a man desperate for an exorcism? Is he crippled by schizophrenia? Are his words those of a psychopath or of a man who should have been institutionalized as criminally insane? All signs point to the fact that he needed an orderly to wrap him in a white jacket because he was a danger to himself and to others. He was stark-raving mad in every sense of the word.

Nevertheless, I am beginning to think we are witnessing the impossible, a miracle of sorts. Paul is driving nails into his own coffin while burying himself along with all of his imaginary fiends. I am surprised that he did not list this among his achievements.

Christian apologists will claim that Paul is saying “what doesn’t kill me makes me stronger,” but that is not a permissible rendering, not only because Paul claims to have been killed multiple times, but also because our suffering is irrelevant. The message of the Miqra’ey is that Dowd endured them so we might enjoy the result.

By claiming these things, Paul is saying that his imagined sacrifices and delusional sufferings matter, making him a more credible and capable influence in the lives of others. By doing so, he is positioning himself as the savior of his plagued religion.

228No sane individual delights in or prefers any of the horrible things on Paul’s list. By saying that he has come to enjoy them, he is affirming the consequence of being demon-possessed and psychotic. These are the kinds of things Satan delights in and the institutionalized and medicated inflict upon themselves.

Galatians, as we have already seen, perverts and corrupts Yahowah’s testimony to imply the inadequacy of His Torah. Then in the manner of all hypocrites, after besmirching Yahowah’s Towrah, calling it enslaving, Paul says that he is in favor of compulsion, calling the threat of punishment advantageous. And I suppose this is why he favors oppression, harassment, and molestation. So was Paul a masochist, sadist, or both?

To his shame, these problems pale in comparison to “‘stenochoria – the difficulty of the distressing restrictiveness and troublesome narrowness’ associated with Christou.” At its root, stenochoria would not be so bad if not for its associated baggage, in that it is comprised of “stenos – narrow strait” and “chora – the space lying between two places.” The path to God is indeed “narrow and straight,” and as a result, few find it. But unfortunately, Sha’uwl uses stenochoria to speak of “anguishing tribulation” coming upon the “doers of evil” in Romans 2:9. It is presented as a “distressful tribulation” leading to “persecution” in Romans 8:35. Earlier in this letter, stenochoria was deployed in 2 Corinthians 6:4 to convey “affliction.”

Therefore, by concluding his statement with “...the difficulty of the distressing restrictiveness and troublesome narrowness (stenochoria) associated with (hyper) Christou (ΧΡΥ) is the reason (gar) I am sickened by my perversions and made inadequate by my corruptions (astheneia), and at the same time (tote), I am (eimi) empowered, competent and capable, plausible, expert, and important, mighty, powerful, and 229influential (dynatos),” Sha’uwl is associating what he perceives to be the negative effects of Christou’s unyielding and unrelenting support of the Towrah with sickening and perverting him. Then in the next breath, Paul claims that he was capable of overcoming this problem due to his considerable expertise and influence. Yikes, I’m beginning to wonder if She’owl is big enough to accommodate Sha’uwl’s massive ego.

If we were to distill the whole of Pauline Doctrine down to one thought, it would be the negation of the narrow path Yahowah presented and Dowd articulated and walked by replacing it with unspecified, unsubstantiated, and unrestricted faith. This is what made Paul popular, and thus influential. And the more fashionable he became under Roman Catholicism, the more plausible and credible his letters were perceived. But unfortunately for those who have bought into the myth that salvation comes to those who “believe Jesus died for their sins,” the source of that deception lied as a result of being demon-possessed and insane. Well, that and the fact that Jesus never existed.

Like those watching a train wreck, it is hard to divert our eyes away from what Paul is writing, even though we know that souls are dying in the carnage. And speaking of a wreck, consider the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear’s amalgamation of Paul’s next statement: “I have become unthinking you me compelled I for owe by you to be commended nothing for I lacked of the very beyond delegates if even nothing I am.”

This pronouncement is so bizarre that I have separated each of the four sentences so that we can process them individually.

“I have come to be (ginomai – I have become) ignorant and irrational (aphron – senseless and foolish, stupid, acting rashly, essentially out of my mind, lacking judgment).

230You (umeis), yourselves, compelled me (anagkazo me – forced this upon me, drove me to this, necessitating it).

For this reason (gar), you all (umon) are obligated to me and owe me, needing me (opheilo upo umon – you are indebted to me and it is indispensable and obligatory that you are required) to be commended and recommended (synistemi – to be approved, established, and legitimized).

For indeed (gar – because), I lacked nothing, never falling short of (ouden hystereo – I wasn’t the least bit inferior to or lacking any benefit or advantage of) the (ton) preeminent (hyperlian – super and exceptional) if even (ei kai) I am (eimi) nothing (oudeis – a worthless, meaningless, nobody).” (2 Corinthians 12:11)

Thankfully, insanity isn’t contagious, otherwise we’d be in trouble, exposed as we have been to this egregious and debilitating case of mental illness. Immune as we are, let’s run that gauntlet again since it is breathtaking in its scope and implications.

“I have come to be (ginomai) ignorant and irrational, senseless and stupid, out of my mind and acting rashly (aphron).

You (umeis), yourselves, compelled me, driving me to this and forcing it on me (anagkazo me).

For this reason, therefore (gar), you all (umon) are obligated to me and owe me, needing me (opheilo upo umon) to be commended and recommended, to be approved and legitimized (synistemi).

For indeed (gar), I lacked nothing, never falling short, inferior to none, holding every advantage (ouden hystereo), the (ton) most preeminent and exceptional (hyperlian) if even (ei kai) I am (eimi) nothing, a worthless and meaningless nobody (oudeis).” (2 231Corinthians 12:11)

While the first line is true, it means that the New Testament is not. It is rendered irrational and senseless.

The second line reminds me of my ex-wife who suffered from the debilitating, corrosive, and toxic effects of Borderline Personality Disorder. As the perpetrator of an endless succession of hate speech, she always blamed those she was relentlessly condemning.

Her psychosis, like Paul’s, invariably led to her sense of victimization as if the world she was mischaracterizing owed her something for the anguish she inflicted. She, like Sha’uwl, craved the approval and legitimacy that her own words and deeds precluded.

