310Twistianity

Towrahless

…Without Guidance

 

6

Kataginosko | Condemned

 

Peter Judges Paul…

What follows is not pleasant. But we find it written, nonetheless. It shows Sha’uwl viciously attacking Shim’own. This diatribe is one of many reasons why the “presumed and supposed pillars” perspective Sha’uwl articulated with respect to Shim’own / “Peter”, Ya’aqob / “James,” and Yahowchanan / John was an accurate reflection of his derogatory attitude toward the disciples of Gospel Jesus.

Having spent much of my life building businesses, I recognize that this all smacks of a turf war – of one individual trying to expand his territory, his area of influence if you will, vying for the jurisdiction over others. The arrogant statements which preceded this upcoming bout of character assassination, the repeated attempts to seek the approval of others only to tear them down, as well as the name-calling that ensues at the opening of the third chapter of Galatians indicate that Paul was masking his insecurity with arrogance. I have witnessed its divisive influence on multiple occasions, all with devastating consequences – which is why I am attuned to its telltale signs.

While I am admittedly over-sensitized when it comes to any manifestation of insecurity, having seen it destroy everything in its wake, from my businesses to my sons, there can be, at least in rare instances, a silver lining. If mild insecurity, or more accurately, inadequacy, is mediated by reliance upon Yahowah, where He fills the void, then 311human insufficiency becomes an opportunity for God to demonstrate His power through a flawed implement. ‘Abraham twice pimped out Sarah for additional sheep. Lowt was an incestuous lush. Ya’aqob had a tendency to hallucinate. His sons sold a brother into slavery. Moseh | Moses had a speech impediment. ‘Aharown had a lingering affinity for cows. Dowd battled with inappropriate emotional longings. Solomon collected wives and toyed with pagan religions and covetous desires. They are all testaments to the fact that Yahowah can work through people who recognize that they are useless without Him. That, however, was not the case with Sha’uwl / Paul.

Those who have not experienced the insanity of this cancer may be confused, thinking that insecurity would make someone shy, which flies in the face of Paul being an egomaniac (by his own admission in Colossians 1:24: “now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions” and elsewhere). But those who suffer from deep-seated insecurity compensate with conceit because it masks their infirmity and temporarily fills the void. All the while, they are aggressive, even conniving, tearing others down to lift themselves up. And knowing that they are vulnerable, they constantly tout their own “truthfulness,” while at the same time proactively and dishonestly besmirching the reputations of all those they perceive may be a threat. But more than anything, an insecure individual comes to view himself or herself as being eminently important, even indispensable, so much so, they character assassinate all potential rivals. Paul was a textbook case, as was Muhammad – even Stalin and Hitler. The malady of insecurity makes an individual particularly vulnerable to the wiles of Satan.

In that an entire chapter has passed before us since we last contemplated a Galatians passage, before we continue, here is the “word salad” Paul conjured up and tossed before 312us, leading to the point of our reengagement…

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

I marvel and am amazed, even astonished that in this way how quickly and in haste you changed, deserting and becoming disloyal apostates, traitors away from your calling in the name of Charis to a different profitable message and good messenger, (Galatians 1:6) which does not exist differently, if not hypothetically negated because perhaps some are stirring you up, confusing you, and also proposing to change the healing messenger and pervert the profitable message of the Christou, (Galatians 1:7) but to the contrary, if we or a messenger out of heaven conveys a healing messenger or beneficial message to you which is approximately the same or contrary to, or even positioned alongside what we delivered as a good messenger and announced as a profitable message to 313you then a curse with a dreadful consequence exists. (Galatians 1:8)

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

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

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

For because you heard of my unruly behavior at a time and place during the practice of Judaism, namely that because of my superiority, surpassing any measure of restraint, to a degree better than anyone else, I was aggressively and intensely, even systematically pursuing it by persecuting, oppressing, and attacking the Ekklesia of God as I was and am devastating her, 314continuing to undermine, overthrow, and annihilate her. (Galatians 1:13) So I was and continue to progress, accomplishing a great deal, and I persist moving forward in the practice of Judaism, over and beyond many contemporaries among my race, enthusiastic, zealous, and excited, especially devoted and burning with passion to adhere to and assimilate with the traditions and teachings handed down by my forefathers. (Galatians 1:14)

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

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

Then later in the sequence of events, after three years’ time, I ascended to Jerusalem to investigate and inquire about Kephas | Rock and remained against him fifteen days. (Galatians 1:18) But other of the Apostles, I did not see or concern myself with except Ya’aqob | Jacob, the (tov) brother of the Kurios | Lord. (Galatians 1:19)

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

Thereafter, I came to the regions of Syria and also of Cilicia. (Galatians 1:21) But I was not known or 315understood personally by the Ekklesia of Judah in Christo. (Galatians 1:22) But then only they were constantly hearing that the one presently pursuing and persecuting, systematically oppressing and harassing us at various times now he presently proclaims a healing message of faith which once he was attacking and continues to annihilate, ravaging. (Galatians 1:23)

And they were praising and glorifying me, attributing an exceptionally high value and status to me, considering me illustrious and magnificent, honorable and dignified in relation to the Theos | God. (Galatians 1:24)

Later, through fourteen years also, I went up to Yaruwshalaim along with Barnabas, having taken along also Titus. (Galatians 2:1)

I went up, but then downward from uncovering an unveiling revelation which lays bare, laying down to them the profitable messenger which I preach among the races down from my own, uniquely and separately, but then to the opinions, presumptions, and suppositions, not somehow perhaps into foolishness and stupidity, without purpose or falsely, I might run or I ran, (Galatians 2:2) to the contrary, not even Titus, a Greek being, was compelled, forced or pressured, to be circumcised, (Galatians 2:3) but then on account of the impersonators who faked their relationship brought in surreptitiously under false pretenses, who sneaked into the group to secretly spy upon and clandestinely plot against the freedom from conscience and liberation from the constraints of morality that we possess in Christo Iesou in order that us they will actually make subservient, controlling for their own ends, (Galatians 2:4) to whom neither to a moment we yielded, surrendered, or submitted in order that the truth of the God may continue to be associated among you. (Galatians 2:5)

316But now from the ones currently reputed, presumed, and supposed to be someone important based upon some sort of unspecified past, they actually and continue to be nothing, completely meaningless and totally worthless, to me. It carries through and bears differently the face of the God of man not take hold of, acquire, or receive, because to me, the ones currently presuming and supposing, presently dispensing opinions based upon reputed appearances, of no account, utterly meaningless and useless, was their advice and counsel, their cause and contribution in the past. (Galatians 2:6)

Contrariwise, notwithstanding the objection, or restriction, having seen and perceived that because namely I have been believed entrusted with the profitable message and good messenger of the uncircumcised inasmuch as Petros / Rock of the circumcised. (Galatians 2:7) Because then namely, the one having previously functioned in Petro to an apostle for the circumcision, it now is actually functioning also in me to the nations and ethnicities. (Galatians 2:8)

And having known and having recognized, becoming familiar with the Charis | Grace of the one having been given to me, Ya’aqob, and Kephas, and also Yahowchanan, the ones presently presumed, regarded, and supposed to be pillars, the right they granted to me, and to Barnabas fellowship as a result. We to the nations and ethnicities, but they to the circumcision. (Galatians 2:9)

Only alone by itself the lowly and poor that we might remember and possibly think about which also I was eager and quick same this to do.” (Galatians 2:10)

If you are scratching your head wondering how anyone in their right mind could possibly consider this disjointed, jaundiced, self-serving, and egotistical rant to 317be anything other than a “word salad” dished up by a psychopath, you are not alone. But nonetheless, you are up to speed with Paul’s race against Yahowah and His prophets.

