259Twistianity

Towrahless

…Without Guidance

 

5

Shama’ | Listen

 

Learning Something…

The moment Sha’uwl finished incriminating himself at the Yaruwshalaim Summit with his testimony about the “signs and wonders he had performed,” Ya’aqob | Jacob, the brother of Gospel Jesus, stood up, having heard more than enough. His brother by a different mother, a Yahuwd named Dowd, had served as the Passover Lamb. And this was news that the beneficiaries were called to share with the world. Gentiles were not Sha’uwl’s private domain.

“But after (de meta) their silence (to autous sigao), Jacob (Iakobos – an unprofessional transliteration of the Hebrew Ya’aqob, meaning Reward or Consequence, describing My Stance, I grab the heel; from ‘aqab – to receive a benefit or suffer a penalty for circumventing and overreaching, digging in by being stubborn or embedding one’s heels to be steadfast; changed by Christians to “James” to honor the English king) responded, saying (apokrinomai lego – answered the question by saying), ‘Men, brothers (andres adelphos), listen to me (akouo mou).’ (Acts 15:13)

‘Simon (Symeon – a transliteration of Shim’own, from shama’, meaning He Listens) has made fully known to us (exegeomai – told the whole truth, providing detailed information, carefully describing, explaining, and teaching) in the same way as (kathos) previously (proton – earlier and formerly) God (theos) carefully chose to care, doing what was required (episkeptomai – He sought to visit, to look after, to help, and) to receive (lambano – 260to acquire and grasp hold of) from (ek – out of) the races and nations (ethnon – different ethnicities) people (laos – ordinary individuals) in His name (to onomati autou).’” (Acts 15:14)

While we do not know how much of this actually occurred and how much of it is fable, if I had been among these men I would have told both Sha’uwl and Shim’own to sit down and shut up. Both were whiny egomaniacs without a trifle of sense. Everything they had said in defense of themselves had been wrong. So, for “Jacob” to respond is good, to have waited until after the silence was ill-advised, and to have commended Shim’own was wrong – even if Sha’uwl were the bigger idiot.

While it is true that Yahowah wants His message conveyed to gowym, Yahuwdym come first. Gentiles, however, were not to be received but, instead, instructed. And the fact remains, not one of these fellows ever came close to saying Yahowah’s name. They didn’t even know Dowd’s name, or that of the myth they were advocating in his place.

Also, while it would have been infinitely better to have advanced knowledge over “belief,” Shim’own’s rebuttal was a far cry from “exegeomai – telling the whole truth, providing detailed information, carefully describing, explaining, and teaching to make everything fully known.”

In an attempt to underscore his point, Ya’aqob | Jacob quoted the Prophets. So, let’s take this opportunity to compare the Greek translation to the Hebrew original.

“And regarding this (kai touto), the words (oi legos – the thoughts, reasoning, or statements) of the prophets (ton prophetes) agree, (symphoneo – are consistent, a perfect match), inasmuch as (kathos) it has been written (grapho): (Acts 15:15)

‘With (meta – beyond) this (houtos) I will return (anastrephomai – I will come back) and (kai) I will repair 261and rebuild (anoikodomeo – I will reestablish) the sheltered dwelling place (ten skene – tent and tabernacle) of David (Dauid – a plausible transliteration of Dowd, meaning Beloved in Hebrew) which has fallen (ten pipto – that has prostrated itself and has been destroyed), and (kai) that which has been torn down (ta kataskapto autes – the things which have been razed and demolished, being dug asunder).

I will reestablish (anoikodomeo – I will repair and renew) and (kai) I will restore them, making them upright again (anorthoo auten – I will straighten them up from a position which is bent over).’” (Acts 15:15-16)

Nice try, but it’s another swing and a miss. The cited statement says nothing of receiving various ethnicities. Quite the contrary, those who are called by Yahowah’s name will be inheriting that which formerly belonged to the Gowym. Jacob could not have picked a less appropriate citation to advance the notion of reaching out to the Gentiles.

This known, we can still learn from it, especially as we compare what Yahowah inspired against what the Christian scribes wrote. For example, skene, translated as “sheltered dwelling place,” is synonymous with Sukah, which is most often translated as “Shelters” and speaks of “Camping Out” with God. It serves as the name of Yahowah’s seventh Miqra’ | Invitation to be Called Out and Meet, where we are invited to camp out with our Heavenly Father. As a “protective covering,” skene addresses the role our Spiritual Mother plays in our relationship. By way of Her Garment of Light, we become Yahowah’s “tabernacles” on earth. So that’s good.

Further, the lexicons reveal that skene is related to skeuos, which is “a vessel, implement, and protective covering” – all of which are somewhat analogous to one of the Spirit’s intents, which is to protect Her children. Along 262these lines, skene is also associated with skia, which is “a lesser dimensional representation of something which serves as a foreshadowing of something bigger and better.” When we are born spiritually into the Covenant with the assistance of our Spiritual Mother, we become more like God, reflecting the promise that we will continue to grow as His adopted children. So, by using skene in this translation of Yahowah’s testimony, we find acknowledgments of His Spirit and affirmations of His love, all in concert with Shelters, His final Feast.

For reasons we may never understand, Gospel Jacob elected to quote the prophet, Amos, who spoke of the impending destruction of the nation of Yisra’el and then of its restoration. Fleshing out the context of this citation, we discover that, as a result of Yisra’el’s forming a covenant with the Lord (“ha Ba’al” in Hebrew, and thus Satan), Yahowah’s judgment had become inevitable. Over the course of many centuries, the Yisra’elites had separated themselves from God. So He told them that the house of Ya’aqob would be shaken. He said that those among His people who erred, and thus missed the way, would die, and that those who remained would encounter an evil calamity which would cause great suffering. He was speaking of the Roman invasion which resulted from Rabbi Akiba’s insistence upon a false-Mashyach | Messiah. It led to the Diaspora and eventually to the Holocaust. It is even more likely that Yahowah was addressing the Time of Ya’aqob’s Troubles, and of the horrors awaiting God’s people in the decade prior to His return. I say this because that is when Yahuwdym would be restored in Yisra’el, according to the words Yahowah revealed to the prophet Amows / Amos.

Yahowah speaks of using a filter mechanism to determine which souls are allowed to remain in Yisra’el, using the Towrah to decide who makes the final cut. Thereafter, Yahowah reestablishes the Sukah of Dowd which the religious have ransacked and misappropriated.

263“Please pay attention because, by contrast (ky hineh), I will either instruct (‘anoky tsawah – I will direct) or I will shake (wa nuwa’ – or I will stagger, moving others out of the way with regard to) every one of the Gentiles (ba kol ha gowym) associated with or against (‘eth) the House of Yisra’el (beyth Yisra’el – the Home and Family of those who Engage and Endure with God), similar to (ka ‘asher – consistent with) how one moves a sieve back and forth (nuwa’ ba ha kabarah – waves and shakes a mesh screen, sifter, and filtering device) such that nothing which is troublesome will fall (wa lo’ naphal tsarowr – while nothing adversarial, vexing, or hostile, binding or oppressing, is neglected or allocated; from tsar and owr – pertaining to anything harassing or confusing) to Earth (‘erets – toward the Land).” (‘Amows / Amos 9:9)

It is imperative that God establish the means to ascertain who lives and who dies, such that Yisra’el and Shamaym are no longer corrupted by the plagues of religion, politics, and conspiracy. As always, this determination will be made based upon our acceptance of the Towrah and our willingness to go where Yahowah’s words lead.

“By the Choreb | the Cutting Edge and Dividing Line (ba ha chereb – by sword of the mountain of God where the Towrah was revealed and the flame burned brightly, the cutting instrument and double-edged engraving tool), every one of My People (kol ‘am ‘any) who have missed the way (chata’ – who are wrong and induced to be offensive) will die (muwth), including those who protest (ha ‘amar). ‘The implication of wrongdoing associated with our companions (ha ra’ah – the connotations pertaining to the perversions among our friends) will not be associated with us (lo’ nagash – will not be implicated against us) nor will we have to confront it (wa qadam – nor will we have to deal with it as is claimed) such that it comes around to us and exacts a 264price from us (ba’ad ‘anachnuw – that it comes back to us as a quid pro quo and demands retribution).’” (‘Amows / Amos 9:10)

Religious Jews, in particular, will remain entrenched and stubborn right to the bitter end, as they continue to live in denial. Believing that they will never be implicated for committing the most egregious crime in human history – changing Yahowah’s testimony and name – there will be a time for accountability. As they say: what goes around comes around, a quid pro quo. And payback couldn’t happen to a more deserving drove of asses.

With all the ways Yahowah speaks of reestablishing the Sukah of Dowd, it becomes readily obvious that it has been abused and that God is not pleased. That is not good for the rabbis, as they are prone to putting him on trial and they don’t measure up. But it is far worse news for Christians because it was by misappropriating every promise Yahowah made to Dowd and transferring them to the myth of Gospel Jesus that they turned a Father and Son relationship into a religion and the Passover Lamb into a god.

So, this is the passage Gospel Jacob inappropriately cited…

“‘During that day (ba ha yowm ha huw’), I will erect and establish (quwm – I will fulfill the promise to raise up and confirm) the Sukah | the Sheltered Dwelling for Camping Out (sukah – the covered canopy serving as the family home, the tent and tabernacle) of Dowd | David (Dowd – the Beloved) which has fallen (ha naphal – which has been neglected, redistributed, and reallocated).

I will repair and restore (wa gadar – I will rebuild out of stone as a master Mason) its breaches (‘eth perets hen – whatever was broken or destroyed by the opposition) and then raise up (quwm – reestablish and confirm, fulfilling the promise) whatever is in disrepair (wa 265harysah huw’ – anything demolished, ruined, or brought down) and then I will rebuild it (wa banah huw’) so that it is like long ago and will endure forevermore (ka yowmym ‘owlam).’” (‘Amows / Amos 9:11)

It was during this very discussion in Shamuw’el / 2 Samuel 7, the one which led us to Yahowah, that we learned all about God’s perspective on His Sukah versus that of His Son. As a symbol of Yahowah’s priorities, it will be restored to its former glory and endure forevermore. And so as a prophecy for someone to advance in favor of the myth of Iesou being the Christou and replacing Dowd as the Messiah, Son of God, and Passover Lamb, it was a dunderhead move.