The psychotic outwardly project themselves as perfect, always deserving praise, and superior to every rival, real and mostly imagined. And yet, deep down, their rage and conceit are products of haunting insecurity – which is why they strive to emasculate any sign of strength in others.

Having lived with this debilitating and incurable malady for three decades, I understand what was plaguing Paul, causing him to be so delusional and driving him to promote his revisionist and replacement reality. Fortunately for me, at great expense, I was able to divorce this psychotic woman and live the rest of my life free of her insanity and hellish torments. Unfortunately, she imprinted my sons with her disease, and they are now crippled by it, not unlike Christians exposed to Paul.

As for Paul, he previously revealed that he had become a covetous and lustful libertine because of the Torah. Now he says that the Corinthians have made him stupid. And let us not forget, Satan made him humble, well, by comparison to what he would have been otherwise. But it is like comparing a nuclear bomb to an asteroid strike; either way, 232the consequence is messy.

It should be noted that Paul isn’t paying the rival disciples a fleeting and backhanded endorsement here by claiming to be as good or better than the most preeminent among them because he uses hyperlian in 2 Corinthians 11:5 ironically, saying “I suppose I was not a whit behind the superlative apostles.” And here he is so obnoxious that he says that even if he was worthless, he’d still be better than those Gospel Jesus chose and trained.

Now despite being a self-admitted pervert, a murderer, insane, demon-possessed, and now ignorant and irrational, Paul is demanding a letter of accommodation, a recommendation from those he has deceived and demeaned. So since he claims that we owe him one, that we are in his debt and are obliged, let’s all pull out our pens and give this man who says he lacks nothing the one thing he craves: approval. Or, on second thought, let’s give him what he deserves: condemnation.

While I am normally opposed to using English translations for any purpose other than to incriminate them, the New Living Translation does such a wonderful job of indicting Paul that I thought I’d share it with you.

“You have made me act like a fool—boasting like this. You ought to be writing commendations for me, for I am not at all inferior to these ‘super apostles,’ even though I am nothing at all. When I was with you, I certainly gave you proof that I am an apostle. For I patiently did many signs and wonders and miracles among you. The only thing I failed to do, which I do in the other churches, was to become a financial burden to you. Please forgive me for this wrong!” (2 Corinthians 12:11-13)

“Some of you admit I was not a burden to you. But others still think I was sneaky and took advantage of you by trickery. But how? Did any of the men I sent to you take advantage of you? When I urged Titus to visit you and sent 233our other brother with him, did Titus take advantage of you? No! For we have the same spirit and walk in each other's steps, doing things the same way. Perhaps you think we’re saying these things just to defend ourselves.” (2 Corinthians 12:16-19)



Previously, we considered a summation of one of Sha’uwl’s most chilling confessions. So before we press on, let’s reconsider the testimony of the ultimate chameleon and the world’s most notorious charlatan – this time fully amplified.

As we examine his defense, please note that this is all about Paul trying to justify his controversial tactics and mission before a skeptical audience. In these incriminating words, we find Paul refusing to abide by even his own rules. Like a chameleon, he was ever ready to change his colors to take advantage of whatever audience he was trying to beguile. And here he is admitting to this very thing (in his own pathetic style). Although, so as not disparage chameleons unfairly, since they color themselves to mimic their surroundings to more effectively eat bugs, let’s keep in mind that Sha’uwl was using this tactic to devour human souls.

“And (kai) I became (ginomai – I came to exist) to the (tois) Jews (Ioudaios – a crude transliteration of Yahuwdym, meaning Related to Yahowah) like (hos – in such a way to show a weak relationship with) Jews (Ioudaios) in order that (hina – for the purpose that) I might make a profit by procuring an advantage over (kerdaino – I may gain financially by avoiding or winning over) Jews (Ioudaios).

To those (tois) under (hypo) Towrah (nomon – the 234means to become an heir and to be nurtured by an allotment (accusative of nomos)), like (hos – in such a way to show a weak relationship) under (hypo) Towrah (nomon), not being himself (me on autos – not existing self (note: on was written in the singular nominative masculine and thus cannot be translated as “myself being” and autos was scribed in the third-person intensive predicative and thus does not convey “myself” either)) under (hypo) Towrah (nomon), in order that (hina – for the purpose that) those under (tous hypo) Towrah (nomon) I might make a profit by procuring an advantage over (kerdaino – I may gain financially by avoiding or winning over). (1 Corinthians 9:20)

To those (tois) Towrahless (anomois – without the Towrah, devoid of an allotment or inheritance), like (hos – in such a way to show a weak relationship with) Towrahless (anomois – without the Towrah, devoid of an allotment or inheritance), not being (me on) Towrahless (anomois – without the Towrah, devoid of an allotment or inheritance) of God (theou), to the contrary (alla – making an emphatic contrast and definitive differentiation), in the Torah (ennomos – by the allotment and inheritance) of Christou (Christou – foolishly transliterated from the Greek as “Christ” and errantly used as if a name; from chrio – which speaks of the application of drugs and medicinal ointments) in order that (hina – for the purpose that) I might make a profit by procuring an advantage over (kerdaino – I may gain financially by avoiding or winning over) those without the Towrah (tous anomois – the Towrahless). (1 Corinthians 9:21)

I became (ginomai – I came to exist) to the (tois) incapable and morally weak (asthenes – incapacitated and inadequate, sick and impotent), incapacitated and inadequate (asthenes – unable and morally weak, sick, powerless, and impotent), in order that (hina – for the purpose that) those (tous) impotent and sick (asthenes – 235incapacitated and inadequate, unable and powerless) I might make a profit by procuring an advantage over (kerdaino – I may gain financially by avoiding or winning over).

To everyone (tois pasin – literally: to the in all) I have become (ginomai – I have come to exist as) every kind of thing (panta – everything) in order that (hina – for the purpose that) surely by all means (pantos – in every way with certainty) some (tinas – someone important or something indefinite, anyone or anything, everyone or a certain individual) I might save (sozo – I may deliver).” (1 Corinthians 9:22)

Even Machiavelli, the man who postured the amoral slogan of despots everywhere, saying in essence: “the end justifies the means,” wasn’t this blatant or perverted. Paul was a uniquely special form of horrible, or should I say, appalling.