Even though “the Rock” is credited for having greeted Sha’uwl and listened to him in Yaruwshalaim, when Shim’own went to Syria, the niceties were not reciprocated...

“But (de) when (hote) Kephas (Kephas – the Rock) came (erchomai) to (eis) Antioch (Antiocheia – then the capital of Syria, but now in the southern tip of Turkey; derived from a transliteration of Antiochus, which was the name of a Syrian king, meaning to drive against), I was opposed to and against (kata) his (autos) presence (prosopon – face, person, and appearance).

I stood in hostile opposition (anthistemi – I took a firm stand, resisting; from anti, against and opposed to, and histemi stand and presence) because (hoti) he was (eimi) convicted and condemned (kataginosko – judged to be guilty, to lack accurate information and to be devoid of understanding; from kata, opposed to and against, and ginosko, knowing, and thus ignorant).” (Galatians 2:11)

Shim’own / “Peter” was seen as a threat to Sha’uwl’s / Paul’s overall authority and his dominion over every nation in particular. It is as simple as that. This has nothing to do with what “Peter” was doing, but instead with what “Paul” craved.

If we were to consider the entirety of the Greek lexicon, it would be difficult to find words more condemning than anthistemi and kataginosko. Bereft of the negation, histemi speaks of Yahowah standing up for us so that we could stand with Him, established upright at His side. Therefore, to be anti-histemi is to be opposed to Yahowah and His purpose. Since Shim’own Kephas was not anti-histemi, it was not appropriate for Sha’uwl to 318confront him this way.

Ginosko is the Greek equivalent of yada’, the actionable aspect of the name of the books belonging to the Yada Yahowah family meaning “to recognize, know, acknowledge, and understand” Yahowah. Therefore, to be kata / against ginosko / knowing is to be opposed to recognizing and acknowledging God.

The argument then for those paying attention is Yahowah’s desire for yada’ versus Paul’s pension for pistis – faith. For there to be “faith,” there can be no ginosko. Faith flourishes among those who do not know. Moreover, to consume Sha’uwl’s word salad, believers must remain ignorant of his ingredients.

One of the most telling traits of chronically insecure individuals is that they cunningly ascribe their own flaws to their perceived foes. By saying this of Shim’own, the disciple is compelled to respond and defend himself, demonstrating that he is not “against knowing God.” By inciting this response, Sha’uwl has effectively deflected attention away from himself, while at the same time blurring the issue in people’s minds. This strategy makes it more difficult for Shim’own / “Peter” to demonstrate that Sha’uwl / Paul is the one who is opposed to knowing Yahowah because the audience is at the very least confused by the name-calling, the labels, and the subsequent smokescreen.

If you focus a critical eye on political campaigns, you will notice that this approach is as ubiquitous as it is disingenuous. It is also the way powerful conspirators behave toward those attempting to expose their schemes. The one trying to alert others so that they do not become victims of those actually plotting against them are the ones discredited and labeled “kooks,” thereby forcing them to defend themselves. In so doing, the audience is distracted, often confused, and the truth is lost in the midst of the 319slanderous attacks and accusations. An ocean of evidence is tossed aside by a single mocking soundbite. It is a clever, albeit immoral, tactic.

For Sha’uwl, this was personal. He was against the very presence of “the Rock” in Antioch because he had claimed the Gentile world for himself and “Peter” was infringing upon his turf. It is further evidence that Kephas did not agree with Paul and that Shim’own did not trust Paul. That is why Peter was in Antioch.

Sha’uwl went out of his way to demonstrate his hostility. He publicly declared his opposition to one of Gospel Jesus’ closest and most beloved disciples. And then he judged him, saying that Shim’own was “convicted and condemned,” even “ignorant and irrational.” Save overtly besmirching Yahowah, denouncing the Towrah, and denying Dowd’s purpose, all of which Paul had done, there was nothing Shim’own could say or do that would justify this level of attack.

Shim’own may have been wrong about something, and if he was, it wouldn’t have been the first time. But, as passionate as Kephas was, he seldom bothered to defend himself personally. He turned the other cheek, and left Syria. Sha’uwl, however, would continue to press his case against him. And in the process, he would incriminate Ya’aqob, the brother of Gospel Jesus, as well.

The Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear, by inadequately translating the two most telling verbs, rendered the Pauline declaration: “When but came Cephas into Antioch by face to him I stood against because having known against himself he was.” In the King James, this passage reads: “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” Their rendering, which is inadequate, was derived from the Latin Vulgate: “But when Cephas had arrived at Antiochiam, I stood against him to his face, because he was 320blameworthy.” Uncomfortable conveying the inflammatory nature of kataginosko and anthistemi, the New Living Translation followed in the footsteps of their predecessors. “But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong.”

To put this in geographic perspective, Antioch is less than 100 miles from Sha’uwl’s hometown, Tarsus, and that may have been part of the problem. It is nearly 400 miles, due north, along the coast road, from Jerusalem. “Peter” was a long way from where Paul had sought to constrain him.

As we turn to the next accusation, we find another conflict between the 2^nd-century manuscript of this passage and modern renderings, whereby “multiple individuals” instead of one “certain individual” arrived while Shim’own was eating. Therefore, following Kephas’ long journey, we find Sha’uwl saying:

“Because (gar), before (pro) a certain individual (tina – someone) came (erchomai) from (apo) Ya’aqob (Iakobos), he [Shim’own] was eating together (synesthio – consuming a meal in association) with (meta) the (tov) people of different races (ethnos – a group of individuals from many ethnicities and nations), but (de) when (hote) he came (erchomai), he was withdrawing (hupostello – he was timidly hesitating and cowering, keeping silent while trying to avoid contact) and (kai) was separating (aphorize) himself (heautou), out of (ek) fear (phobeomai – frightened and afraid) of the circumcised (peritome – read Yahuwd, or Jew).” (Galatians 2:12)

By saying that “Peter” “hupostelo – withdrew,” Sha’uwl | Paul was announcing to anyone familiar with Greek, that Shim’own should no longer be considered an “apostello – Apostle (one who prepared to be sent off).” And as such, we can be assured that Paulos meant for us to render “dokei – presumed and supposed” in the most 321negative light.

Shim’own was breaking bread in fellowship with brothers whom we can only assume were interested in what he had to say. Then, we are told that a Yahuwd | Jew arrived. And even though Sha’uwl would have had no way of knowing if he had been sent out by Ya’aqob, it’s certain that Shim’own wouldn’t have been afraid of him if that had been the case. Also, if the crime of which “the Rock” was guilty was timidity, if it was withdrawing rather than engaging, and if that was what constituted Shim’own’s “conviction and condemnation,” then why did Paul leave Damascus hidden in a basket?