This is Yahowah’s promise to restore Yisra’el and establish the Millennial Shabat in harmony with the prophetic symbolism of the Miqra’ of Sukah and His collaboration with His Son. The timing of this anticipated reconciliation coincides with their return on Yowm Kipurym in year 6000 Yah (sunset in Yaruwshalaim on October 2^nd, 2033). And as a surprise to many, Yahowah is returning with His beloved son, Dowd – the King of Kings.

Worth noting is the fact that “Sukah – Shelters” is a feminine noun, associating God’s protected enclosure with our Spiritual Mother who “shelters and protects us.” By using “hy’ – it / Her” in reference to “rebuilding, restoring, renewing, and reestablishing,” we discover that Yahowah intends to renew the “Sukah – protective enclosure,” “restoring this home such that its days are everlasting.” As it was, it will be. This is particularly significant because Sukah is synonymous with the Gan ‘Eden | Garden of Eden where gan also describes a “protected garden enclosure” and ‘eden speaks of “great joy.”

This is one of many references in the Towrah and Prophets to something extraordinary. During the Miqra’ of Sukah, the Earth will be restored to the conditions 266experienced within the Garden. This will help make the time when we are invited to live with God as ‘Adam once did, even more enjoyable.

And since the Millennial Shabat commences on the Miqra’ of Sukah, we know that God’s plan is to restore and renew, to repair and rebuild the Kingdom of Dowd during this time, taking us back to a united Yisra’el under the perfect Shepherd and to the relationship we once enjoyed. And that means that there is no “New Testament,” but instead the renewal of the existing Familial Covenant Relationship. This is something Yahowah affirms in no uncertain terms in Yirma’yah / Jeremiah 31 when He speaks of the still future renewal of His Covenant on the basis of the Towrah’s integration into the lives of His people.

Recognizing that Gospel Jacob’s citation of this passage had to pass through several languages, Hebrew to Greek and then Greek to English, and through the hands of countless scribes, unlike what we have experienced with Sha’uwl, it was reasonably accurate. It was also spoken, not written, and then attested by someone who was not actually present. And in some ways, it was akin to what is found in the Septuagint, although not entirely. For example, Luke’s interpretation of Ya’aqob’s quotation begins “With this (μετα ταυτα),” while the Septuagint reads “In that day (εν τη ημερα εκεινη),” putting the Septuagint in accord with Yahowah’s citation but Acts in discord.

Next, the Septuagint uses “anhistemi (αναστησω),” to say: “I will stand upright, rise up, and establish,” mirroring the Hebrew quwm in Amos 9:11, and yet Luke’s Greek transcript reads “I shall return (αναστρεψω),” which is inconsistent with God’s word and thus errant.

From this point, the Codex Sinaiticus (our oldest witness to Acts 15:15) jumbles the Septuagint’s word 267order. Agreeing with the Hebrew text, the Septuagint reads: “the Sukah of Dowd which has fallen, and I will rebuild her things that are broken, as well as her things that are in a state of disrepair, (from: την σκηνην Δαυιδ την πεπτωκυιαν καὶ ανοικοδομησω τα πεπτωκοτα αυτης και τα κατεσκαμμενα αυτης).” But, the Codex Sinaiticus, while conveying a similar message, is again imprecise: “And I shall rebuild the Sukah of Dowd / David which has fallen, and her things that have fallen into a state of disrepair I shall rebuild, (from: καὶ ανοικοδομησω την σκηνην Δαυιδ την πεπτωκυιαν και τα κατεσκαμμενα αυτης ανοικοδομησω).”

Seeing how easy it would have been for either Luke, or the scribes responsible for the Codex Sinaiticus, to get this right (recognizing that the Septuagint is correct), we have to ask ourselves: who was responsible for these mistakes? And acknowledging that these errors exist, we must deal with the fact that passages which are not found in extant 1^st-, 2^nd-, or 3^rd-century manuscripts are especially suspect and thus unreliable. But, the good news here is that unlike the citations provided by Paul, Luke was not compelled to invert the intent of God’s message.

This, however, is not the end of the disparities. The Septuagint continues with: “I shall stand up and repair her just as the days that are everlasting (from: αναστησω και ανοικοδομησω αυτην καθως αι ημεραι του αιωνος),” which is as close to the Hebrew text as different languages allow. But in the Codex Sinaiticus, we find Luke’s hearsay transcription of Ya’aqob’s quotation changed to: “And I shall straighten her (και ανορθωσω αυτην),” which is inconsistent with the Hebrew. Therefore, Ya’aqob, speaking Hebrew, was either misquoted in Luke’s translation or subsequent scribes were careless.

This exercise serves to demonstrate that the acclaim attributed to the Codex Sinaiticus is not justified. One might even argue, as I will do in the concluding volume, 268that this manuscript was written in Rome or Constantinople on the order of Emperor Constantine and then sent to Egypt where it remained in the Roman Catholic monastery named in honor of Constantine’s mother, “Saint Catherine.” The spurious work was placed on the shelf along with the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, and Sirach, until the goatskin hides were plucked from the trash by a Leipzig archaeologist, Constantin von Tischendorf, moments before they were to be burned in the monastery ovens. Giving further weight to its Roman Catholic origins, the chapter divisions in the Codex Sinaiticus’ rendition of the book of Acts coincide only with the Codex Vaticanus and early copies of Jerome’s Vulgate, adding considerable weight to the conclusion that the Codex Sinaiticus was politically and religiously inspired.

More recent history aside, Luke’s hearsay presentation of Ya’aqob’s citation of Yahowah’s next revelation through the Prophet ‘Amows / Amos, reads:

“So that (hopos) then (an – conveying a possibility in an uncertain time of an if-then proposition) will diligently scrutinize and seek out (ekzeteo – will search out, investigate, pursue, and / or bring charges against) this remnant (oi kataloipos – those who remain) of mankind (ton anthropos) of the (ton) Lord (ΚΝ – a placeholder based upon kurios | lord and master used in the Septuagint for either ‘edon, the Upright One or for Yahowah’s name), and (kai) all (pas) of the races and nations (ta ethnos – of the ethnicities) upon (epi) whom (ous) has been called and surnamed (epikaleomai – has asked for help, appealing to a higher judge and as a result had the name put upon them, permitting oneself to be surnamed after someone, and to be called and summoned as a witness (in the perfect tense this describes a completed action in the past which has current ramifications, in the passive voice, the individual is being acted upon, and in the indicative 269mood, this describes an actual occurrence)) in association with (to) My (mou) name (onoma) upon (epi) them (autous) says (lego) the Lord (ΚΣ – placeholder based upon the Greek kurios | lord and master which was used throughout the Septuagint as a substitution and replacement for Yahowah’s name), doing (poieomai – performing) this (tauta) (Acts15:17) which was known (gnostos – is that which could be known) from (apo) world and universal history (aionos – from long ago and at all times since).” (Acts 15:17-18)

Unfortunately, Luke’s Greek hearsay rendition of Ya’aqob’s citation did not accurately reflect Amos 9:12, a fact which we will consider in a moment. But since it is so remarkably different than what the Hebrew prophet quoted Yahowah saying, let’s verify the Greek text by way of the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear: “So that [not applicable] will seek out the rest behind of the men the Master and all the nations on whom has been called on the name of me on them says Master doing these known from age.” The New American Standard Bible, which erroneously claims to be a literal translation of the oldest manuscripts, suggests: “In order that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.”

As mentioned, there is no extant 1^st through 3^rd century manuscripts of this particular citation in Greek, so scribal error may have contributed to some of the discrepancies. Of particular issue is ‘Edowm, usually transliterated as “Edom,” which is the name of a place in the Hebrew text. But since it is related linguistically to ‘adam, the Hebrew word for “man,” and because it is also associated with ‘adon | lord,” scribes could easily have become confused. Therefore, in place of ‘Edowm, we find both “anthropos – mankind” and a placeholder for “kurion – lord and master.”

“‘As a result (la ma’an), all of those who are called 270by My name (‘asher qara’ shem ‘any ‘al hem – as a benefit of the relationship the called out who summon Me by name) will inherit (yarash – they will gain possession of) that which is associated with (‘eth) whatever remains of ‘Edowm (sha’ryth ‘Edowm – the residue of bloody Roman influence and that which was controlled by the Roman Catholic Church and thus all of Europe) in addition to the Gentile nations (wa ha gowym),’ prophetically declares (na’um) Yahowah (YaHoWaH – the name of ‘elowah – God as guided by His towrah – instructions regarding His hayah – existence) who will make this happen (‘asah zo’th – who will engage and do this).” (‘Amows / Amos 9:12)

Throughout Yada Yahowah, Observations, and Coming Home, we have had the opportunity to consider ‘Edowm from near and far, and each time its modern incarnation is seen as what has emerged out of Imperial Rome and Roman Catholicism. Should we be right, the nation and religion most responsible for abusing God’s people will be dispossessed by those they robbed.

This known, it’s hard to fathom the utter stupidity of early Twistians. Gospel Jacob misquoted a passage which nullifies the point he was trying to make in favor of embracing Gentiles. In Amows, rather than being included, they are being excluded. Rather than Gowym and Yahuwdym singing out of the same hymnal, all people, nations, and institutions in opposition to God’s people are being dispossessed. It is like having Hitler quote Churchill to rally the SS.