To heighten the conflict, Gospel Jesus is quoted using kerdaino, the very same verb deployed in the previous statement four times, to warn us: “For what will be accomplished and who will be helped (tis gar opheleo – what value would there be and who would be benefited) by a man if (ean anthropos – on the condition an individual) the entire universe (ton holos kosmos – the totality of the whole world) he might gain, winning over, taking advantage of and profiting from (kerdaino), but (de) his soul (autou psyche) he forfeits (zemioomai – he damages undergoing punishment)?” (Matthew 16:26) Considering this, perhaps Sha’uwl’s elaborate justification for personal gain in 1 Corinthians 9:20-22 should be written on his tombstone.

The tactic Paul is bragging about is what we might expect from an unscrupulous politician or conniving businessman, who will say and do anything, no matter how deceptive or fraudulent, to garner an unfair advantage. But 236from someone claiming to speak openly and honestly on behalf of God, this is unjustifiable. So, by admitting this, Paul has just told everyone that his words, his behavior, and his claims cannot be trusted. Big surprise.

Also driving nails into Paul’s coffin, Gospel Jesus is recorded in Matthew 10:8 saying: “You have received without paying, give without being paid.”

To eliminate any misunderstanding regarding the dubious tactics of this charlatan, the primary meaning of kerdaino, translated as “I might make a profit by procuring an advantage over,” is related to “gaining an advantage over someone in the pursuit of wealth, influence, and acclaim.” To the common man of his day, kerdaino spoke of “desiring worldly things to such an extent that a person would cheat others while feeling no compunction against being crafty, clever, or cunning.”

Metaphorically, kerdaino can be used to speak of “winning someone over,” but that option is torn asunder in the context of clandestinely and deceptively metamorphosing oneself to gain an advantage. And interestingly, the secondary meaning of kerdaino is “to avoid problems in the process of trying to spare oneself.” But that connotation is only applicable when used as part of a hypothetical situation or an instructional parable.

Even if we were to give Paul the benefit of the doubt – something he no longer deserves – and render “kerdaino – win,” Paul’s statement would remain lamentable for the admission that he was always willing to operate under false pretenses. That is called “fraud,” and in most places, fraud is a crime.

Since we have been so inundated by Paul’s relentless rejection of the Torah, we may now be somewhat calloused to it, but nonetheless, the troubadour of troubled testimony just affirmed: “To those (tois) under (hypo) Towrah (nomon), in such a way to show a weak relationship 237(hos) under (hypo) Towrah (nomon), not being himself (me on autos) under (hypo) Towrah (nomon), for the purpose that (hina) those under (tous hypo) Towrah (nomon) I might make a profit by procuring an advantage over (kerdaino).”

I suspect that Sha’uwl was deploying this dubious tactic in his defense, the one recorded in Acts 22:3, when he was trying to convince a Hebrew audience that he was a religious Jew. However, since the Towrah provides the lone means to relationship and redemption, by the admission that he was not himself beholden to Yahowah’s Guidance, he has condemned his soul.

Sha’uwl earned an express ticket to She’owl with those words: “To those (tois) Towrahless and thus without the Towrah (anomois), in such a way to show a relationship with (hos) Towrahless (anomois), not being (me on) Towrahless (anomois) of God (theou), to the contrary and making a contrast (alla), in the Torah (ennomos) of Christou (Christou)?”

There are no “Towrahless” in association with God. Further, to suggest that there are two different Torahs, one authored by Yahowah and the other by Gospel Jesus is to contradict God’s testimony on the matter.

If that were not enough, Paul specifically states that he “was like the ‘anomos – Towrahless,’” a condition he explicitly associated with Satan in his previous 2 Thessalonians 2:7-9 statement. That was akin to proclaiming: “I, Paul, am just like the ‘Antichrist’.” While true, it’s a bad look for Christianity.

No matter how “asthenes – morally weak, incapacitated, inadequate, impotent, and ill” is translated, it is not something we ought to be bragging about. This is especially true for the Children of the Covenant who are perfected, enriched, and empowered by God.

238Even his parting salvo, “To everyone (tois pasin) I have become (ginomai) every kind of thing (panta) in order that (hina) surely by all means (pantos) some (tinas) I might save (sozo),” provides a window into this man’s grotesquely egotistical soul. Even Yahowah cannot save everyone – nor does He desire to do so. He is on record, actually etching in stone, that as a result of man’s propensity to be religious, thousands among billions will be favored by Him. And for those doing the math, that is only one in a million.

Those who have read The Prince are familiar with Machiavelli’s infamous and immoral advice to wannabe religious and political potentates. And now that we have read what Paul has written, it is likely that Sha’uwl’s statement inspired Machiavelli’s presumption: “the end justifies the means.” All manner of horror has been perpetrated on humankind as a result of this mantra. It serves to this day as the justification for political oppression and religious terrorism.

After hearing Sha’uwl say that he would impersonate anyone to save everyone, when he, himself, is destined to Hell, we are compelled to question what he meant by:

“But (de) all (pas – everything) I do (poieomai – I perform) by (dia – through) the profitable messenger and good message (to euangelion) in order that (hina) joint-partner (sygkoinonos – co-partner and fellow participant; from sun, with, and koinonos, partner) of his (autou) I might become (ginomai – I may exist as).” (1 Corinthians 9:23)

While you can make of this what you will, it is important to recognize there was no common ground between Sha’uwl’s message and that of God or the myth, Yahowah or Gospel Jesus. So by any standard, Sha’uwl’s approach wasn’t inspired.

The notion of “in order that joint-partner of his I 239might become,” is a little sketchy too. While it is true that Yahowah works with, alongside, and through us, even Moseh and Dowd, the ultimate exemplars of this, were more comfortable presenting themselves serving God rather than being His “joint-partner.” And in Paul’s case, the notion was as preposterous as it was egotistical. He wasn’t qualified to wipe Moseh’s tuchus. And Dowd would have treated him as he had the notoriously foul-mouthed, inarticulate and crude, delusional and uncircumcised, forever-prostrate, Philistine.