While “Peter” was not perfect, it is perfectly clear that this onerous rant against him was not Godly. The problem is no longer just the message, it is the attitude. And it is also Paul’s style. Given his chronic propensity for spin, it is likely that Shim’own had a valid reason to leave (like being allergic to Sha’uwl), but Paul left this reason out in order to make the man Gospel Jesus is said to have named “Kephas – the Rock” appear as if he had crumbled.

Rather than recognize Shim’own’s enormous liberty with respect to the Towrah and its Covenant, Sha’uwl was cleverly trying to infer that Kephas was compelled to leave because of the crushing control mechanisms of Rabbinic Judaism. He then positioned himself as the brave Paladin “with the whole armor of god, thereby standing up against the whiles of the devil” for the benefit of all mankind. (Ephesians 6:11) None of it was true, but that did not seem to matter.

In the context of Paulos’ offensive assault on the disciple, we are compelled to consider Sha’uwl’s behavior in light of what he called “the deeds of the flesh” and “the fruit of the spirit,” both of which are delineated in Galatians 5. When we juxtapose these accusations to that presentation, we find that either Paulos wasn’t imbued with 322the Spirit or he was a complete hypocrite.

Of this unfortunate incident, the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear conveyed: “Before the for the to come some from Jacob with the nations he was eating with when but they came he was withdrawing and was separating himself fearing the ones from circumcision.” The KJV published: “For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.” Jerome’s Latin Vulgate reported: “For before certain ones arrived from Iakob, he ate with the Gentibus. But when they had arrived, he drew apart and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.”

Feeling at liberty to adlib, the liberated NLT scribed: “When he first arrived, he ate with the Gentile Christians, who were not circumcised. But afterward, when some friends of James came, Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was afraid of criticism from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision.” Sha’uwl never wrote the word “Christian.” The name cannot be found in any Greek manuscript attributed to him. Further, there was absolutely no indication in the text that the issue was an “insistence on the necessity of circumcision.” On the contrary, this point had already been vetted.

Sha’uwl continued his assault: “And (kai) they (autos) were hypocritical (synypokrinomai – pretending to join in while acting falsely), and also (kai) the remaining (oi loipos) Jews (Ioudaios – a crude transliteration of the Hebrew Yahuwdym, meaning Related to Yah). As a result (hoste – therefore) even (kai) Barnabas (Barnabas) was led away (apago – he was led astray) with them (auton) in the duplicitous hypocrisy (to hypokrisis – in the insincere pretense).” (Galatians 2:13)

This is yet another affirmation that Galatians was 323written after the Jerusalem Summit in 50 CE, but before Barnabas and Sha’uwl split up the following year. And based on what we read in Acts, this may well have been the disagreement which led to their less-than-amicable parting. Considering all of the internal evidence, we can be certain that this was Paulos’ first epistle. And in this position, as Christianity’s first or second written document, the religion could not have had a less credible foundation even if Satan, himself, had written it.

Yahowah consistently encourages us to be critical of false teaching, telling us to expose and condemn lies and liars, but even though “the Rock” was both a false teacher and a liar, neither is relevant without proof – none of which was provided. And if Paul were right, even without specificity, the books of 1^st and 2^nd Peter would have to be expunged from the canon. Sha’uwl’s condemnation makes it impossible for anyone to accept Paul’s and Peter’s letters as both being true. One or the other must be wrong if not both.

This being the case, it has irrecoverable consequences for Christian theology. The lone, thin, truncated, misquoted, and grossly misunderstood pretext for considering Paul’s letters “Scripture” is allegedly found in 2 Peter 3:12-17. But if Shim’own “was convicted and condemned, judged to be guilty, devoid of understanding, and thus ignorant,” then “Peter’s” letters would not be credible. And considering what Sha’uwl just wrote, and what had been said earlier that year in Yaruwshalaim, it is not even remotely plausible that Shim’own would have written a ringing endorsement of Sha’uwl. And as a result of these undeniable conclusions, Christianity’s New Testament dies yet another ugly death and is beginning to look as tattered and lifeless as its image of a dead god on a stick.

With the authenticated disciple being condemned by the wannabe Apostle, the Christian New Testament has 324nullified its own credibility in catastrophic and irreconcilable fashion. To be intellectually honest, we would have to discard as disreputable, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude (Ya’aqob’s brother) due to their association with these nefarious characters. However, since Paul will also oppose Yahowchanan and Ya’aqob, the discord between the early witnesses requires us to discard the book by John, the letter attributed to James, 1^st, 2^nd, and 3^rd John, and the Revelation of John – leaving nothing to substantiate anything. To believe one side is to reject the other. The New Testament is a house divided. Its credibility has just been impugned by its principal actor.

Constructively criticizing the way Shim’own had left a meal might well have been appropriate if it engendered a conversation on how Paul’s and Peter’s interpretations of the Torah might have differed in this regard. But all we have been offered is a personal condemnation and name-calling – devoid of enlightenment. So while my feelings are irrelevant in this matter, this makes me nauseous.

But once again, the problem isn’t with the fidelity of the Greek manuscripts, but with the words Sha’uwl dictated. The Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear reported: “And they were hypocritical together to him [and] the remaining Judeans so that even Barnabas was led off together of them in the hypocrisy.” This known, it’s hard to be critical of the KJV: “And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.” The LV is reasonably accurate as well: “And the other Iudæi consented to his pretense, so that even Barnabas was led by them into that falseness.” The NLT, however, created a conversation to suit their constituency. “As a result, other 325Jewish Christians followed Peter’s hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.”

Sha’uwl / Paul has negated the witness of Shim’own / Peter and will soon disparage the testimony of Yahowchanan / John. Without them, nothing can be known about the myth of Gospel Jesus. And while that is no loss since it is Dowd’s words and deeds which matter, it is a death blow to Christendom.

Affirming that there is nothing more…

“But when Kephas came to Antioch, I was opposed to and against his presence. I stood in hostile opposition because he was convicted and condemned, even ignorant, (Galatians 2:11) because, before a certain individual came from Jacob, he was eating together with the different races, but when he came, he was withdrawing and was separating himself, out of fear of the circumcised. (Galatians 2:12) So they were hypocritical, and also the remaining Jews. As a result even Barnabas was led away and astray with them in the duplicitous hypocrisy.” (Galatians 2:13)



In that it is especially germane to our discussion, let’s pause here in the midst of Sha’uwl’s vicious attack on the rival disciple, Shim’own Kephas, to consider what Paul’s victim had to say about his accuser. For that, we must turn to 2 Peter 3:12-17.

By way of introduction, Pauline devotees and Christian apologists alike cite errant translations of a portion of 2 Peter 3:16 taken out of context to justify affording “Scriptural” status to Paul’s letters specifically, and to the whole corpus of their “New Testament” generally. It is ironic, albeit not surprising, that “Peter,” the 326man Paul condemned in Galatians for being wrong in opposing him, is somehow right when he is construed to be providing an endorsement. Paradoxically, when Shim’own’s evaluation of Sha’uwl’s veracity is considered in the context of this presentation, rather than endorsing the wannabe apostle’s letters, the disciple is seen trashing them.