Equally troublesome, “So that (hopos) then (an) will diligently scrutinize and seek out (ekzeteo) this remnant (oi kataloipos) of mankind (ton anthropos) of the (ton) Lord (KN), and (kai) all (pas) of the races and nations (ta ethnos – of the ethnicities) upon (epi) whom (ous) has been called and surnamed (epikaleomai) in association with (to) My (mou) name (onoma) upon (epi) them 271(autous) says (lego) the Lord (ΚΣ), doing (poieomai) this (tauta) (Acts15:17) which was known (gnostos) from (apo) world and universal history (aionos),” is a horribly inaccurate rendering of “As a result (la ma’an), all of those who are called by My name (‘asher qara’ shem ‘any ‘al hem) will inherit (yarash) that which is associated with (‘eth) whatever remains of ‘Edowm (sha’ryth ‘Edowm) in addition to the Gentile nations and institutions (wa ha gowym),’ prophetically declares (na’um) Yahowah (YaHoWaH) who will make this happen (‘asah zo’th).”

If Acts is even marginally consistent with what Luke intended, then we can lay the myth of Divine inspiration to rest. God would not have misquoted Himself to this extent. These errors demonstrate just how desperate Luke was for credibility and the lengths Paul’s associate would go to achieve the pretense of justifying their Satanic plot.

In one simple sentence, we find the unwarranted replacement of “are called” with “scrutinize and seek,” disassociating “remnant” from the proper noun it was modifying, changing “‘Edowm” to “mankind,” arbitrarily adding “Lord,” moving “gowym | non-Yisra’elites” forward in the text to give the wrong impression, excluding “will inherit,” replacing “Yahowah” with a second iteration of “Master and Lord,” then replacing “prophetically declares” with “known,” only to substitute “from world history” for “who will make this happen.” If it were not for the fact that Jews have been horrifically abused by this religion for the past two millennia, this would be a sick joke.

While we’ve come to expect tremendous imprecision in Paul’s letters to the Galatians, Thessalonians, and Corinthians, these mistakes were recorded in the book of Acts, now causing Luke’s hearsay accounting to be no more credible than Homer’s Odyssey. I’m surprised he didn’t name Iesous, Odysseus.

272Turning to the Septuagint as a point of reference, we find that it is not a particularly good match for the Hebrew text of Amos or Luke’s Greek rendering of Ya’aqob’s quotation. It reads: “So that the remnant of men and all the nations shall seek out, upon those whom My name is called upon them, says Yahowah, the God who does these [things].” To this, the Codex Sinaiticus adds “an – it is possible” and “ton ΚΝ – the Lord and Master,” in addition to what is now found in Acts 15:18, which reads “which was known from world and universal history.” Adding to the confusion, the oldest Greek witness of this proclamation then omitted the placeholder for God’s title (ΘΣ) from the Septuagint’s translation, albeit ‘elohym wasn’t actually written in Amos 9:12 anyway.

Perhaps more disconcerting than the inaccuracy of the quotation, this passage, while it is profoundly important in that it speaks of an inheritance and not of providing a witness, was not remotely germane to the point Ya’aqob was making. This means that if this was correctly attributed to him, he should not have cited it to refute Sha’uwl. And while we may never know, our only options are to conclude that either Ya’aqob | Jacob was wrong for citing it, that Luke was wrong for attributing this quotation to Ya’aqob, or that a later scribe added it because a subsequent mischaracterization of the citation seemed to fit. If you are among those who believe that the “New Testament” is “the inerrant word of God,” pick your poison.

On the positive side, we have another confirmation that the placeholder, ΚΣ, which was based upon the Greek kurios, was used to replace Yahowah’s name. And since it is the only name that matters, and that it never once appears in the text of the New Testament, its message is not from God. Of that, we can be certain. And the same can be said of the Talmud and Quran.

At first blush, however, unless it was a legacy of the Septuagint, it is curious that anyone would have chosen a 273placeholder which was based upon a title Yahowah despised. Why not predicate the placeholder on YaHoWaH. And yet, recognizing that these placeholders consistently begin and end with the first and last letter in the title or name they are attempting to convey, and often include an internal consonant, we discover that it would have been somewhat challenging to write an abbreviation for Yahowah’s name in the Greek alphabet. The four Hebrew vowels which comprise God’s name have no direct counterpart in the borrowed alphabet. There is no “Y,” “oW,” or soft “aH” among Greek letters. (The capitalized characters which share a common appearance with the English alphabet’s “Y” and “H” represent Upsilon and Eta, respectively, and thus do not convey a similar sound.)

Also, ‘Edowm is the land of Esau and his descendants. In Observations, based upon a comprehensive translation and evaluation of Yasha’yah / Isaiah, we were able to determine that ‘Edowm is used prophetically to represent what Yahowah disdains about Roman Catholicism. So Yahowah appears to have been prophetically speaking about returning the possessions stolen by Imperial Rome and its legacy, the Roman Catholic Church and Western Europe, from Yahuwdym | Jews over the course of the past two thousand years. The irony is sweet.

While Ya’aqob did not cite the final three verses of Amos’ prophecy, there is no reason we shouldn’t consider them. They read:

“‘Look now and see (hineh – behold, stand up, look up, and reach up to God), the day (yowm) is coming (bow’),’ prophetically declares (na’um) Yahowah ( – a transliteration of YaHoWaH as instructed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), ‘…when I will return and restore (shuwb – come back and reestablish) the property and that which makes life easier and more secure for (sabuwt – the fortunes, restoring that which is good and establishing more 274favorable circumstances for) My (‘any) family (‘am – people and nation), Yisra’el (Yisra’el – individuals who engage and endure with God).” (‘Amows / Bearing a Burden / Amos 9:13-14)

This is a powerful statement. It not only affirms that Yahowah will return, thereby excluding “Jesus,” but also that His purpose will be to “shuwb – reestablish” His family and to “sabuwt – fortuitously restore all that is good” on behalf of “Yisra’el,” not a church. And that is why the related title, Shabuw’ah, is defined as Yahowah’s “vow, His sworn and contractual promise between parties in a relationship to truthfully attest to our innocence.” The fact is, the Miqra’ey of Shabuw’ah and Sukah are related, with one bringing God’s Family to the other.

In His closing statement, Yahowah may be describing what will occur in the aftermath of Muslims pummeling Israel over the next ten years…

“And they will rebuild (banah) their desolate (shamem) cities (‘iyr) and live in them (yatsab – inhabit). And they shall plant (nata’) vineyards (kerem) and drink (shatah – consume) wine (yayn – fermented grape juice).

And they shall fashion (‘asah – make) gardens (ganah) and eat (‘akal – consume) fruit (pary – their harvest) from them. And I will root them (nata’ hem – firmly embed and plant them, establishing their encampment) upon (‘al) their (hem) soil (‘adamah – earth and land).

And they shall never be uprooted (lo’ natash – pulled up and expelled) again (‘owd) from (min) upon (‘al) their land (‘adamah hem – soil) which relationally and beneficially (‘asher) I gave (nathan) to (la) them (hem), says (‘amar) Yahowah (Yahowah – written as directed by His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), your God (‘elohym ‘atah).” (‘Amows / Bearing 275a Burden / Amos 9:14-15)

Those who are careful observers of Yahowah’s Word recognize that God does not always present future history sequentially, so it would not be unusual for Him to discuss His return prior to presenting the conditions which will precede it. Moreover, this conclusion spans time, beginning before and continuing after His return. Yahowah is not doing this because He would like us to appreciate time the way He perceives it, and He does not want His prophecies to influence, and thus change, future events. So long as His reports regarding future history are understood by those devoted to Yahowah’s Word, and thus to Him, it prevents the duplicitous from trying to sabotage His predictions – even though such a thing would be impossible.

In this prophetic declaration, Yahowah said He would personally see to it that following an “evil calamity,” He would reestablish Yisra’el. But also, once His people returned, they would never be uprooted again. Therefore, the final Islamic invasion will be thwarted on Kipurym in 2033. After the Roman Diaspora, German Holocaust, and Islamic genocide, Yisra’elites are home for good. Progressive politicians and Islamic terrorists are not going to prevail; try as they might.

Returning to the book of Acts, according to Luke’s hearsay testimony, after failing miserably in his attempt to cite Yahowah’s prophecy in Amows, Ya’aqob | Jacob (renamed “James” to flatter the English king) is alleged to have said:

“Therefore (dio) I (ego) conclude (krino – decide and judge by way of separating fact from fiction, right from wrong, exercising judgment), not (ue) to make it more difficult (parenochleo – cause trouble for, excite, annoy, or disturb), by separating (apo) the races and nations (ethnos) who are returning (epistrepho – who are 276changing their perspectives, attitudes, thinking, and ways).” (Acts 15:19)

Yahowah has asked Yahuwdym not to emulate the religious and political ways of the Gentiles, but He is actually supportive of Gowym embracing His people and ways. And so while this statement is plausible under those circumstances, allotting the world between them was tangential to the swine in the room – the message that would be conveyed to them. Both sides were grossly misrepresenting the word of God.

The Nestle-Aland’s Interlinear reads: “Wherefore I judge not to annoy along the ones from the nations returning on the God.” As was the case with the first nine verses of the fifteenth chapter of Acts, starting with the nineteenth, we again benefit from the witness provided by Papyrus 45, a 3^rd-century manuscript. In it, we discover that the phrase “epi ton theon – on the God” was added by a 4^th-century scribe at the end of this passage and thus should not be considered.

In the next verse, the phrase “tes porneias kai – the perversion, corruption, or sexual immorality” is not found in Papyrus 45 and may have been added by a scribe to harmonize Ya’aqob’s statement with the subsequent letter memorializing this compromise. The Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear reports, “But to write letter to them the to hold off the pollutions of the idols and of the sexual immorality and the choked and the blood.” The oldest manuscript of this passage reads:

“To the contrary (alla – nonetheless and notwithstanding), to write to them a letter (episteilai autois – to send them an epistle) for the (tou) sufficiency of receiving in full or holding separate (apechesthai – the primary meaning is to receive, the secondary connotation is to be enough or sufficient, the tertiary definition is to be away from, the fourth implication is to experience, the fifth 277is to avoid or abstain, and the sixth is to close an account) of the (ton) polluted and defiled (alisgema – condemned religious rituals which corrupt and make impure) of the (ton) idols and objects of worship (eidolon – the overt or outward appearance of religious worship, imagery, likenesses, idolatry, and false gods), and the (kai tou) strangled (pniktos – choked to death or suffocated as part of a bloodless religious ritual or means to kill an animal before it is butchered), and the (kai tou) blood (haima).” (Acts 15:20)

That may represent the worst effort yet. It’s like telling the passengers on the Titanic that all that matters is that you don’t bring your pajamas, jewelry, or toothpaste. You can disregard all other advice, including saving other passengers, entering lifeboats, or wearing life jackets.