Lest we forget, Dowd fulfilled Chag Matsah. In all of his oratory regarding this, he never solicited a co-savior.

Since we have been comparing Sha’uwl and Muhammad, detailing the similar nature of their conversion experiences and challenges with demon possession, I thought I would share a few more interesting comparisons.

Just like Muhammad, Sha’uwl was a sexist. In his world, men would lord over women: “But (de), I want and propose to (thelo – desire, hold the opinion, take pleasure and delight in, and intend to impose upon) you (umas) to be aware (oida – to realize and remember) that (oti) every (pas) man (andros – adult male) is of preeminent and superior status as head (kephale – uppermost). The Christou (ΧΡΥ – placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement to usurp the Septuagint’s credibility and infer divinity) exists as (estin) the head, and thus is superior (kephale – hold preeminent status). But (de) [with] woman (gunaikos), man (aner) is of preeminent and superior status as the head (kephale – uppermost), and then (de) of the (tou) Christo Theos (ΧΩ ΘΥ).” (1 Corinthians 11:3)

Women would be considered shameful, and they would be forced to cover up for fear of being abused. “But 240(de) all (pas) women (gune) praying or prophesying (proseuchomai e propheteuo), uncovered (akatakalyptos), the head (te kephale) shames (kataischyno) her head (autes ten kephale).

For one (gar en) it is (eimi) also the same as (kai to auto) having been shaved (xyrao). For if (gar ei) the woman (gyne) is not covered up (ou katakalyptomai), (kai) let’s shear her (keiro – cut off her hair) but (de) on the condition (ei) the disgraceful and shameful (aischros) woman (gyne) to be sheared (keiro) or (e) shaved (xyrao) is covered up (katakalyptomai).” (1 Corinthians 11:5-6) The man who loved boys said of women: “let’s shear her.”

Just like Muhammad, Sha’uwl wanted women veiled and out of sight: “In (en) you (umin – plural second person, dative (speaking of indirect objects for whom something is done)) these things (autois – plural masculine dative) exist which are (estin) fitting, proper, and appropriate (prepei): Separate and judge (krino –evaluate) a woman (gunaika) who is uncovered (akatakalyptos – unveiled, literally not hidden by a veil) praying (proseuchomai) to God (theo).” (1 Corinthians 11:13)

Just as in Muhammad’s Quran, Sha’uwl wanted men to lord over women. So he wrote: “The (ai) woman (guvaikes) [to her] own individual (idios) man (andrasin – adult male) like (os – as) the Lord (kurio – master, owner, ruler, and supreme authority).” (Ephesians 5:22)

For those who may protest, suggesting that Yahowah said something similar to Chawah in Bare’syth / Genesis 3:16, such claims are based upon errant translations. God actually said:

“To (‘el) the woman (ha ‘ishah), He said (‘amar), ‘I will substantially increase (rabah rabah – I will in magnitude, quantity, and time multiply) your labor, discomfort, and strenuous work (‘itsabown ‘atah – the 241physical sensations of stretching for a period of time along with the expending of considerable energy and toil) in association with (wa ‘eth) your childbearing (herown ‘atah – your pregnancy, the period of gestation, and giving birth, addressing the intensification of the pains and pleasures of sex and rearing children). With (ba – in) challenging physical sensations and hard work (‘etseb – considerable effort and difficulty), you shall bear (yalad – you will give birth to and bring forth) children (benym – offspring). And (wa) toward (‘el) your man (‘iysh ‘atah – your male individual and / or husband), you will have strong emotional feelings (tashuwqah ‘atah – you will have abundant and overflowing desires, sexual longings, and urges, even the inclination to want and to do many things). In addition (wa), he will provide wisdom, sharing narratives with symbolic meaning with you such that he will be more responsible than you (huw’ mashal ba ‘atah – he will be answerable for educating you and so he will use concise language, vivid examples, and pithy quotes, he will lead along with you, he will speak of himself in comparison to you (the qal stem reveals that this will actually occur in the relationship while the imperfect conjugation tells us that the condition will be ongoing)).’” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 3:16)

Chawah’s ill-informed and irrational decision, as well as her lack of self-control, had censured life and removed Yahowah’s protection, putting them at risk. Therefore, to remedy these issues, Yahowah would give Chawah the responsibility of restoring what she had truncated and harmed. Women would bear and raise children, but without Yahowah’s help, it would not be easy – nor always enjoyable.

Not only is childbirth the most rewarding and painful experience for women, but there is also that once-monthly period of messy discomfort and emotional upheaval which makes it possible. While giving birth would be painful for 242some hours, this time would pale in comparison to the ongoing effort required to raise children.

But there would be a silver lining. The relatively brief periods of pain would be overwhelmingly offset by the greatest joy life has to offer: being a mother. Having witnessed it and having listened to women speak of the ordeal and aftermath, even as a man, I understand that the pain is forgotten the moment the newborn child is laid upon the woman’s breast. Giving birth and then raising that child gives women a wonderful sense of fulfillment and satisfaction. While it would take tremendous effort, life’s most rewarding and joyous blessings would be born in travail.

Tashuwqah is an emotional term with an interesting twist – one fitting the crime. Chawah clearly lusted for what she felt the forbidden fruit would offer. She coveted the wrong thing. And she was driven by her desires. She had been added to the mix to be with and to support ‘Adam, but her inclination was to circumvent man and be like God. She not only forfeited her role in the relationship, but she also damaged his as well. Rather than help, she had become a hindrance.

Yahowah’s response was perfect. He redirected Chawah’s emotions and feelings back to ‘Adam. She would want him, need him, and be inclined to do many things with and for him.

Mashal speaks of using word pictures and easily understood examples to elucidate the most intriguing aspects of complex familial relationships. Man would speak to woman in terms she would understand. This was role defining, not a pejorative. Second only to his Mizmowr | Songs, Dowd’s Mashal | Proverbs contribute more to our understanding of how to grow and thrive as a family than any literature ever written.