The damage Peter inflicts on Paul’s credibility is so devastating, Eusebius and Jerome claimed that Peter wasn’t the author of this epistle. And Calvin wrote: “I do not here recognize the language of Peter.” He postured the notion that the letter may have been compromised by mental atrophy: “now that he was in extreme old age...and near his end.” Then, demonstrating religious duplicity, Calvin said that the criticism of Paul’s letters in 2^nd Peter, where they are called “hard to understand,” suggests that the disciple Peter could not have written that work. The patriarch of the Christian reformation in his commentary on 2^nd Peter 3:15, wrote: “And yet, when I examine all things more narrowly, it seems to me more probable that this Epistle was composed by another according to what Peter communicated, than that it was written by himself, for Peter, himself, would have never spoken thus.”

It is impossible to prove whether Shim’own wrote either or both of the letters ascribed to him. And yet it does not actually matter. If the disciple authored them, and if he was inspired, all of Paul’s letters have to be discarded as “misleading,” because Shim’own besmirched them. And if 2^nd Peter is fraudulent, then there is no justification anywhere else for considering Paul’s pathetic epistles “Scripture” in the religious sense of the word.

The reason Christian theologians like Eusebius and Jerome, and later Calvin, want 2^nd Peter expunged from their “New Testament” is because it accurately and effectively denounces Paul’s letters, calling them nonsensical – or in the more contemporary nomenclature 327of neuroscientists: “a word salad.” The Christian religion, and thus the livelihoods of those promoting it, is predicated upon these epistles. Should they, along with Hebrews and Luke’s account of Paul in Acts, along with Mark and Matthew be stricken from the canon, virtually nothing of Christianity would remain.

And yet, no informed and rational person disputes that Paul’s letters are poorly crafted and are thus difficult to understand. And that’s indeed strange because, when Paul convolutes and contradicts Yahowah’s Torah and the sayings attributed to Gospel Jesus throughout his letters, Christians universally believe Paul rather than God.

Turning to the text of Peter’s letter, we find Shim’own conveying:

“Waiting expectantly (prosdokao – looking forward to the future) and (kai) having been eager regarding the suddenness (pseudo – having urged the hastening) of the (ten) presence of the coming day of the God (parousia tes tou ΘΥ hemera – arrival of the day of the Almighty) on account of (dia – because) which (en), the sky (ouranos – the heavens) will be ablaze (pyroomai – being on fire, fiery, flaming, consumed, and burning in distress), with the elements (stoicheion – the substance and power of nature, its most basic principles and materials) being released (luo – they being untied and loosened, breaking apart), even (kai) becoming molten (tekomai – melting and dissolving, turning from solid to liquid) as a result of becoming intensely hot (kausoomai – being consumed by fire and heat while appearing to burn feverishly).” (Shim’own / He Listens / 2 Peter 3:12)

This statement is unsupported by the prophets and inaccurate. The Day of Yahowah would be 2,000 years removed from this letter so there was no reason to wait patiently. Peter neither knew Yahowah’s name nor the name of the event he was predicting. Further, when Yah 328and Dowd return on Yowm Kipurym, the sky will be dark, not ablaze or molten hot. So this is an inopportune start.

Beyond this, if Peter was suggesting that Gospel Jesus would be returning, he would have been mistaken. Having fulfilled his role as the Passover Lamb, there is a lot more for the Messiah and King of Yisra’el to accomplish. Therefore, according to God, it is Dowd who will be returning.

This next statement was taken from Yasha’yah / Isaiah 65:17 and 66:22 and then inappropriately augmented without properly crediting the prophet…

“However (de), a new (kainos – recently created, fresh, and previously unknown) heavenly realm (ouranos – heavens) and (kai) a new (kainos – freshly created and previously unknown) earth (ges – material realm) according to (kata) the promise (to epangelma) of Him (autou) we await and expect (prosdokao – we look forward to with great expectations, favorably anticipating). In which (en ois) the righteous and vindicated (dikaiosyne – upright and approved in the correct relationship as a result of being observant and acceptable) will live (katoikeo – will reside and dwell as a result of being settled).” (Shim’own / He Listens / 2 Peter 3:13)

It is hard to explain why he was anticipating this event nearly 3,000 years before it was predicted to occur in year 7000 Yah. And why would he pilfer one of Yasha’yah’s prophecies if not to give the false impression that he was also a prophet?

“Therefore (dio – for this reason), loved ones (agapetos – dear friends, those who are unique and welcomed), those eagerly anticipating (prosdokao – confidently look forward to) this (tauta), earnestly make every effort to become (spoudazo – engage, diligently endeavoring to do your best to be ready) pure and spotless, without blemish or defect (aspilos – undefiled 329without fault) and (kai) blameless (amometos – beyond reproach, without fault, avoiding judgment) for Him (auto), learning to be found with (heuriskomai en – discovering how to attain) reconciliation leading to salvation (eirene – the closest Greek analog to shalowm – being united in a harmonious relationship which brings restoration and salvation).” (Shim’own / He Listens / 2 Peter 3:14)

Wrong again. We make no effort in the process of being perfected. This is Dowd’s gift to us. Further, no one in this audience would be experiencing “reconciliation” because this was slated to occur 2,000 years into the future.

“Also (kai) this regarding (ten tou – of, about, and in association with in the accusative feminine addressing reconciliation and genitive masculine addressing) our (emon) the Lord (ΚΥ – a placeholder used in the Septuagint to convey Lord or to replace Yahowah’s name): show steadfast endurance and constraint (makrothymia – show restraint under trial, always analyzing while expressing righteous indignation toward the adversary, being hostile, even exasperated, willing to wage war with great passion) when considering forming opinions as a leader (hegeomai – thinking in matters pertaining to directions and guidance, influence, authority, and counsel) regarding the process of salvation (soteria – when the object is being saved) inasmuch as it pertains (kathos – just as accordingly in the manner) then (kai) to this (o), our (emon) uniquely esteemed (ho agapetos – our dear, welcoming, entertaining, and amusing) countryman (adelphos – brother and / or fellow Yahuwd / Jew [and thus not afforded the title Apostle title he craved]), Paulos (Paulos – Latin for Little and Lowly), throughout (kata – pertaining to and in accordance with) the (ho) clever use of human philosophy (sophia – wisdom and insights gleaned and capacity to understand derived from man’s knowledge, intelligence, and experience [and thus not 330Godly inspiration]) having been produced (didomai – having been given, granted, entrusted, and appointed) by him (auto) in writing (grapho) to you (umin).” (Shim’own / He Listens / 2 Peter 3:15)

When speaking of salvation, the focus must be on Dowd’s role in fulfilling Chag Matsah, neither of which Peter mentioned. And in this regard, there was no correlation between Paulos and any form of salvation. Further, to refer to Paul as esteemed is either tongue-in-cheek or displays a phenomenally poor ability to judge the character of the man. It is also completely out of step with Yahowah who referred to Sha’uwl as the Plague of Death.

This known, it was a somewhat clever use of human philosophy that permeates Paul’s letters. At the time, it was known as Gnosticism.