Apechesthai, which is the present middle infinitive of apechei, is an awkward term because it is based upon an internal contradiction. It is a compound of apo, which speaks of “separation,” and “echo – to have and to hold.” Most English translations, therefore, ignore its primary definitions, and render the verb “abstain.” Also telling, since there is no Hebrew word associated with abstaining or abstinence – this admonition is not based upon God’s Word.

Confusion and duplicity aside, the first item on this list has merit, in that it is a derivative of the Second of Three Statements God etched on the First of the Two Tablets. Yahowah specifically asked us to avoid being religious.

However, the reference to “pniktos – strangled” (which will be discussed in reference to the 29^th verse) is a subset of Rabbinic Law, and thus does not come from the Towrah. It is not appropriate. Further, while Yahowah asks us not to drink blood (thereby undermining the Catholic Eucharist), in conjunction with strangulation, this reference to blood would only serve to enrich Kosher butchers. So if 278this list was deemed sufficient, it makes you wonder why God bothered to write the Towrah or inspire the Prophets.

Considering that these largely inappropriate conclusions were attributed to Ya’aqob, for his sake, I hope that they were a product of Luke’s scribal error. Gospel Jesus made no attempt to summarize any such instructions. The Ten Statements bear no resemblance to this list. Also, while Yahowah did provide a synopsis of some of His Towrah | Instructions by writing the Ten Statements, only one aspect of one of the statements memorialized on His Tablets was reflected in this list.

But alas, at least there was one worthy contender among the three prohibitions. Alisgema, translated as “polluted and defiled” and describing “something which has become corrupt and impure by way of a religious ritual,” is often associated with “sacrificial meat and drink offerings made to pagan deities.” A portion was usually taken by the priests, but the remainder was either sold in the marketplace by the donor or eaten by the religious practitioner. So, by including it in his brief list, Ya’aqob was suggesting that we should avoid all contact with anything associated with religion, its imagery, rituals, and sacrifices.

However, when a similar list reappears in the “Apostles’” letter (presented in Acts 15:29), the one thing that changes is the reference to “idols, objects of worship, and polluted and defiled religious rituals which corrupt.” The more ubiquitous prohibition was replaced by saying that it is only necessary to avoid meats that have been sacrificed to idols. As such, the letter was a step backward from an already impoverished position.

Ya’aqob’s next comment, however, was an improvement…

“Because (gar – for indeed) Moseh (Mouses – a transliteration of the Hebrew Moseh, meaning to draw out, 279the scribe of the Towrah), from (ek) generations (genea – ancestors from the same ethnic group) ancient (archaios – antiquity, therefore existing for a long time), the ones announcing Him (tous kerysso auton – those who proclaimed Him and made Him known), is actually and actively held (echei – is genuinely grasped hold of, possessed and experienced) in (en) the synagogues (tais synagoge – a transliteration of the Greek word meaning assembly meetings). In accordance with (kata) every (pas) Shabat (sabbaton – a transliteration of the Hebrew shabat, meaning rest, promise, and seven), it is being read and known (anaginosko – it is publicly recited aloud so that it might be understood).” (Acts 15:21)

Before we dissect this statement, please note that Papyrus 45 omits “[throughout / accordingly (kata) their towns and cities (polis)].” Also, “echei – is actually and actively held,” shown as εχει in the third person, singular, present, active, indicative in the Nestle-Aland 27^th Edition, was scribed as ekei (εκει), meaning “there, in that place,” in Papyrus 45. But since most early manuscripts reflect the later form, which also works better within the flow of the sentence, methinks the oldest witness reflected a scribal error which is why I have neglected it. However, “tous – the ones” should have been written in the singular as “the one” making Him known.

The bookkeeping behind us, understand that Ya’aqob referenced “Moseh | Moses,” but didn’t bother to mention “Towrah | Guidance” – so he misses the point. He then speaks of those who introduced him, but there were none. Further, synagogue is a Greek concept and bears no association with the Towrah or Yahowah. And while he mentioned the Shabat, Christians ignore it in favor of their Sunday god.

It is written: “The entirety of the Word and every promise (kol ‘imrah – every statement and each prescription) of God (‘elowha) is pure, tested, and true 280(tsaraph – refined and valuable, precious and worthy), a shield for (magen – an enclosure which surrounds, defends, and saves) those who put their trust in (chasah – those who rely upon) Him.” (Mashal / Word Pictures / Proverb 30:5)

It is written: “Yahowah’s (Yahowah – a transliteration of , our ‘elowah – God as directed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence) Towrah (Towrah – teaching, instruction, direction, and guidance) is complete and entirely perfect (tamym – without defect, lacking nothing, correct, sound, genuine, right, helpful, beneficial, and true), returning, restoring, and transforming (shuwb – turning around and bringing back) the soul (nepesh – consciousness).

Yahowah’s (Yahowah – written as directed by His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence) enduring testimony (‘eduwth – restoring witness) is trustworthy and reliable (‘aman – verifiable, confirming, supportive, and establishing), making understanding and obtaining wisdom (chakam – educating and enlightening oneself to the point of comprehension) straightforward for the open-minded (pethy).” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:7)

Many speak of loving God, but few understand the way to achieve this: “Love Yahowah, your God, with all your mind and heart, with all your soul and consciousness, and with all your ability.

The Word (dabar) exists to be a prescription for living upon mind and heart. Repeat these prescriptions so as to teach them by rote to your children.

Speak the Word (dabar) among them where you live (yatsab), in your house and home (beyth), during your travels (halak – your walk) along the way (derek – the path), and when you lie down and when you stand up (quwm).

281Bind them as a sign on your hand and as a sign between your eyes. And write them on the doorframe of your home and the gate to your community.” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 6:5-8)

It is written: “Gather together and assemble (qahal – summon people to a central place for a particular purpose, uniting and congregating) the family (‘am – people), the men (‘iysh), the women (‘ishah), and the little children (tap), as well as the people from different races and places (ger – strangers and foreigners from different cultural, ethnic, or geographical communities who are visiting, even just passing through, temporarily living in your midst (i.e., Gentiles)) who, for the benefit of the relationship (‘asher) are within (ba) your gates and doorways (sa’ar – your property, towns, cities, and communities) so that (ma’an – for the intended purpose that) they can listen (shama’ – hear the message and receive the information), and so that (ma’an – for this intended purpose) they are instructed and learn (lamad – so that they gain access to the information which is required to be properly guided and respond appropriately), coming to respect and revere (yare’) Yahowah, your God (Yahowah ‘elohym), observing (shamar – closely examining and carefully considering) and then acting upon (wa ‘asah – engaging in, celebrating, and profiting from) all (kol) the words (dabar) of this (zo’th) Towrah (towrah – teaching, direction, guidance, and instruction).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 31:12)

“Now (‘atah) write (kathab) for all of you the words (dabar) of this (zot) song (sirah – these lyrics with an emphasis on instruction), and teach this to (lamad – provide information, guidance, instruction, and training for) the Children of Yisra’el (ben Yisra’el – children who engage and endure with God).

Put them in her mouth (peh) so that they will exist (hayah) with Me (‘eth), with these lyrics (sirah) serving 282as an everlasting witness (‘ed – as eternal evidence and restoring testimony) amongst (ba – within) the Children who Engage and Endure with God (ben Yisra’el).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 31:19)

At the very least, by affirming Moseh’s contribution to our lives, Ya’aqob’s declaration not only negated Paul’s position, but it changed the nature of the debate. It was no longer the wannabe apostle against the disciples. It was now Sha’uwl v. Yahowah.

If you are still a Christian, or if you are trying to liberate a Christian from their faith, consider this conundrum: to side with Paul against Gospel Jesus’ hand-picked and personally trained disciples in this debate over the role of Yahowah’s Towrah in our lives is to conclude that God was incompetent. This undeniable conclusion mirrors another even more profound realization: if the Towrah, which was authored by Yahowah and is the most important and brilliant document ever written, is incapable of saving anyone, how is it then that letters written by a man claiming to be inspired by the Author of the Towrah he discredits, are believable? This has to be the single most irrational position that has come to be widely held.

The Torah “was read aloud and became known” “in the synagogues in accordance with every Shabat.” The Christian fixation on Sunday Worship, the Lord’s Day, and even Easter Sunday is unjustifiable in every respect.

It is written: “Remember and recall (zakar – recognize, memorialize, and be earnestly mindful of) that the Shabat (shabat – the seventh day, the time of observance and celebration) day is set apart (yowm qodesh – separated unto God). Six days you shall work (‘abad) and do (‘asah) all your service of representing the maternal messenger (mala’kah – the Spirit’s duties).

The seventh (shabiy’iy – seven; from shaba’, meaning solemn promise and oath, and shaber meaning to 283interpret and explain the meaning or significance of a communication) day, the Shabat (shabat – the time of promise to reflect, observe, and celebrate) of Yahowah ( – a transliteration of YaHoWaH as instructed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), your God (‘elohym), you shall not do (‘asah) any part of the work of God’s maternal representative and messenger (mala’kah – feminine of mal’ak, the ministry and mission of our Spiritual Mother), not your son, not your daughter, not your servants and employees, not your means of production, nor those visitors in your home or property.” (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 20:8-10)

Preachers are misinformed when they say that “the first Christians went to church on Sunday to worship the Lord by proclaiming the Gospel.” The first step toward Covenant membership is away from religion, not toward it. The second step is to walk to Yahowah and be perfected by Him during the Miqra’ey by being Towrah-observant.

This next line suggests that the disciples did not trust Sha’uwl.