The religious are wont to render huw’ mashal ba ‘atah 243as “he will rule over you.” And yet, the primary meaning of mashal is “to cite a proverb or saying using words to draw pictures, to share succinct and witty quotes, to liken one thing to another to enhance understanding.” Its secondary meaning is then derived from the way words are wielded, which gives those who convey them with aplomb the ability to govern effectively. They are put in charge because of their ability to reason and communicate appropriately. It is why Yahowah appointed Dowd king.

Man was not being authorized to wield his superior strength over women, ruling over them with the force of arms. No, he was being appointed to speak rationally and intelligently to her and influence her thinking.

It is, indeed, possible, even likely, that ‘Adam had done an inadequate job of explaining the instructions he had been given regarding the Tree of Knowledge, such that Chawah simply did not understand the consequences of her actions. Further, Yahowah may have remained closer to ‘Adam because he would be driven by reason while the woman would be more emotionally inclined. And yet, since they are both essential elements of a loving and productive relationship, they would not be complete without one another. Dowd, for example, was both cerebral and emotional, and he remains God’s favorite child.

If I may point out a bit of religious malfeasance, not only is mashal rendered inadequately and misleadingly as “rule” in most English translations, ba means “with,” not over as ‘al is the Hebrew word for “over and above.” This means that even the governance aspects of mashal that apply to men must be rendered in conjunction with women, not against them. Ba conveys the ideas of proximity, and should be translated as “in, with, or among.” Moreover, the primary meaning, as you have just learned, of mashal is not “rule, governance, control, or dominion,” or even “have one’s way with,” but instead “to convey a message using a comparison which leads to understanding.”

244Continuing with our comparison, just as Muhammad created a religion named “Islam – Submission,” Sha’uwl served his Lord by demanding submission: “To the contrary (alla), just as (os) the called-out assembly (ekklesia) is submissive to and controlled by (hypotassomai – is subordinate, submits and obeys, is brought under firm control, is yoked and subdued, is subjugated and placed in submission under) the Christou in this way (houto). And the woman (gunaikes) to the (tois) man (andrasin) in (en) everything (pas).” (Ephesians 5:24)

Hypotassomai is a compound of hupo, meaning “under,” and tasso, “an assigned and orderly arrangement.” It is the antithesis of freewill. And it should be noted that the “mal’ak / aggelos – spiritual messengers” errantly known as “angels” or “demons,” based upon their allegiance, are “shaba’ – arranged as conscripts in a command-and-control regimen in which they are required to fall in line and submit.”



Those who trust Yahowah, rely upon Him. There is never a reason to be anxious. As children of the Covenant, our job is not to quell rebellions or to stew over the called-out assemblies. And that is because the sacrosanct nature of freewill precludes us from hindering the choice to rebel. Moreover, the Set-Apart Spirit is responsible for nurturing and protecting Her children – not Paul. And Yahowah is responsible for us because He is our Heavenly Father. And yet Sha’uwl, in competition with God, inappropriately put himself in that role: “I do not write this to shame you, but to warn you as my beloved children.” (1 Corinthians 4:14)

Yahowah encourages us to expose lies and to be witnesses to the truth. We do this by observing the Towrah. 245All we are asked to do beyond this is to clear the dirt off of the table, set Yahowah’s invitation upon it, let people know that it is there, remain available to answer their questions, and then let them make up their own minds. His is a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. There is no debate, no negotiation – and most certainly there is nothing further for us to contribute, and no need to worry. We do not bear any responsibility for what happens, good or bad.

Further, if we are reciting Yahowah’s Word, and affirming His plan, we never have to say: “know that I am not lying,” as Paul does in Galatians, and then again in the 31^st verse of 2^nd Corinthians 11. Simply set someone’s words next to those revealed by Yahowah and see if they are similar or if they differ. If, like Paul’s, they are incompatible, he is shown a liar. It is only when they agree that we can claim to have spoken truthfully.

But since he was doing neither (reciting Yahowah’s Word nor affirming His plan), he was actually doing precisely what he denied (lying). It is sufficient for us to share that Yahowah is trustworthy and can be relied upon.

If we convey His Word accurately, it makes no difference whether or not we are liars when it comes to reporting the weather or espousing our approval of our spouse’s wardrobe. No one is saved or condemned based on our credibility. Other than to determine whether he is a false prophet, Paul’s veracity is irrelevant. And that makes his focus on himself and his unsupported protestations completely inappropriate.

You may be wondering why Satan would be this overt regarding his relationship with Paul, and why he would encourage Paul to disparage the “Adversary” elsewhere in his letters. And yet the answer is actually obvious. By having Sha’uwl dismiss the Adversary, Satan makes it appear as if he is not the Adversary. This is precisely how Allah, who was modeled after Satan, positions the Devil in 246the Quran. And thus, while it’s blatantly obvious that Allah is the Adversary, this ruse is sufficient to fool most Muslims. Satan has to shed the Adversary title to be worshiped as God, which is why that aspect of his nature is assailed in Paul’s letters and Muhammad’s Quran.

But what bothers me the most about all of this is that Satan and his accomplices are so “bold in their foolishness” that it is obvious that they think people are essentially stupid – too “ignorant and irrational” to figure out who they are or what they are doing. It is as if Satan was thumbing his nose at God, saying: “Why do you care about these morons? They are complete idiots and will believe anything. Just watch, I will tell them exactly who I am, and with whom I work, and they will still willingly drink the poison right out of my hand.”

While the evidence in favor of Paul being a false prophet is overwhelming, my purpose in sharing Paul’s Corinthians commentary is simply to encourage you to think about the distinct possibility that there is more to all of this than one man foolishly speaking for himself. And now that we are on the subject of Satan, and before we return to the book of Acts, since I had mentioned that Paul referenced “signs and wonders” to affirm his calling, here is what the Devil’s Advocate had to say about himself and the spirit who apparently facilitated and empowered him. Harkening back to the confession found in Galatians 2:8, we read:

“For (gar) the one (o) of mystery who is the essence of religious doctrine (mysterion – secrets concealed in the symbols, slogans, rites, and rituals of religions which are known only to the faith’s initiates and participants) is already (ede – at this present time, even right now) currently functioning producing (energeo – presently and reliably creating, operating, effecting, and at work granting the ability and power) Torah-lessness (tes anomias – of negating the Torah).