The first of many intriguing words, makrothymia, is from makrothumos. It was translated as “steadfast endurance and constraint,” macros, meaning “lengthy and for a long time.” It is defined by Strong’s as “longanimity,” a Latin compound of “longus – long” and “animus – reasoning.” It speaks of “calmly suffering through an adversary’s injurious attack.” The second aspect of makrothymia is from thumos, meaning “to be hostile, inflamed with righteous indignation.” It is used to convey “being exasperated with someone” and “waging a war with great passion against them, overtly showing animosity and anger.” Thumos, itself, is derived from thuo, which speaks of “a sacrifice whereby the victim dies,” so it is a very serious concept.

Therefore, the English translations that render makrothymia as “patience” or “longsuffering,” which is often the lack of a response, or as “forbearance,” which suggests acceptance, grossly shortchange and misrepresent the word’s etymology. To the contrary, Shim’own is “inflamed with righteous indignation.” He is also 331“exasperated and angered” by what Sha’uwl has written. Therefore, he wants everyone to be “steadfast and vigilant, to calmly and methodically examine the evidence” so that we are “neither swayed nor capricious, showing constraint.” In Peter’s view, Paul is “sacrificing lives” and “injuring” souls by representing the “adversary,” whom Peter passionately disapproves. That is a lot to convey in a single word, and yet every facet is revealing.

Hegeomai also presents a challenge to communicate properly within the construct of a single sentence. While it was rendered as “considering forming opinions as a leader,” it specifically addresses the idea of “thinking diligently regarding matters pertaining to the directions, guidance, and influence of those in positions to provide it and who claim that their counsel has been authorized.” Based upon ago, the emphasis is on “being led,” and thus “misled,” succumbing to the wrong influence. Rather than believe Paul, rather than follow Paul, Peter wants his followers “to think” so that they aren’t “misled.” Now, if only he would provide them with something to think about.

Had he articulated them and explained the Miqra’ey, there are few things as vital to our wellbeing as “soteria – the process of salvation.” But since there is nothing controversial about the term, other than Peter’s inability to explain it, let’s move on to Shim’own’s curious depiction of Sha’uwl. To the great dismay of Christians, he does not refer to him as an “Apostle,” the title Paul not only craves but has bequeathed upon himself. He is simply an “adelphos – brother” which is used to identify someone from the same race or nation. It is akin to acknowledging that Sha’uwl, now Paulos, was a Jew.

At first blush, agapetos is awkward in this derogatory evaluation. But its primary meaning is not “beloved,” or even “dear,” instead “uniquely esteemed, welcoming as in inclusive, and amusing or entertaining.” At the time this letter was written, for some, Paul was all of those things. A 332smattering of people adored him – perhaps mesmerized by his bold assertions. He told Romans and Greeks what they wanted to hear. And few men have ever been as esteemed, even venerated – albeit this had not transpired by this time.

Paul was most of all unique. From the beginning, it has been Paul against everyone, including God. While he had a posse, he lorded over them. And his message was his own. Yet in a way, even through his hostility and hatred, he was welcoming, because in his faith, believers did not need to know or do anything. And as the subject of countless books and Bible studies, it would be hard to find something more entertaining.

However, based on how Sha’uwl treated Shim’own, and based on the way he vociferously condemned him in the very letter Peter was now referencing, it strains credulity to believe that the disciple penned the word “agapetos – uniquely esteemed” – unless the “esteemed” connotation was a tongue-in-cheek reference to Paul’s notorious ego. And if not that, it is also possible that 2^nd- or 3^rd-century scribes operating under Marcion’s influence augmented the text to serve their religious masters. It is the most reasonable explanation. But, more on this in a moment.

Since the status Paul craved was not afforded him, and since Peter has now associated Paul with the Jewish ethnicity the wannabe apostle has been trying to discount in favor of his Roman citizenship, we would be wise to see Shim’own’s tongue planted firmly in his cheek, and his eyebrows raised mockingly, regarding the notion of “uniquely esteemed.” Beyond this, at the time Sha’uwl / Paul was neither well known nor popular. As is evident by his derisive assessment of the Galatians, Corinthians, and Thessalonians, he had far more antagonists than proponents between 50 and 60 CE. By his own admission, Paul was very poorly received during his lifetime.

333Realizing that Paul had shed his Hebrew past, discarding the name Sha’uwl, Shim’own addressed him using the name which is now identified with the letters that define the Christian New Testament. I suspect he did so in light of the foreboding warning he received from Gospel Jesus: “I, Myself, have come in the name of My Father, and yet you do not receive Me. But when another comes in his own name, that individual you all will actually receive.” (John 5:43)

The next phrase, kata sophia didomai auto grapho umin, contains this passage’s most controversial terms. This begins with kata, whose primary connotation is “downward and against,” but can also convey “throughout, among, opposed, with regard to, or in accordance with,” even “in the name of.” I selected “throughout,” but any of these options, so long as they can be worked into the sentence, could be justified.

Sophia, usually translated as “wisdom,” was also chosen to the chagrin of Christians. They would have preferred “inspiration.” And while sophia can describe any form of wisdom, almost every lexicon identifies it first and foremost as “the wisdom of men – the synthesis of education and experience, of philosophy and science.” For example, in Acts 7:22, sophia was used by Luke to convey: “Moses was learned in all the wisdom (sophia) of the Egyptians.”

In this light, consider the difference between Shim’own and his adversary, Sha’uwl. The disciple was a fisherman with no formal education. He had learned everything he knew from walking in the footsteps of Gospel Jesus if we were to believe the myths. Sha’uwl, by contrast, had been born into a wealthy family. He was a Roman citizen. He was educated in Tarsus of Cilicia, the home of what was then a most prestigious university. And Sha’uwl studied Judaism in Jerusalem at the feet of one of Judaism’s religious scholars. From Peter’s perspective, 334Paul was steeped in human understanding.

Since it describes “insights gleaned from man’s knowledge,” the statement “throughout the clever use of human philosophy having been produced by him in writing to you” should not be construed as a compliment, much less an endorsement of Paul’s message – especially as presented in the Galatians epistle. Considering Paul’s self-aggrandizing protestations in Galatians, claims he contradicted in Acts, that he was inspired by God and not taught by men, this was written to rebuke those claims. It was a punch to the gut, an attempt to knock the wind out of this man’s puffery.

You may have noticed that the final clause of 2 Peter 3:15 speaks of a specific letter which had been written by Paul to a common audience. Therefore, to discern which letter Peter was referring to, we have to conduct an investigation. In 2 Peter 3:1, Shim’own says that this is “the second letter I am writing to you.” And in 1 Peter 1:1, we learn that Shim’own’s first epistle was addressed to “those who reside as foreigners scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.” The lone point of intersection between Paul’s letters and Peter’s recipients is “Galatia.” And not so coincidentally, this is the letter in which Peter was openly condemned by Paul.

Before we press on, remember that Paul continually insisted that Peter’s ministry was limited to Jews, while the wannabe and self-proclaimed apostle’s realm comprised the rest of the world. Obviously, Shim’own didn’t agree. “Foreigners scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” could not have been Jews in Judea. Therefore, when Paul implied that Shim’own, Ya’aqob, and Yahowchanan had agreed with him that their ministries were limited to “the circumcised,” he was either misinformed or lying.