“Then (tote – at that time) the Apostles (apostolos – those who were prepared and sent out) and the elders (presbyteros – the community leaders), along with (syn – in association and together with) the entire (holos – and complete) Called-Out Assembly (ekklesia – from ek, called out and kaleo, to call), concluded that it would be appropriate for (edoze – after consideration and thinking they were disposed to) themselves to select spokesmen (eklegomai andras – choose men to speak out, from lego, to speak and affirm and ek out and andras – man) from (ek) among them (auton) to send (pempo –dispatching messengers with the Word) to (eis) Antioch (Antiocheia – the capital of Syria based upon a transliteration of King Antiochus) with (syn) the Little and Lowly Paulos (to Paulos – the Paulos (of Latin origin following the definite article meaning the insignificant)) and (kai) Barnabas 284(Barnabas – a transliteration of the Aramaic / Hebrew bar, son of, and naby’, a prophet) – Yahuwdah (Ioudas – a crude transliteration of the Hebrew Yahuwdah meaning Beloved of Yah), called (ton kaloemenon – the person named) Barsabbas (son of Sabbas) (Barsabbas – a transliteration of the Aramaic / Hebrew bar, son of, and tsaba’ meaning military conscript) and (kai) Silas (Silas – of Latin origin meaning woody), [who were] leading men (hegeomai andras – highly regarded men with the authority to provide direction and leadership) among (en) the brethren (adelpois).” (Acts 15:22)

It was the conclusion of the disciples, the elders, and the entire Yaruwshalaim Ekklesia that Sha’uwl required supervision. Yahuwdah / Barsabbas and Silas were given the authority to act on behalf of the disciples to muzzle the Lowly One (Paulos). It obviously didn’t work.

“Through (dia) having written (grapho) by their hand (auton cheir), the Apostles (oi apostolos – those who were prepared and sent out) and the elders (presbyteros – the community leaders) amongst (kata) the brethren (adelpos) to the (tois) Antiocheia (Antiochian), Suria (Syrian), and Kilikia (Cilician) brothers (adelphos), to the ones (tois) from (ek) the ethnicities (ethnos – different races, nations, and places): Joyful Greetings (chairo – a happy hello)!” (Acts 15:23)

While this all blew up in everyone’s face in Antioch, if we flip back through the pages of Acts, we find that Paul had previously been in Lycaonia, which was just north of Cilicia, before traveling south through Syria. That is relevant because of the addresses listed in the “Joyful Greeting” would bring hellish torments on God’s people.

With that in mind, remember, this meeting had been called to confront Paulos’ contrarian testimony against the Torah generally and circumcision specifically. And while anyone with a pair of functioning brain cells knew that Paul 285was on the losing side of this argument with God, not a single Yahuwd | Jew in the room had the intelligence or conviction to stand up for Yahowah against the imposter. This catastrophic and now endemic failure by God’s people opened the door for Christianity to prevail – such that Jews would be degraded and abused by them for the next two millennia.

The collective decline in the character and conscience of Yisra’elites began with Ya’aqob and worsened with his sons, deteriorating further while exiles and then slaves in Mitsraym | the Crucibles of Oppression. By the time they were Yatsa’ | Withdrawn, they had become supersaturated in religion, political preferences, and their own egos, leaving them embittered, immoral, unappreciative malcontents opposed to Yahowah and Moseh. Their animosity toward God grew so great that in the midst of rescuing them, they told Yahowah that they never wanted to see or hear from Him again.

As a direct consequence, their history is abysmal, with only two brief flirtations with Yah, His Towrah, Beryth, and Miqra’ey, first under Dowd and then with Chazaqyah. God became so unpopular among Yahuwdym | Jews that after Zakaryah, Yow’el, and Mal’aky, Yahowah’s voice went silent. There was no one among the descendants of Ya’aqob interested in listening to the God of ‘Abraham, much less speaking for Him.

Of course, Yahowah didn’t leave His people in the dark. There was a vast reservoir of prophetic revelations at their disposal, just as it remains available to us today. But they started filtering His message through their religious preferences and completely lost sight of Yahowah. By the time Dowd arrived to fulfill Chag Matsah, few, if any, Jews recognized the most famous among them accomplished the greatest feat in human history. And now, sitting in this room, they were jockeying for position, arguing over turf, and lost in religious minutia.

286As a consequence, rather than benefit from the Messiah’s and Son of God’s gift of life and perfection leading to being part of Yahowah’s Covenant Family, they threw it all away, replacing the Zarowa’ with a myth of their own creation, robbing the genuine article in the process. The result was Pauline Christianity as advanced through his anti-Semitic New Testament. This would lead directly to Rabbi Akiba’s foisting of another false Messiah to counter the one promoted by this gaggle of goons. It was now Religion by Romper Room. But the only ones laughing were the newly minted Christians as they replaced, degraded, and tormented Jews.

With time, the separation became irreconcilable, as the Children of Yisra’el trashed and disposed of Yahowah’s name, then plastered over His Towrah | Guidance by contributing to the Talmud, New Testament, Quran, Zohar, and Communist Manifesto. And that is the state I found God’s people when Yahowah asked me to work with Him to awaken the Children of Yisra’el from their four-thousand-year stupor.

But on this tragic day, as these argumentative Jews sat in this room, they listened to two demon-possessed men vying for power, both of whom were eager to infuse the resulting religion with their sentiments and preferences, but neither of whom had any interest in listening to God. I suppose that is understandable since He was opposed to everything they were saying.

The Father of Lies had positioned himself as his god’s messenger to the nations and had traveled the world preaching his perverted Gospel. He was a Roman citizen, and they were not, giving Paul an enormous advantage. Paul was better educated, better connected politically, far more ambitious, and a much more verbose speaker and writer. It was a triumph for the greater of two weasels.

Clearly, there was nothing to be gained by negotiating 287with a self-proclaimed murderer and pervert, with a man who would soon admit to being both insane and demon possessed. And appeasement, which is what they sought, was akin to making concessions with a Muslim regarding peace with Israel.

The correct response is the one I am providing. But these men didn’t know Yahowah or what He had provided through Moseh, Shamuw’el, Dowd, or Yasha’yah. And so, by doing the wrong thing, they sowed the seeds that would choke God’s people for twenty centuries.

Instead of rebuking Peter and Paul, they sought to outmaneuver one another. They sought to work out an accommodation – which is the mother’s milk of politics. By compromising on essential values and issues, they degraded and devalued themselves, and postponed the inevitable, such that Jews would ultimately pay a much higher price.

While the Yaruwshalaim Summit began and ended referring to the Torah, the Torah would not be mentioned in their letter. Christianity is the consequence.

Considering that the perpetrator of the contrarian view used “tarasso – intimidation, perplexing his audience by confusing them,” this next statement provides a chilling summation of the meeting held to judge Pauline Doctrine. In that God made Himself known to facilitate trust, His adversary “instilled doubts” to necessitate faith.

Knowing that the Spirit he was opposing brought peace through reconciliation, Sha’uwl had used “fear tactics to terrorize” his audience into submission. And all of the “perplexing and unanswerable questions” which arose from his rhetoric, through tarasso we learn the troubling statements “were born out of a complete lack of scruples.”

Here then is “the Apostles’” written declaration to the nations. And should it have existed, this is the germ that 288became the New Testament – the first words written on behalf of the appalling imposition of Replacement Theology that became Christianity. Too bad this is buried in the Book of Acts and not highlighted within the Gospels.

“Since (epeide – seeing and recognizing that) we heard (akouo – we received news) that (oti) someone (tis) from (ek) us (emon) [went out (exerchomai) (excluded from Papyrus 45)] stirred up trouble by confusing and intimidating (tarasso – distressing, disturbing, and agitating, without scruples perplexing by causing doubts, frightening and terrorizing so as to threaten) you (umas) with statements (logos – with words, speech, a message, acquisition, or treatise) with unsettling and troubling words and irrational notions (anakeuazo logos – with distressful and upsetting speech, with destructive and ravaging statements, with mindless and irrational reasoning, with a treatise designed to overthrow, upend, and subvert by being terrifying) for your souls (tas psyche umon – for your psyche) which (ois) we did not authorize (ou diastellomai – we did not arrange, prepare, set into place, or send out),…” (Acts 15:24)

It was true, but nonetheless a complete waste of ink and energy. They didn’t have the courage to name the enemy of their people when he was sitting in their midst. This left the door open for Paul to claim that those stirring up trouble and confusing the people were the Towrah-observant Jews who had opposed his contrarian and perplexing taunts in the first place. Specificity is essential in any rebuke.

Further, the authors of this confrontational letter didn’t bother explaining what made Paul’s statements so irrational, unsettling, and destructive. They knew that he had been speaking out against the Towrah and Covenant by misappropriating the word of God. Why didn’t they say so?

289Why did they complain by saying that they hadn’t provided Paul with the authorization to intimidate and confuse? The only relevant issue was that Paul was lying when he claimed that the God he was rebuking had appointed and inspired him to contradict and nullify the Towrah. The argument that mattered was the degradation of Yahowah, His people, son, guidance, invitations, and relationship by the Plague of Death.

Yes, the letter was “tarasso – disturbing” and “anakeuazo – distressing” because it states that the message of the unnamed assailant was so irrational and intimidating that it subverted souls. But why was what caused this left unspoken? As a result, all this accomplished was to demonstrate that Christianity was born in hostile antipathy and divisiveness while further engendering the animosity of a certifiable psychopath. Naturally, the result was horrific for the kin of those who wrote it.

Should a reader want to exonerate these men and opine that it was perhaps possible that the disciples were unaware of much of what Paul was saying against the Towrah since they were not eyewitnesses to his speeches and since there was nothing to read – no epistles or gospels – then why was their language so inflammatory? Why kick the wolf and then send him back out to ravage the world? And why, once Galatians was scribed and distributed within two years of this summit, isn’t there a letter from them similar to this retort in Twistianity?

The fact is that Christianity did not begin with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They were scribed decades after Paul’s letters were written, widely disseminated, and their author had done his damage and died. Further, at the time this inflammatory letter was inked, Paul’s first epistle, Galatians, which was written as a hostile rebuttal to his censure at this meeting, was still months away. Paul’s next four letters, the two anti-Semitic 290rants to the Thessalonians and the pair of schizophrenic tomes to the Corinthians, were three to five years off.