247Only the One alone (monon o – all alone, exclusively without help, a single solitary masculine individual) currently restrains this, holding fast, actively trying to prevent this (katecho – is continuously controlling, unwilling to change His mind, steering and holding the course) now (arti – presently) until (hoes – up to the point) the One might appear, existing (ginomai – the One may arrive and could become known in the flow of human history) from out of (ek) the midst (mesos).” (2 Thessalonians 2:7)

If you recall, we discovered in Galatians 2:8, where the adjective and verb “energeo – to facilitate functionality” was rendered in the masculine, this meant that the one working through Paul could not be the Set-Apart Spirit, who is feminine. And now, we have an even more revealing insight into the identity of Paul’s ally. In the opening sentence, the article o, which denotes the subject as “the one,” was scribed in the singular neuter, which is a perfect fit for a solitary and asexual spirit like Satan. It was also written in the nominative, as was “mysterion – mysterious religious doctrine.” This tells us that “one who is genderless” is not only being religious, but also that religion comes from “o – the one” currently “energeo – effecting” the negation of the Torah.

That is especially troubling considering Yahowah’s testimony, because God tells us that the Torahless One is Satan. Also telling, “energeo – functioning and producing” was presented in the third-person singular, or “it” in English, not “he” because it is not masculine. Further, by conveying energeo in the present indicative, Paul is revealing that “the one” currently allied with him to affect the negation of the Torah is accomplishing that mission. This, thereby, forms an affinity between Sha’uwl and Satan.

Following this confession, we confront the asexual Torahless one’s foe. And this time the article, “o – the 248One,” was scribed in the singular masculine, as was the verb “katecho – trying to prevent this.” Therefore, unlike the fallen spirit known as Satan who is one of many, God who is the “One and only” was designated as “monon – the only such entity in His class.” Also revealing, rather than deploying the decisive indicative form which conveys actual results, in reference to the Restrainer, God is merely presented in the active participle form, and thus is being characterized by His energetic effort. Worse, when speaking of His return, this verb was written in the aorist subjunctive, and thus as a mere possibility at some point in time unrelated to any process or plan.

Bringing these insights together, if your mind is open and if you are in tune with the things of God and the character of Sha’uwl and his associate, what you will see is Satan using Paulos to negate the Torah, replacing it with religion, while Yahowah, alone, is attempting to thwart them. The familiar axiom suggests that confession is good for the soul, but I suspect that depends upon what an individual is admitting.

From a translation perspective, it should now be obvious that since katecho was not written in the second person, there is no justification for adding the pronoun “he” that we find in many English translations. Further, as a result of its gender, the “restrainer” cannot be convoluted into a metaphor for the Set-Apart Spirit, as most English translations want us to believe.

Upon close examination, this is a treasure trove of evidence. Not since Galatians 2:4 have we confronted so much secrecy surrounding Sha’uwl. Paul was, of course, resolutely anti-Torah. He was also a huge proponent of religion. He even personally admitted to being restrained by Satan in 2 Corinthians 12, collectively providing the perspective required to interpret these bizarre statements.

And speaking of strange, Christian eschatologists are 249wont to make anomos “the man of Lawlessness,” or “the Lawless one,” and thus serve as the name or title of the “Antichrist,” but there is no reference to “man” or “one” in that portion of the text, and anomos is an adjective, not a noun. Further, while a serves as a negation in Greek, nomos, as we have learned, is “an allotment which facilitates an inheritance,” not “law.”

However, by advancing this train of thought, Christians must promote a statement written in the present tense as being prophetic, trying to make it appear as if Paul was addressing their “Tribulation.” But not only were the initial verbs scribed to depict current actions, both were reinforced by “ede – already” and “arti – right now.” It follows then, if Paul was actually addressing the actions of the “Man of Lawlessness” or the “Torahless One, that individual could be none other than Sha’uwl, himself, as he alone was presently doing what he was ascribing to this individual. Therefore, in these words, Paul is admitting that he is not only the founder of the Christian religion, the individual most responsible for its scheme to replace the Torah with religious myths, but also indistinguishable from the “Antichrist.”

And let’s not dismiss the potential for prophetic error. If Paul was attempting to predict what would occur during the last days, as his next statement seems to indicate, then his timing was off by a scant nineteen and a half centuries. It is then a second false prophecy, the other predicting that the “rapture” would occur during his lifetime. And it only takes one misfire to earn this designation.

In this light, and from this perspective, please once again consider: “For (gar) the one (o) of mystery who is the essence of religious myths (mysterion) is already (ede) currently and actually functioning, effecting (energeo) Torahlessness by negating the Towrah (tes anomias). Only the One alone (monon o) currently restrains this, holding fast, actively trying to prevent 250this (katecho) now (arti) until (hoes) the One might appear, existing (ginomai) from out of (ek) the midst (mesos).” (2 Thessalonians 2:7)

To reinforce this malfeasance, especially regarding the tenses and timing, please consider the scholarly Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear’s rendition: “The for mystery already operates of the lawlessness, alone the one holding down now until from middle he might become.”

But that is hardly the end of the bad news for Christians. In 1^st Corinthians 9:21, Paul will brag: “To those (tois) without an inheritance from the Towrah (anomos – the Towrahless, to those lacking the nourishment which is bestowed to become heirs with an apportionment, established, and received as a means to be proper and approved, to those devoid of the prescriptions required to become an heir and grow; based upon a negation of nemo – that which is not provided, assigned, or distributed precluding inheritance and nourishment), I was like (os) the Towrahless (anomos – those without an allotment, an inheritance, or the Towrah).”

It is another chilling confession – one which should always be considered in conjunction with this one in 2^nd Thessalonians 2:7. Anomos, as a negation of everything Yahowah’s Towrah represents, was deployed next in Sha’uwl’s distressing letter to Thessalonica to further beguile them. And in so doing, Paul spoke of the ongoing future consequence of his current mission, all while demonstrating that he was oblivious to Yahowah’s timing, having no concept of how His seven-step plan of reconciliation would play out over seven thousand years of human history.