This known, Peter’s next line reads: “And even (kai – 335also) as (hos – like and in a similar way, when and because) in (en – throughout) all (pas) letters (epistole – epistles), inside (en) them (autais – they) speak (laleo – proclaim and convey a message) all around and on the other side of (peri – about, encompassing the proximity or sides concerning an account, with regard to or remotely about; from peran – beyond the extremity to the other side, and heteros, that which is different and opposed to) this (touton).” (Shim’own / He Listens / 2 Peter 3:16)

The acclaimed disciple is announcing that there is a common and universal theme in all of Paul’s letters: “throughout they proclaim the message of the other side” – meaning that they speak for the Adversary. Sure, they talk all around God and His plan of salvation, but just as circular reasoning is designed to mislead, and just as going around someone never gets you to them, Paul’s letters have this effect.

Paul’s epistles were penned to speak “all around” this subject. That is to say that circular reasoning was deployed to convey a view which is “opposed and different.” So if Yahowah’s message is from God, if His message is truthful and reliable, if His message saves, what might we reasonably conclude about a different message which is opposed to His?

And so now you know the reason Christian theologians would like to see Peter’s epistle expunged from their “New Testament.” They don’t want you to consider these questions.

To fully appreciate Shim’own’s next statement, it behooves us to contemplate the meaning of dusnoetos, which will be translated as “difficult to understand,” below. As a compound of “dus – difficult, injurious, detrimental, and in opposition” and “noeo – thinking, perception, consideration, and understanding,” the word literally means: “opposed to understanding and detrimental to 336thinking.” And that would make what follows considerably worse than it already appears to be.

“Within (en) which (ais) there are (hos eimi – there is the existence and presence of) some things (tina – a considerable number of important issues) difficult to understand (dusnoetos – hard to comprehend, detrimental to thinking, and injurious to comprehension), which (tina) the (ho) uneducated (amathes – unlearned and ignorant who have not been properly taught) and (kai) malleable (asteriktos – the unstable and poorly established with flexible and wavering views, perspectives, and attitudes) misinterpret and distort, turning away (strebloo – pervert and twist, deriving a false meaning which turns people away, tormented and suffering as a result),…” (2 Peter 3:16)

Strebloo is an especially undesirable term, so unpleasant that it is often translated as “to twist and pervert,” “to torture and torment,” including “wrenching limbs on a rack designed to inflict anguishing pain.” Its root, trope, speaks of “turning away from heaven.” It is about distortions that lead away from God, about perversions that prompt many to turn away from the Torah, about the undue suffering caused by misinterpreting and then twisting Yah’s testimony.

Having studied Yahowah’s testimony and Sha’uwl’s letters, I unequivocally agree with “the Rock’s” assessment. As a result of the writing quality and ambiguity, as a result of circular reasoning and his irrational approach, as a result of his affinity for self-promotion and his tendency to contradict himself, Paul’s letters are at the very least difficult to understand, especially in light of his propensity to twist the truth and misquote the Towrah. And because of their deficiencies, the Pauline epistles are remarkably easy to misinterpret and distort, especially among those who are unaware of what the Towrah reveals. And that is why Paul’s letters have 337become a stumbling block for so many.

More literally rendered, Paul’s epistles are “torturous and agonizing” to those who know and love Yahowah’s Towrah because they are “detrimental to understanding – a genuine hindrance when it comes to knowing” God. It is the very reason Yahowah condemned Sha’uwl by name, speaking through the Prophet Chabaquwq / Habakkuk, calling the author and inspiration behind half of the Christian New Testament the “plague of death.” By replacing knowing with faith, by denouncing and obsolescing the Torah, God’s primary source of answers, by misrepresenting the purpose of Dowd and his sacrifice, Sha’uwl created a scenario where it becomes difficult, if not impossible, for those who ingest his poison to find God’s remedy. The one place they should look is the last place they would consider.

In the six thousand years Satan has been given to come up with a scheme to undermine Yahowah’s Towrah testimony and to negate Dowd’s lives, this is his crowning achievement. And the combination of Yahowah’s prophetic warnings, the concerns conveyed during the Instruction on the Mount, and now the disciple’s written condemnation, were collectively insufficient to keep a lone insane, irrational, perverted, and demon-possessed narcissist and schizophrenic from luring billions of souls away from God.

One of the reasons that Sha’uwl’s letters are so prone to misinterpretation is the window dressing that accompanies his word salads. He claims to be an Apostle, although he was not appointed as such. He claims to speak for God, and yet he consistently misquotes Him. He claims to represent Iesou, and yet by separating the myth from the Towrah, Sha’uwl, not the rabbis, or the Romans, wielded the most devastating blow against him. He claims that he cannot lie, and yet that is all he has done. These things combined with the placement of his letters in the “Bible,” 338as if they were “Scripture,” work to enhance the credibility of the world’s most egregious deceiver. This man’s twisted rhetoric became the recipe for religious perversions of monstrous proportions.

Steeped in Pauline Doctrine, Christian apologists will claim that I am misinterpreting Peter’s testimony to impugn Paul. And yet all I’m actually doing is presenting the disciple’s words, as accurately and completely as possible in the hope that a few more people will be saved from Paul. And of course, I am trying to relate to you what Yahowah had to say of him so that all who will listen with an open mind might choose to trust God rather than believe Sha’uwl.

If you recall, Yahowah said: “Moreover, because the intoxicating and inebriating spirit of the man of deceptive infidelity and treacherous betrayal who tries to influence and control others without justification through trickery and deceit is a high-minded moral failure, an arrogant and meritless man of presumption, so he will not rest, find peace, nor live, whoever is open to the broad path, the duplicitous and improper way associated with Sha’uwl.

He and his soul are like the plague of death. And so those who are brought together by him, receiving him, those who associate with and join him, who are withdrawn from the company of God, assembling with him, will not be satisfied.

All of the Gentiles, the people from different races and nations will gather together unto him, all of the people from different ethnicities in different places. But they do not ask questions, any of them, about him. Terse references to the word they lift up as taunts to ridicule, with clichés becoming bywords with implied associations to mock and counterfeit, along with allusive sayings with derisive words (malytsah – 339mocking interpretations wrapped in enigmas arrogantly spoken).

There are hard and perplexing questions which need to be asked of him (chydah la – there are difficult queries to be solved, dark and hidden secrets, and double-dealings to be known regarding him). And they should say, ‘Woe to the one who claims to be great and increases his offspring, to the one who thrives on numbers and who considers himself exceedingly important, even as a rabbi, none of which apply to him.

For how long will they make pledges and be in debt, based upon his significance, pursuant to his testimony and the grievous honor afforded him?’” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:5-6)

Ignoring the overt criticisms Shim’own Kephas has leveled at Sha’uwl’s initial letter, and disregarding what he will say about the remaining epistles Sha’uwl had written by this time, the following sentence fragment is commonly misquoted and removed from its context to serve as substantiation, the lone “proof” Christians deploy to suggest that Paul’s letters specifically, and their “New Testament” generally, should be considered “Scripture.”