As a result, all those in this room knew at the time was that Paulos was lying about Yahowah, Yahuwdym, the Towrah, Beryth, Miqra’ey, and Mashyach. They would not have known that Sha’uwl would admit to being insane or demon possessed.

Luke’s portrayal of this man’s life, from which this excerpt was derived, would not be compiled for a score of years. Therefore, it would be some time before Paul’s preposterous conversion experience or his duplicitous and conflicting testimony was known. So, to some extent, all Sha’uwl had to do at this meeting to appear plausible was to lie. And that is what he did best. He may have even relented somewhat, curtailing his anti-Torah vitriol long enough to fool the disciples into believing that the wolf in him could be tamed and made compliant.

Having been in their position in business, where information was sketchy and incomplete, and where the participants are naturally prone to give every party the benefit of the doubt, the strategy deployed by the disciples is not uncommon. They may not have known enough about Pauline Doctrine to categorically state that it was entirely divergent from what they knew to be true. But whose fault was that and what was the consequence – especially among men who claimed that their god had authorized them to sit in judgment?

Confused by Paul’s conflicting testimony, it is possible that those lost in their own delusions came to the conclusion that condemning the Devil’s Advocate would place them in direct opposition to the many thousands, and soon millions, of politically empowered Greeks and Romans who found Paul’s preaching to their liking. So, they deployed a tactic called “the art of emphasis.” They shared their disdain without confronting Paul’s deceptions 291because they were afraid that they would lose the argument and look foolish in the process. They were inadequately prepared to stand up and prevail. And so, whose fault would that have been in this scenario? Did I hear someone timidly whisper, “Gospel Jesus?” But wouldn’t that make the whole paradigm of having Disciples a complete sham?

While the art of emphasis is often an effective marketing strategy, it is inappropriate in association with God. So I recommend Yahowah’s approach, which is to be clear, consistent, uncompromising, and blunt, while offering as complete an explanation as can be compiled, no matter how many words that requires. Yada Yahowah is long because of this approach, as are An Introduction to God, Observations, and Coming Home, in addition to Babel, Twistianity, and God Damn Religion.

We do not have an answer to every question, and there are many things that we are still learning, but there are essential truths which are readily known, easily verified, and must be shared. First among them is that we cannot go wrong when we convey Yahowah’s testimony accurately, or when we advocate and excoriate those things which He approves and condemns.

For example, Yahowah has introduced Himself by name. He asked that we walk away from religion and politics and that we circumcise our sons as our sign that we want to be part of His Covenant Family. He has encouraged us to observe His Towrah and listen to Him. He is inviting us to meet with Him during the Miqra’ey and, along with His Son, is offering to make us immortal and perfect children within His family. That is good enough for me.

Based upon Yahowah’s Word, unity with Him is essential, while unity among men is only advisable when those men and women share a common and accurate understanding of the Towrah and its Covenant. In fact, God would prefer that we distance ourselves from the thinking, 292approach, and institutions of men with other agendas. This notwithstanding, the conciliators wrote…

“...it occurred (edozen – a derivative of dokei, presumed and supposed) to us (emin) to come to exist (ginomai) with one purpose or passion (homothymadon – common accord emotionally and temperamentally, being similarly angry; from homou, together, and thumos, expressing passion), having ourselves selected spokesmen (eklegomai andras – choosing men among ourselves to speak out, from lego, to speak and affirm and ek out) to send (pempo – dispatching messengers with the Word) to (pros) you (emas) with (syn) the dear (tois agapetos – the beloved; from agapao – speaking of persons who have been welcomed, even entertained) of us (emon), Barnabas and also Paulo (Barnaba kai Paulo).” (Acts 15:25)

It just went from bad to worse. This is inexcusable. They were not speaking on behalf of Yahowah or His Towrah but, instead, on “a supposition that occurred to us.” Unlike Yahowah who is uncompromising, and even discordant with Gospel Jesus who stated that he came to bring division, these religious politicians sought to promote a “unifying emotional appeal.”

But all was not lost; akin to the rabbis, they democratically elected their spokesman. And then, in the spirit of campfire songs and scary stories, they all held hands as they embraced the Devil. “Oh dear Barny and Paulo, let’s all sing our song together. Oh what a religion we could make if only we try.” So, how does this square with the vitriol in the opening sentence?

By using a derivative of dokei, the disciples were limited to their personal “opinions and suppositions” regarding the troubling message Paul had been conveying. They simply did not know enough to be effective. And as such, they could not have been speaking for God.

293Homothymadon does not mean that “they were of one mind,” but instead that their “passions and desires were similar.” The Greek word for mind is dianoia, not thumos which addresses “strong emotions,” and in particular, “being angry.” It is also used to convey being “inflamed by sufficient wine to cause the drinker to be mad or kill himself.” As such, this was an emotional appeal. Further, the disciples were hedging their bets by calling the spokesmen “eklegomai – ones who speak out.”

Lastly, it is interesting that Barnabas’ name was listed first in this letter, suggesting that he, along with those the disciples were dispatching, were “tois agapetos – the beloved.” With Paul being listed last, and following “kia – and also,” he was separated from the potentially endearing term. Elsewhere, it is always the other way around, with Paul receiving top billing. And in that light, it is telling that Barnabas and Paul would soon split up, with Barnabas disagreeing with Paul. Further, the root of agapetos, agapao, simply means that the disciples “welcomed the man to their meeting and entertained his story.”

“Men (anthropos) having given over (paradidomi – having delivered and instructed; a compound of para, from, and didomi, to give) their (auton) souls (psyche – consciousnesses) for the sake of (hyper) the name (tou onoma) of the Lord (tou ΚΥ), our Christou (ΧΥ –placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement to usurp the Septuagint’s credibility and infer divinity) Iesou (ΙΥ – placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Iesou which became “Jesus” in the 17^th century after the invention of the letter “J”).” (Acts 15:26)

The inference is that the “men who had given over their souls for the sake of the name of the Lord, our Christou Iesou” were Barny and Paulos since they were the last mentioned. If so, there were only snakes and wolves in this room, no sheep. They were coconspirators in an epic 294crime and cover-up. Yahowah was being replaced by the Lord. The Mashyach was now rendered a Christou. And Dowd had been renamed Iesou.

In the midst of these delusions, only one thing is certain – the cast of characters responsible for Christianity are all in She’owl, making Hell a very religious place.

But to be fair, this might have been poorly written such that I suppose Yahuwdah and Silas were being flattered rather than Barnabas and Satan’s Messenger. But even then, they were off promoting a demonic fable so what does it matter?

“Therefore (oun – wherefore and indeed) we have delegated, prepared, and sent the Apostles (apostello – we have equipped and dispatched for this particular purpose messengers conveying the Word), Yahuwdah (Ioudas – a transliteration of the Hebrew Yahuwdah meaning Beloved of Yah) and (kai) Silas (Silas), and (kai) through (dia) their (autous) speech (logos – word and statements) reporting and proclaiming the same message (apangello ta auta – announcing; from apo, separation and aggelos, message and messenger).” (Acts 15:27)

Umm, excuse me for interrupting this kumbaya emotional appeal by these repulsive replacement theologians, but what was the god damn message? Have they progressed from telling the passengers on their sinking ship what not to take with them as they plunge into the chilly waters of faith? If so, this continues to be a waste of ink.

Before you consider the next concern, a word of caution is in order. Many people say that their thoughts are inspired by the Spirit. And some may be right some of the time. For example, the many insightful revelations found in Yada Yahowah, An Introduction to God, Observations, and Coming Home, Babel, Twistianity, and God Damn 295Religion were inspired by the Spirit and the Word of God, while all of the errors are a result of a flawed and inadequate implement processing their guidance.

Unfortunately, the following statement is wrong. I base this conclusion not upon my standards, but instead upon Yahowah’s teaching, His guidance, and the instructions He established in the Towrah. That which is in complete accord with the Towrah is right, that which conflicts with Yahowah’s Towrah and Naby’ is untrue, and that which cannot be affirmed or rejected based upon the Towrah is suspect or superfluous. By that standard, this is misleading:

“For (gar) the Holy (hagios – a Greek variation on the Hebrew qodesh – set apart but more akin to the Hebrew holy/choly in practice) Spirit (ΠΝΑ – a placeholder representing the feminine ruwach – spirit from the Greek neuter noun pneuma) seemed to be of the opinion (dokei – supposed and presumed), and also (kai) to us (emin), nothing (medeis) more (pleion) of a burden or hardship (baros – of a weight or trouble, suffering or difficult duty) to be placed upon you (epitithemai emin – should you be subjected to) except (plen) these (toeton), the indispensable requirements (ton epanagkes – things which are absolutely essential and necessary):…” (Acts 15:28)

Before we pass judgment on this statement, let’s consider the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear presentation: “It thought for to the spirit the holy and to us nothing more to be set on to you burden except these the necessary.” Beyond more accurately rendering “thought” and “holy,” the reason that the word order differs in these presentations of Acts is that, in addition to translating the meaning of the words from Greek to English, I’ve also tried to transition from Greek to English grammar, wherein English subjects precede verbs and nouns follow adjectives.

296To begin, the “ruwach – Spirit” of Yahowah is not “holy” nor is She “neuter.” Few things are as essential to understanding Yahowah’s nature and approach as the realization of what it means to be “qodesh – set apart,” and that, in a family such as the Covenant, a Father and Mother are required for children to live and grow.

Because the “Ruwach Qodesh – Set-Apart Spirit” is a part of Yahowah, set apart from Him to serve us, She does not “dokei – presume or suppose” anything. She is devoid of “opinions.” As part of God, set apart from Him, the Set-Apart Spirit has complete access to all pertinent information and Her judgment is impeccable. In Greek, you would say that She “epiginosko – has evaluated all of the evidence and has come to know and understand without any hint of uncertainty.” Therefore, to suggest that the Set-Apart Spirit “seemed to be of the opinion,” regarding Yahowah’s message generally, and the Towrah specifically, is to say that they either didn’t receive Her directions or they didn’t process them appropriately.