“And then (kai tote – so thereupon) the negation of the Torah (o anomos – that which becomes Torahlessness, the lack of nourishment which was bestowed to become an heir, being without the precepts which were apportioned, 251established, and received as a means to be proper and approved, being devoid of the prescriptions required to be given an inheritance and grow) will be revealed and disclosed (apokalypto – it will be uncovered, made known, and unveiled) whom (on – pronoun relative accusative singular masculine) the Lord (o kurios – the owner, master, one who controls and possesses, ruling over slaves) ‘Iesous (‘Iesous) will embrace or kill (anaireo – he will put to death and do away with, he will murder and destroy, he will take away and abolish, or he will choose for himself, lifting up and adopting; from ana – up into the midst and haireomai – to choose to take for oneself) with the (to) spirit (pneumatic – nonmaterial being (dative singular neuter)) of the (tou) mouth (stoma – often used as a metaphor for speech) of him (autou), and (kai) will put an end to (katargeomai – will invalidate and unemploy, will bring to an end and render idle, will put a stop to and abolish, will inactivate and cause to be inoperative) in the (te) illustrious appearance and conspicuous manifestation (epiphaneia – form or expression; from epiphanies, to be conspicuous and illustrious) of the (tes) personal presence (parousia – coming arrival or advent in person) of him (autou) (2 Thessalonians 2:8) whose (ou) is (eimi – exists as) the presence (e parousia – the coming advent in person, the arrival) according to (kata – down from, against, and with regard to) the functional power (energeia – working energy, activity, and supernatural influence) of the Adversary (tou Satana – the Satan, the name and title of the Devil; from the Hebrew Satan – Adversary) in (en) all (pas – every and the totality of) miracles (dynamis – supernatural power and ability, mighty deeds and influential activities, resources and wonders) and (kai) signs (semeion – miraculous signals and distinguishing characteristics), and (kai) deception (pseudo – fraud, a lie, and falsehood, deceit and error (dative, thereby relating pseudo with teras)) which is wondrous and marvelous (teras – given portent, which 252arouses, garnering attention (genitive, thereby associating teras with pseudo)).” (2 Thessalonians 2:8-9)

Since there are more questions than answers here, let’s review this same text as it is rendered in the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear: “And then will be uncovered the lawless whom the Master Jesus will kill in the spirit of the mouth of him and will abolish in the appearance of the presence of him whose is the presence by operation of the adversary in all power and signs and marvels of lie.”

To begin, when we connect the present activity currently underway in the last statement with this one, it becomes obvious that Paul incorrectly presumed that he was living in the last days. Second, the Towrah will never be annulled. In fact, in Yirmayah / Jeremiah 31, the integration of the Towrah into our lives is an essential aspect of the Covenant’s restoration. So, while individuals like Paul can advocate its abrogation, such pontifications are invalid and ineffectual.

Third, by deliberately referring to Gospel Jesus as “o Kurios – the Lord” in a document originally written in Greek, Paulos has disassociated himself from Yahowah while excluding himself from heaven. This then contradicts his claim to being his apostle, which affirms that he was the Devil’s Advocate.

Fourth, as a myth against a spiritual being, Gospel Jesus is not going to “anaireo – embrace or kill” Satan. No matter how we render anaireo, Paul’s statement is wrong. Spirits like Satan cannot be killed, even by Yahowah. They are eternal, which is why She’owl exists to eternally separate and imprison them. Likewise, Satan’s spirit cannot “anaireo – be abolished or destroyed” – only the religions he has sponsored.

Anaireo, translated as “will do away with or accept,” is a compound of ana, meaning “into the midst,” and haireomai, “to take for oneself, to choose and to prefer.” 253Therefore, it would be presumptuous to translate it as “kill” without also considering the other equally valid alternatives.

Lastly, epiphaneia, which speaks of an illustrious expression and conspicuous manifestation, is invalid. As Sha’uwl knew from his personal experience with him, Satan’s form is illustrious, but the Adversary is seldom if ever conspicuous.

Also, during the Time of Israel’s Troubles during the final seven years prior to Yahowah’s return with Dowd, and thus from May 22, 2026 through October 7^th, 2033, Satan will be concealing his presence, possessing and manipulating the Towrahless One (a.k.a. the “Antichrist”), as they attempt to destroy Israel, exterminate Jews, and preclude Yahowah’s Homecoming on Yowm Kipurym. Instead of revealing himself for who he actually is, Satan, as he has always done, will conceal his true identity to fool people into worshiping him as God.

But that is not the end of the duplicity. Epiphaneia, which could be translated as “glorious appearance,” was used by Greeks of Paul’s day to describe the “brilliant and illustrious, divine manifestations of their pagan gods.” It is from epiphanies, “to be conspicuous and illustrious.” Epiphanies in turn is from epiphaino, meaning “an appearance which brings light and thereby enlightens.” It is a compound of epi, meaning “by way of,” and phaino, “bringing light.” As such, it serves as the basis for the Latin name “Lucifer.” Along these lines, phaino means “to shed light, to shine brightly, and to have a brilliant appearance.” Phaino is based upon phos, the Greek word for “light.”

Sha’uwl is telling us that his Lord, the one controlling him, who is Satan in the guise of Iesou, the manufactured god who has become known as the Christian “Jesus,” is going to destroy the concept of the Adversary, invalidating it, rendering it inoperative. In this way, after shedding the 254Adversary moniker, Satan will present himself as God. Speaking of his rendezvous with destiny, the arrogant and yet brilliant, the hideous and yet beautiful, the dark and yet radiant spirit known to the world as “Satan – the Adversary,” will stop functioning as God’s opponent long enough to rise above the Most High – at least in the hearts and souls of the faithful. And true to his character, he will show off right to the bitter end, performing all manner of miracles, signs and wonders, every one of which will be crafted to deceive.

That is why in these words we find Satan especially eager to have his favorite witness proclaim that the clandestine fraud he will be perpetrating on the unsuspecting will appear wondrous and marvelous – especially to the Towrahless. Thereby, the Adversary is once again displaying a condescending attitude toward humankind, in essence saying that we are so stupid we will not recognize him even when he tells us the truth.

Satan knows that his days are numbered, but that does not seem to diminish his self-image or desire to go out in a blaze of glory, extinguishing countless souls in the process. Therefore, rather than serve as a victorious declaration, this passage is a duplicitous lament. It is reminiscent of the Wicked Witch’s sorrowful mourning as she melts away at the end of The Wizard of Oz, only to find that the wizard is a fraud.