The concluding clause of the disciple’s statement reads...

“…as (hos – approximating in a somewhat similar way) also (kai – then even) with the (tas) remaining (loipos – inferior, residue, left over, or other) writings (graphas – letters; from grapho – to write (expressed here in the plural, thus addressing multiple written documents or letters)), pertaining (pros – as a consequence with regard) to their (ten) own individual (idian – one’s distinct and unique) destruction and annihilation (apoleia – complete and utter ruin and obliteration) of themselves (auton).” (Shim’own / He Listens / 2 Peter 3:16)

340Considering the lofty role these words are said to play in the lore of Christendom and recognizing that there are several potential obstacles to understanding that should be resolved to be certain that we have captured Shim’own’s intent, before we work through the list of potential pitfalls, let’s reestablish our bearings by reviewing where Shim’own has taken us thus far.

“Waiting expectantly and looking forward to the future knowing what is coming, and being eager regarding the hastening of the presence of the coming day of the Lord, on account of which the sky will be ablaze with the elements being released, even becoming molten, as a result of becoming intensely hot. (2 Peter 3:12) Therefore, we await a new universe and a previously unknown spiritual realm, and a freshly created earth according to His promise, expecting in which the righteous, those who are correct and thus vindicated will live. (2 Peter 3:13)

So dear friends, those eagerly anticipating this, earnestly make every effort to become pure, without blemish or defect, blameless, avoiding judgment for Him, learning to be found with reconciliation leading to salvation. (2 Peter 3:14) Also this regarding our Lord: display steadfast endurance and constraint, always analyzing while expressing righteous indignation toward the adversary, even being exasperated, considering forming opinions regarding the process of salvation inasmuch as it pertains then to this, our uniquely esteemed countryman, Paulos, through the clever use of human philosophy having been produced by him in writing to you. (2 Peter 3:15)

And even as in all epistles, inside them they convey a message which encompasses the other side, deploying circular reasoning, which is different and opposed to this, within which there are some things difficult to understand, hard to comprehend, and detrimental to 341comprehension, which the uneducated and improperly taught as well as the malleable misinterpret and distort, turning away, as also with the remaining inferior writings, pertaining to their own individual destruction and annihilation of themselves.” (2 Peter 3:16)

Dealing with the individual words, themselves, through the deployment of “hos kai – as also,” the concluding statement is unquestionably connected to analyzing and opposing the formation of opinions regarding the process of salvation as it pertains to Paul, as well as to the clever use of human philosophy produced by him in his letters. This comparative approach also associates the realization that all of the epistles convey a message which through circular reasoning is different, difficult to comprehend and detrimental to understanding, which is subject to misinterpretation, causing the improperly educated to turn away from the comments which follow “as also...” And for those who are rational, this is among the most serious problems we have encountered thus far.

In the extremely unlikely event that Shim’own’s intent was to suggest that the letters he has criticized thus far should be afforded “Scriptural” status, in the sense of writings which are considered divinely inspired, the status of God’s Word must inevitably be demeaned. By association then, it would not only be Paul’s contradictory, sometimes insane, and often irrational epistles, which are to be seen as “misleading, difficult to comprehend, and a hindrance to understanding,” but everything from Genesis to Revelation. The Christian ploy is, therefore, suicidal. Nothing can be gained. Everything is lost. To cite the disciple, doing this is “to their own individual destruction and annihilation.”

In reality, there is no basis for the Christian assertion that Peter is conferring a “Scriptural” designation to the corpus of Pauline epistles. And that is because, while the 342Greek word graphe is often convoluted to designate “Scripture” throughout the Christian New Testament, all it actually means is “writing.” Literally, it depicts “any representation by means of lines, a drawing, or a portrayal by way of a picture.” And here, the Greek word was written in the plural as graphas, thus conveying a collection of “illustrations,” “writings,” “documents,” or “letters.”

Neither Yahowah nor the prophets ever used the word “scripture.” It is a transliteration of the Late Latin, scriptura, the “act of writing,” which in turn was derived from scriptus, the past participle of scriber, meaning “to write.” Therefore, while scriber and grapho convey similar concepts, neither was understood to mean “Scripture” in the sense of a text being divinely authorized by God. This Christian extrapolation is wholly unfounded etymologically – ultimately negating any benefit the religion seeks to derive from misappropriating Shim’own’s statement. With “scripture” serving as a transliteration of the Latin word for writing, it holds no special distinction and could have been used to describe a bar tab.

The Christian religious interpretation cannot be salvaged by association with Iesou Christou since he spoke neither Greek nor Latin. And the few times his words were translated using graphas, he was citing the Psalms, which even today are called “the Writings.” Affirming this, the acronym, Tanakh, is based upon Towrah (Teachings), Naba’ym (Prophets), and Kathabym (Writings – inclusive of the historical books, Proverbs, and Psalms). That is why his citation of Psalm 118:22 in Matthew 21:42 was appropriately translated as “the Writings” from graphas. The same is true in Mark 12:10.

Beyond this, the disciple has already stated that the “graphas – writings” he was addressing were comprised of the “epistole – letters” written by Paulos. So this sentence fragment is merely stating that the rest of the letters Sha’uwl wrote after Galatians were comparable. They were 343similarly destructive and misleading. Shim’own is simply expanding his critical evaluation of Galatians to include everything Paul had written.

To the extent that any of this occurred, and if Peter was addressing the rest of Paul’s letters, then once again he would be accurate. Those who approach Sha’uwl’s epistles from a perspective other than that presented in the Towrah, will find their souls annihilated. It is the consequence of rejecting Yahowah’s invitations and failing to meet with Him during the Miqra’ey. Shim’own is thereby warning Christians about the ultimate outcome of Pauline Doctrine – calling it deadly and destructive. While the character known as “Peter” stubbed his toe and tripped on his tongue more often than not, when it finally came time to stand up and boldly declare the truth, the disciple may have led the way.

Since the Author of the Towrah and the Inspiration of these Writings is also the Architect of life, having actually designed us, you’d have to be ignorant, irrational, and or insane to suspect that His conclusion regarding His testimony was errant. So where does that leave you with Paul?

Yahowah’s Towrah | Teaching is only difficult to understand when viewed from the perspective of Pauline Doctrine, when it is convoluted by Replacement Theology, and when its instructions are taken out of context or errantly translated. Those whose thinking and attitude have been corrupted by Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, who have been beguiled into believing that the Towrah is comprised of laws to be obeyed as opposed to guidance to be observed, are easily misled by those who misrepresent testimony they, themselves, neither know nor understand.

That is not to say that knowledge comes without effort or that understanding occurs in a vacuum. To know what Yahowah has said, you have to be willing to listen to Him. 344To understand what Yahowah is offering, you must closely examine and carefully consider what He has written on our behalf.

It is because Sha’uwl claimed that the Towrah is no longer relevant that Christians no longer observe it. And in this way, Paul’s letters have become the ultimate hindrance to understanding. As a result, it is the New Testament which is distorted and discredited by the inclusion of Paul’s letters.