Baros, in the accusative case, translated as “of a burden or hardship,” speaks of something which is “a tremendous weight or a difficult duty which leads to suffering and sorrow and is oppressive.” Its inclusion in this translation of the disciples’ letter strongly suggests that this report was fraudulent.

There are five requirements that have to be known, understood, accepted, and acted upon to engage in the Covenant. These are not “difficult duties,” but are instead easy, and rather than being “oppressive,” leading to “suffering and sorrow,” they are liberating, rewarding, and enjoyable. Nothing is better than being adopted into our Heavenly Father’s Family. And not one of the five requirements is a “burden” or a “hardship.” This oppressive view of Yahowah, His Towrah, and His Covenant is entirely Pauline.

297While I would encourage you to read Volume 3 of Yada Yahowah, In the Family, or Volume 2 of Observations, simply entitled, Covenant, for a complete and contextual presentation of the Beryth | Covenant’s conditions and benefits in Yahowah’s own words, suffice it to say for now that God asks the following of us: 1) Walk away from your country, including all things Babylon, which means disassociating from the confounding integration of religion and politics. 2) Come to trust and rely upon Yahowah instead. 3) Walk to God to become perfect, a path which is laid out through the seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet. 4) Closely examine and carefully consider the instructive conditions of the family-oriented Covenant relationship, so that once you understand its provisions, you can respond to God’s offer. And 5) Parents should demonstrate their acceptance of the Covenant and their willingness to raise their children to become God’s children by circumcising their sons, because all males must be circumcised to participate.

The benefits of doing these five things are: 1) The Covenant’s children become immortal on Passover as a result of Dowd’s sacrifice. 2) We become perfect from God’s perspective on UnYeasted Bread, our flaws are no longer seen or known because Dowd removed them. 3) The Covenant’s children are adopted into God’s Family on Firstborn Children, following the Firstborn home while inheriting everything Yahowah has to offer. As a result, we are 4 & 5) Enriched with the Towrah’s teaching and empowered by God’s Spirit.

Yahowah, working with Dowd and the Set-Apart Spirit enabled each of these benefits by fulfilling the promises God had made regarding the Covenant, in succession, on the precise days of these Mow’ed Miqra’ey, in year 4000 Yah (33 CE on our pagan calendars).

As for the rest of the Towrah, once you embrace these rewarding requirements, the benefits are wonderful. There 298are no other requirements, there are no burdens, no hurdles, no difficult duties. At this point, like Dowd | David, a person is able to err without eternal consequence. Ignoring the rest of Yahowah’s guidance is inadvisable and counterproductive, but as Dowd reveals, a child of the Covenant remains right and thus vindicated, immortal and enriched, not because they obey every rule, but because Yahowah honors His promises.

In this light, it is interesting to note, there is no Hebrew word for “obey.” And as you now know, Towrah means “teaching, guidance, direction, and instruction,” not “law.” So the whole notion of “baros – difficult duties and oppressive burdens” is wholly inconsistent with God’s approach to life.

The intent of the Towrah is to free us from “oppression,” which is why Yahowah engaged to free His children from slavery. Its purpose is to remove our “burdens” by way of the Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God. Properly observed, the Towrah liberates us from “suffering and sorrow” by bringing us into a familial covenant relationship with our Heavenly Father. Yahowah says as much in the Book bearing His Guidance:

“Indeed (ky), you should consistently and genuinely listen to (shama’) the voice (ba qowl) of Yahowah ( – the pronunciation of YaHoWaH as guided by His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), your God (‘elohym), to approach by (la) diligently observing, closely examining, and carefully considering (shamar) His terms and conditions (mitswah – His authorized directions and instructions regarding His Covenant contract) and (wa) His inscribed prescriptions for living (chuqah – His engraved advice regarding being cut into the relationship) in this specific (ba ha zeh) written scroll (sepher – written document) of the Towrah (ha Towrah – the teaching and direction, the instruction and guidance) if (ky) you want to actually and eternally return (shuwb – 299you want to be genuinely and always restored, forever changing your attitude, direction, and thinking) to (‘el) Yahowah (Yahowah – written as directed by His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), your God (‘elohym), with all of your heart (ba kol leb) and with all of your soul (wa ba kol nepesh).

Indeed (ky), these (ha ze’th) terms and conditions (mitswah – authorized instructions regarding the covenant contract) which relationally and beneficially (‘asher) I am (‘anky) instructing you (tsawah – directing and guiding you by sharing with you) this day (ha yowm) are not difficult or challenging (lo’ pala’ – are not hard, troublesome, or a burden). This is not beyond your reach (huw’ min wa lo’ rachowq).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 30:10-11)

Based upon God’s assessment and my experience, circumcision is not a “considerable hardship causing great suffering and sorrow,” which is why Yahowah is comfortable asking parents to do this on behalf of their sons eight days after their birth. As for adult circumcision, all that is required is the removal of a small amount of skin. And if we are unwilling to do this, what does it say about our appreciation for the sacrifice Dowd made on our behalf, where most of his skin was ripped from his body by metal-studded Roman flagellum, where he suffered excruciating pain by being nailed to the upright pole as the Passover Lamb, and where his soul endured separation from God, allowing the soul to be tortured in She’owl on our behalf?

The use of “plen – except” in this context infers, by way of translation, that the disciples were saying the items on the following list were “baros – tremendous burdens.” And also, these represented the only “epanagkes – indispensable requirements” of the Torah – neither of which is even remotely accurate making what follows a hideous joke. The totality of their absurd list was then 300comprised of:

“…to stay away from (apechomai – to separate and keep a distance from, thereby avoiding and abstaining from) sacrificial meats (eidolothyton – animal flesh offered to pagan idols), and (kai) blood (haima), and (kai) strangled (pniktos – choked to death and suffocated as part of a bloodless religious ritual), and (kai) sexual immorality (porneia – fornication, prostitution, or illegal intercourse), from (ek) which (hos) avoiding (diatereo – keeping or abstaining from) yourselves (eautous) beneficial (eu – healthy and prosperous, good and correct) you do (prasso – you practice, carry out, and accomplish). Farewell (rhonnymai – goodbye, be strong, healthy, and prosperous).’” (Acts 15:29)

This is reprehensible and revolting. As just mentioned, if looking for a list of mandates from Yahowah which must be met to enter His Home, that list would include: 1) knowing and using His proper name, 2) avoiding associating the names of false and additional gods with Yahowah, 3) recognizing that Yahowah, as our Father, is not soliciting obedience, worship, or prayer but, instead, a family relationship, 4) disassociate from religion, politics, and babel, 5) accept the five conditions of the Covenant, 5) attend the seven Invitations to be Called out and Meet while also observing the Shabat, 6) celebrate Dowd’s role in fulfilling the Miqra’ey, and 7) closely examine and carefully consider Yahowah’s testimony throughout the Towrah wa Naby’.

Nothing important to God found its way to the Apostle’s list. Therefore, we can correctly conclude that they did not know Yahowah or speak for Him. All they were doing was conveying their religious preferences.

The Apostolic list was no better than the previous occasion when they listed three items, only one of which was potentially meaningful – and it’s the one removed 301from the revision. This itemization is wholly inconsistent with the statements recorded in Matthew 5 through 7 from his Instruction on the Mount. Not one of these edicts was sufficiently important to make an appearance in the Ten Statements Yahowah etched in stone. So since this wasn’t God’s list, nor even that of Gospel Jesus, whose do you suppose it might have been?

Eidolothyton is a compound of eidolon, meaning “images and likenesses,” and thuo, which conveys the idea of “sacrificial slaughter.” It is but a subset of the earlier admonition in Acts 15:20, from which the Gentiles were asked to “stay away from condemned (alisgema – religious rituals and impure) idols and false gods (eidolon).” This diminishment in scope, and distancing of the message from the Second Statement Yahowah etched in stone is interesting because, apart from the addition of “porneia – sexual immorality,” the rest of the list was identical with Ya’aqob’s previous declaration.

As a surprise to many, Yahowah does not instruct against “porneia – sexual immorality,” much less condemn it. He does not insist on one wife but is not fond of religious adultery. There is no admonition against premarital sex. Divorce is as simple as a letter. God does not even speak out against homosexuality, as we will discover when we properly translate His advice. Yahowah’s instructions warn us against incest, rape, and bestiality.

Diatereo, rendered as “avoid,” is most often translated as “continually and carefully keep.” It is from dia, “through,” and tereo, “to observe and attend to, to guard and to keep.” The author of this text first used diatereo in Luke 2:51, where Gospel Jesus was said to have returned to fabled “Nazareth” with his parents and “was subordinate to them. And his mother always ‘remembered and treasured (diatereo – kept and preserved)’ these words in her heart.” Sadly for Luke’s credibility, Nazareth did not exist in the 1^st century.

302There is considerable room for confusion here – especially because there was no city or town named Nazareth, or even in that location, at the time. This is an issue we will examine further when we expose some of the many inaccuracies found in the Christian New Testament, in the concluding volume of Twistianity.

It is true, albeit an afterthought, that according to the Towrah, we should not consume things offered as a sacrifice to a god or goddess. We find this instruction in Shemowth / Names / Exodus 34:12-15, where Yahowah asks us to avoid any association with religious activity.

As we read through this, please remember that it was Sha’uwl who established and boldly proclaimed a new covenant in association with the inhabitants of the nations he claimed as his own. It became a trap, ensnaring those who came to favor the altars and religious shrines that grew out of his letters – especially his association with the Graces. And Sha’uwl’s religious pronouncements were always focused on an additional and very different god, one whose name was unassociated with Yahowah.