Also troubling, the very signs and wonders Paul has claimed served as proof that he was an Apostle have now been attributed to Satan. So this is rotten, no matter where we look.

By associating “signs and wonders” with Satan while praising him, the “glorious and radiant manifestation of power and light” of the beguiling messenger, known to many as Lucifer, will perpetrate the most marvelous deceptions the world has ever seen. It will all occur to 255negate the concept of the “Adversary” for reasons that become clear once you come to understand the Deceiver’s ultimate strategy and motivation – one manifest in the title he craves: “The Lord.”

Since it unlocks a treasure trove of understanding, it bears repeating, Satan does not want to be known as “the Adversary.” The Devil wants humankind to confuse his “gloriously brilliant appearance” with God. His goal is to have his “marvelous deceptions” become religious doctrine. Lucifer (from Latin meaning Light Bearer) or Halal ben Shachar (from Hebrew meaning Arrogant and Radiant Son of the Rising Sun) inspires his messengers to promote him as God. And this is why Paul, and Muhammad alike, demean Satan. The adversarial title stands in the way of the duplicitous one becoming the Lord of religion. So, by condemning the idea of being God’s foe, Satan is delivered from this antagonist epithet.

“And in (kai en) every (pas) seductive, beguiling, and deceitful delusion (apate – deception, temptation, or trickery) associated with an injustice (adikia – of unrighteousness, evil, wrongdoing, and wickedness), to the ones being destroyed (tois apollymai – those who are unaware and thus lost, those ruined and destroyed, deprived of life) instead of (anti – in place of) this (on), the love (ten agapen – the devotion and brotherly love) of the (tes) truth (aletheia) they have not welcomed or received (ouk dechomai – they have not accepted or believed) for (eis) them (autous) to be saved (sozo – to be rescued). (2Th 2:10)

And (kai) through (dia) this (touto), the (o) god (theos) sends to (pempo) them (autois) a powerful and effective (energeia – a working, functioning, and operational) misleading deception (plane – delusion, corruption, and perversion which leads astray) for (eis – to) them (autous) to believe (pisteuo – to put their faith in) the lie (to pseudo – the deception or falsehood, the erroneous 256claim).” (2 Thessalonians 2:10-11)

The writing quality is so poor, even intentionally duplicitous, we are all too often left with the ravings of an insane mind. Therefore, while I’m not sure what this means, it isn’t good. Not only has Paul been the world’s most prolific distributor of seductive and beguiling delusions, no one has ever been more hostile to the truth. But this inverted presentation of reality is child’s play compared to the hypocrisy of the man who perpetrated the most beguiling deception ever foisted on humankind claiming that it is God who will mislead believers.

And yet, that is the nature of Sha’uwl’s Lord. He is “apate – seductive, beguiling, deceitful, and delusional,” using “trickery and deception to tempt” unsuspecting souls. Satan is also the Lord of “akikia – injustice, unrighteousness, wrongdoing, and evil.” Those he and his apostle fool “apollymai – are unaware and lost, and thus destroyed and ruined, ultimately deprived of life.” Having been seduced by Paul to reject Yahowah’s Towrah, they “ouk dechomai – are averse to, neither welcoming nor receiving” the “aletheia – truth.” As a result, no Pauline Christian has ever been “sozo – saved.” Having preferred the “plane – misleading corruption and deceptive delusion of the way,” they have been “led astray.” Their “theos – god,” one conceived by man, has “energeia – perpetrated a powerful and effective” religion, the faith born out of Paul’s epistles.

When Sha’uwl finally tells the truth, it turns out to be even more hideous than his lies. And that reminds me of one of the most foreboding and sorrowful laments attributed to Gospel Jesus:

“I (ego), Myself, have come (erchomai – I have shown Myself, appearing and becoming manifest) in the name (en to onoma – with the one and only name belonging to the person and reputation (dative singular)) of 257the Father (tou pater – the masculine archetype parent of the family) of Mine (mou), and yet (kai) you do not receive Me (ou lambano me – you do not actually accept Me nor grasp hold of Me, you do not choose or prefer Me, and thus you do not take hold of My hand nor take advantage of and experience Me).

But when (ean – on the condition) another (allos – different individual) comes (erchomai – appears, coming forth, presenting himself) in his own name (en to onoma to idio – with his own individual, unique, and distinctive, private, and personal name), that individual (ekeinos – that lone and specific man (the demonstrative singles out the individual, the accusative associates this man and name, while the singular masculine limits this to a single man)) you all will actually receive (lambano – you will all accept, choose, and prefer).” (John 5:43)

Dowd came in his Father’s name. It is as if he walked out of the pages of the Towrah. And yet as few as one in a million have chosen to accept him for who he is, for what he said, for what he did, and for whom he was named.

Christians changed his name, replaced his title, misrepresented his sacrifice, and have driven a wedge between Yahowah and Dowd, foolishly discarding the unity of their message by calling one old and the replacement new. They even claimed that Jews were able to kill their god. But to reject Dowd in this way, Christians have to disregard almost everything he said and did, which means that their faith is utterly worthless. And that is why his quote is so painful to read.

Paulos came in a name wholly unrelated to Yahowah and His Towrah testimony. Given the name “Sha’uwl – Question Him” at birth, the world’s most infamous charlatan deliberately changed his name to embrace the culture of Rome – the pagan empire responsible for the destruction of Yahowah’s Temple’s and land, Yisra’el.

258Paulos, Latin for “Lowly and Little,” denied and demeaned the Towrah, preaching his own mantra in complete opposition to God. He acknowledged being demon-possessed and insane, being perverted and murderous. He attacked and demeaned all rivals, real and imagined. He equated the Lord with God. And yet billions of souls have chosen to believe him, accepting his poorly crafted message while discarding the most brilliant words ever written.

When it comes to Yahowah and Sha’uwl, to choose one is to deny the other. You can embrace the merciful Hand of God or the rotten hand of man. It does not seem like a difficult choice. So why have a million men and women chosen Paul for each one who has accepted Yahowah’s hand?