“To approach you should be observant (shamar la – to come near, closely examine and carefully consider [Yahowah’s “tsawah – instructions and directions” which was the focus of the 11^th verse]) lest (pen) you cut a covenant (karat beryth – you establish a familial relationship) in association with the inhabitants of the land (la yashab ha ‘erets) which beneficially (‘asher) you are coming upon (‘atah bow’ ‘al), so that it does not (pen) become (hayah – exist as) the onset of a snare in your midst (la mowqesh ba qereb). (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 34:12)

But rather accordingly (ky ‘eth), their altars (mizbeach – their construction of places where gifts and sacrifices are offered during rituals to their deities) you should choose to actually and consistently tear down 303and shatter (nathats – you should elect to demolish) and with regard to (ba ‘eth) their religious pillars and sacred memorials (matsabah), you should, of your own volition, destroy (shabar).

And with regard to an association with ‘Asherah (ba ‘eth ‘Asherah – the name of the Babylonian and Canaanite goddess who was considered to be the Mother of God, the Madonna and Child, and the Queen of Heaven), you should choose to actually and continually sever, cut off, and uproot (karat – banish). (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 34:13)

Indeed (ky – because), you should not act in such a way that you continually speak (lo’ chawah – you should not make pronouncements with a verbal display of words explaining about or worshiping) with regard to another different god (la ‘el ‘acher – to approach an additional ‘El, the chief deity of the Canaanites whereby “ha Ba’al – the Lord” was the son and nemesis of “‘El – god,” something remarkably similar to the “Christian Lord Jesus” replacing Yahowah’s Towrah with his Gospel of Grace).

Surely (ky) Yahowah ( – the pronunciation of YaHoWaH as guided by His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence) is His name (shem – is His proper designation). He is jealous regarding exclusivity in the relationship (qana’ – pertains to zeal, passion, and devotion). He is (huw’) a zealous, passionate, and devoted (qana’ – jealous regarding relational exclusivity) God (‘el). (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 34:14)

You should not ever make (pen karat – you should not cut, create, or establish) a covenant (beryth – a family-oriented relationship or marriage vow) to approach or with regard to the inhabitants of the land (la yashab ha ‘erets) and (wa) follow after (‘achar) their prostitution to solicitation on behalf of (zanah – their disloyal and adulterous acts designed to profit by offering favors to) 304their gods (‘elohym), especially (wa) if a sacrifice is offered (zabach) to approach their gods (la ‘elohym), and they opt to make an announcement to you (wa qara’ la – then he will elect to summon you, he will of his own volition call out to you with his proclamation, he will ask you to read and recite his calling, inviting you to meet with and welcome him with regard to you accepting his appointment and calling) and (wa) you decide to actually partake in and consume (‘akal – you elect to eat, feed upon, imbibe, and ingest) as part of (min – by means of and because of) this sacrificial offering (zebach – his propitiation or expiation as an act of worship toward a deity).” (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 34:12-15)

It is telling, of course, that in light of what we now know, it’s hard not to see Sha’uwl cast as the adversary throughout this presentation. He did everything God has asked us to avoid. He even claimed to have personally made a sufficient sacrifice to save believers. Moreover, in 1^st Corinthians 8, Paulos not only rejects the disciples’ letter renouncing it but refutes God. Listen to this duplicitous man renounce knowledge as he preys on the unsuspecting while contradicting himself...

“Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies. If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know, but if anyone loves god, he is known by him.

Therefore, concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no god but one. For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, yet for us there is one god, the father from whom are all things, and we for him.

However not all men have this knowledge, but some being accustomed to the idol until now eat food as if it were 305sacrificed to an idol, and their conscience being weak is defiled.

But food will not commend us to god, we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat. But take care lest this liberty of yours somehow becomes a stumbling block to the weak.

For if someone sees you who has knowledge dining in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christo died.

Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, that I might not cause my brother to stumble.” (1 Corinthians 8:1-13 as presented in the New American Standard Bible)

Paul just renounced everything we just read. Knowing is counterproductive because emotional appeals are the elixir of faith. Additional gods and gods by other names are okay because they are amalgamated into his god. “Consume whatever religious byproduct you like,” said the Serpent.

For those who value consistency, Paul constantly contradicts himself, the disciples, Gospel Jesus, and Yahowah. And his rhetoric continues to be convoluted and irrational. So rather than devote more time to correct all of the errant statements found throughout this diatribe, since the point was to show that Paul was being duplicitous with regard to food sacrificed to idols, let’s move on.

Noting that the first “burden” was only indirectly valid, and totally irrelevant apart from religion, the admonition not to drink blood is legitimate. The Towrah asks us not to consume blood in Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 9:4, Qara’ / Called Out / Leviticus 3:17 and 17:12-14, as well as in Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 12:16 and 12:23. However, these five 306statements pale in comparison to the many times Yahowah speaks to us about when and why we are to eat unyeasted bread in celebration of Pesach and Matsah, and none of that was even mentioned. Consuming blood is sickening and disgusting while ignoring the celebrations of Pesach and Matsah is deadly. Moreover, drinking blood is a foundational aspect of the Catholic Eucharist and Protestant Communion.

Particularly troubling, there is absolutely no instruction from Yahowah in the Towrah regarding animals which are to be “strangled.” This edict comes instead from Rabbinic Law. Kashrut, the Jewish dietary rules pertaining to how an animal is to be slaughtered for consumption, requires that the carotid and jugular arteries in the neck, which carry oxygenated blood to the head and deoxygenated blood from it, be slit while the animal is still alive so that the heart pumps the majority of blood out prior to butchering.

By including “strangling” in the shortlist of four things to be avoided, this horrendously shortchanges the Towrah, while at the same time endorsing Rabbinic Law (which Yahowah condemns – as does Gospel Jesus). Further, if Gentiles took this list to be a summation of the essential elements of the Torah, they would enrich rabbis, as the only place they could purchase meat and be assured that an animal was not strangled, was from a Kosher Jewish butcher with a rabbinical endorsement.

The heart of the Towrah’s story is the Covenant, and yet not one of its conditions, benefits, or its sign were mentioned. We find nothing on Yahowah’s Ten Statements on this list. Nothing was even mentioned about Yahowah, His Word, His Name, His Teaching, His Covenant, His Instructions, His Invitations, or His Way – and those represent the seven things which are the most important to God.

307Qara’ / Called Out / Leviticus sits in the middle of the Towrah, and yet not one of the seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God delineated therein was described as essential – even though they provide the lone path to God, the means to the Covenant, and the method of reconciliation. Not even the Great Instruction: “to love Yahowah, your God, with all of your mind, soul, and might,” was found among the “indispensable requirements.” So to say this list of four items (one of which was based in Rabbinic Law) “was inspired by the Spirit” is to demean God and His Spirit.

Pathetic as it was, the letter was sent and read, first in Antioch and then in the other places Paul had been. The audiences cheered as Yahuwdah and Silas shared their “lengthy message” with the Called-Out Assemblies, but not a word of what they conveyed was recorded for our benefit.

It was then just four sentences later that a new rift emerged, this one between Paul and his traveling companion, Barnabas.

“But now (de) there emerged (ginomai – came to be) an intense argument (paroxysmos – a severe disagreement leading to exasperation). As a result (hoste), they separated from one another and parted company (apochorizomai autous apo allelon – they definitely severed their relationship with each other). And so (ton te) Barnabas (Barnabas), having brought along with him (paralambano) Mark (Markos – a Latin surname), sailed (ekpleo) to Cyprus (eis Kypros). (Acts 15:39)

But (de) Paulos (Paulos – of Latin origin meaning Lowly and Little), having chosen the name (epilegomai), Silas (Silas – of Latin origin meaning Woody), went away (exerchomai – literally: out of existence), having been given over to (paradidomi – having been betrayed and handed over to the authority of) the Grace (te Chariti – the 308Greek goddesses of favors, merriment, and licentiousness known as the Gratia, or Graces in Roman mythology) of the Lord (tou kurios – the Master who owns, possesses, and controls, the title God uses in reference to Satan) by the brothers (hupo ton adelphon).” (Acts 15:39-40)

While Sha’uwl did not change his name for the third time, that is the way the text reads. I think Luke meant to say that Paul went away with a fellow named Silas, who got caught up in the mythos of Grace and became beholden to the Lord.

They had chosen sides, different sides. And they would tell an entirely different story about entirely different gods – one real, the other His adversary.

Then, in the oddest twist of irony and with a large dash of twisted humor, Paulos, after having chosen “Silas | Woody,” circumcised Timothy, the next Greek man who desired him.

“This one (touton) wanted and desired (thelo – enjoyed and took pleasure in, consented to and wanted to have, was inclined to and ready for, aiming at) the Lowly and Little (o Paulos – the insignificant and tiny in Latin), together with him (oun auto) coming out (exerchomai).

And so (kai) he having grasp hold (lambano) circumcised him (peritemno auton) on behalf of (dia) the Yahuwdym (Ioudaious – an inaccurate transliteration of Yahuwdym, meaning Related to Yah, errantly called “Jews” today), the ones being in the places (tous ontas en tois topos) those had known (ekeinois edeisan – the ones having awareness), for (gar) entirely (hapas – all) that (oti) Greek (Hellen) the father (o pater) of him (autou) was existing (hyparcho – identically belonged to).” (Acts 16:3)

Make of that what you will, but I got a chuckle out of it, especially in the beginning. I suspect Luke did as well. You just can’t make stuff like this up. But humor aside, this 309statement validates Yahowah’s prophecy which predicted Sha’uwl’s fascination with male genitalia and of him going round about over circumcision.

The Apostolic Council was over. And in its wake, Paul’s letter to the Galatians was crafted as his rebuttal to more easily establish and promote the precepts of Pauline Doctrine. This is the best explanation of why Paul vociferously detailed his credentials and background, why he misrepresented what was said during the meeting, why he spoke so derogatorily of the disciples, especially Shim’own and Ya’aqob (the two men who spoke against him), and why he focused his epistle on discrediting the Towrah and disparaging circumcision.

As a result, we can now discard Galatians, Corinthians, Thessalonians, and Romans, recognizing that much, if not most, of what Sha’uwl wrote in them is unreliable. And with regard to Paul’s other letters, when he affirms something which is written in the Towrah, rely on the Torah. When Paul contradicts the Torah, ignore him. And when Paul waxes poetic on a subject not covered in the Torah, be careful. Or better yet, join me in condemning the Devil’s Advocate.