While reason dictates that the Christian interpretation of this passage is invalid, the question may remain for some: what besides Paul’s letters could have been meant by the use of the Greek word loipos? Providing a religious perspective, almost every English translation wants us to believe that it means “other.” They do this to infer that Paul’s letters are “Scripture,” having also misrepresented graphas. But there are many irresolvable issues associated with this assessment.

First among them is that the primary Greek word for “other” is allos, not loipos. Allos is translated as “other” or “another” 143 of the 160 times it appears in the Greek text. Allos, not loipos, is defined as “another person or thing of the same kind.” Therefore, allos, not loipos, would have been the perfect word to deploy here if such an association were actually intended. The very fact that it wasn’t tells us most of what we need to know.

Second, while loipos can be translated as “others” when speaking of people and things, loipos is a “plural feminine adjective.” In this context, it appears to be modifying the feminine plural noun, graphas, so it would have to be written as “others’ writings,” not “other scripture.” But there is only one text referenced by Gospel Jesus which he considered Divinely inspired – the “Torah and Prophets” which he described as a single entity. Therefore, it is only when Peter is seen referring to Paul’s 345“remaining writings” that everything fits.

Third, along these lines, the primary definition of loipos is “remaining,” not “others,” which is why it was rendered as such. Loipos is derived from leipo, meaning: “that which is left.” By way of confirmation, in Matthew 25:11, loipos was used for the second time in these Greek manuscripts. There it was deployed in a translation to describe the “remaining” bridesmaids who were denied entry to the wedding for lack of oil, a metaphor for the Spirit, making them inadequate. Loipos was used in Acts 2:37 as a reference to the “remaining” eleven disciples who witnessed Shim’own’s speech during the fabled Christian Pentecost.

Fourth, as suggested above, leipo carries the derogatory connotations of “forsaken, inadequate, and inferior,” which in this context affirms that Peter is saying that Paul’s writings were “inferior and inadequate,” even “disassociated” from God, in essence turning the tables on his tormentor.

And fifth, it is worth noting that, in Greek, adjectives, which is how loipos was deployed, usually follow the nouns they are modifying. But in this case, loipos precedes graphas, which is sufficiently unusual to merit our attention.

It is also worth noting that many people consider Galatians to be Paul’s worst letter – thus invalidating the notion that other epistles were “inferior.” But their criterion is typically biased upon the horrible writing quality rather than being predicated upon the message itself. When the criterion is based upon the magnitude of the deception, every one of Paul’s subsequent letters is inferior – including 1^st and 2^nd Thessalonians, 1^st and 2^nd Corinthians, and Romans. We have and will continue to explore the justifications for this conclusion.

Therefore, the “other ‘Scripture’” connotation 346required to infer that Paul’s letters were inspired isn’t remotely plausible. Moreover, there is no textual basis for the continuous addition of “he” and “his” in English Bibles, which is also required to make the connection between Paul, his letters, and the Writings. The ESV, for example, adds “he does,” “his letters,” and “he speaks,” all without textual support.

Shim’own’s view of Sha’uwl’s letters is consistent with Yahowah’s observations, especially as they were prophetically presented in the second chapter of Chabaquwq / Habakkuk. But they also mirror Dowd’s, if it is his assessments which were prophetically presented within the Instruction on the Mount. So while we considered that pronouncement in the first chapter, it is especially relevant here since Dowd would have seen Sha’uwl as both a Benjamite wolf and a false prophet.

“At the present time you all should be especially alert, being on guard by closely examining and carefully considering, thereby turning away from (prosechete apo) the false prophets deceptively pretending to be divinely inspired spokesmen (ton pseudoprophetes) who (hostis) come to you, currently appearing before you making public pronouncements (erchomai pros umas) as if they belonged (esothen) by (en) dressing up in sheep’s clothing (endyma probaton), yet (de) they actually are (eisin) exceptionally self-promoting, self-serving, and swindling, vicious and destructive (harpax) wolves (lykos). (Matthew 7:15)

From (apo) their (autos) fruit (karpos), by conducting a careful, thorough, and competent inquiry in the future, you all will be able to use evidence and reason to genuinely comprehend (epiginosko) them (autos).

Is it even rationally possible (meti) to collect (syllego) a bunch of grapes (staphyle) from (apo) a thorn 347(akantha), or from (e apo) a thistle (tribolos), figs (suka)? (7:16) In this way (houto), every (pas) good and useful (agathos) fruit tree (dendron) produces (poieomai) exceptionally suitable and commendable (kalos) fruit (karpos). But (de) a tree (dendron) which is corrupt, rotten, and harmful (sapros) bears (poieomai) diseased and worthless, seriously flawed and faulty, annoying and perilous (poneros) results (karpos). (Matthew 7:17)

It is not possible (ou dynamai) for a good and useful (agathos) fruit tree (dendron) to produce (poieomai) seriously flawed or disadvantageous (poneros) fruit (karpos), nor (oude) a tree (dendron) which is corrupt, unsuitable, and destructive (sapros) to make (poieomai) suitable or commendable, genuine, approved (kalos), fruit (karpos). (Matthew 7:18) Any and every (pas) tree (dendron) not (me) producing (poieomai) suitable, fitting, genuine, approved, and advantageous (kalos) results (karpos) shall actually be cut off and done away with, eliminated and removed (ekkopto), and toward (kai eis) the fire (pyr), it is thrown (ballo). (Matthew 7:19)

So then indeed (ara ge), by (apo) their (autos) production (karpos), you will be able through careful observation and studious contemplation to actually know and understand them (epiginosko autos). (Matthew 7:20)

Not (ou) any (pas) one saying (legon) to me (moi), ‘Lord (kyrie) Lord (kyrie),’ will actually as a result enter into (eiserchomai eis) the kingdom of the heavens (ten basileian ton ouranon), but by contrast (alla) the one presently acting upon (o poieomai) the purpose and desire (thelema) of (tou) my (mou) Father (patros), the One (tou) in the heavens (en tois ouranois). (Matthew 7:21)

Many (polys) will say (erousin) to me (moi) in that specific day (en ekeinos te hemera), ‘Lord (kyrie) Lord 348(kyrie), in your (to so) name (onoma) did we not actively speak genuinely inspired utterances (ou propheteuo)? Also (kai) in your (to so) name (onoma), we drove out (ekballo) demons (daimonion), and (kai) in your (to so) name (onoma), many mighty and miraculous things (pollas dynamis) we made and did (poieomai). (Matthew 7:22)

And then (kai tote) I will profess to them (homologeo autois) that because (oti) I never at any time knew you (oudepote ginosko umas), you all must depart from me (apochoreo apo emou) those (oi) of you involved in (ergazomai ten) Torahlessness, who are in opposition to and have attempted to negate the Towrah, thereby, those of you without the Towrah (anomia). (Matthew 7:23)

Everyone (pas), therefore then (oun) who (ostis) presently and actively listens to (akouo) these (toutous) statements (logos) of mine (mou), and (kai) he or she genuinely acts upon them (poieomai autous), will be likened to (homoioo) a wise, intelligent and astute, a prudent and sensible (phronimos) individual (andros) who (ostis) edifies and strengthens (oikodomeo) his or her (autos) house (oikia) upon the (epi ten) rock (petra). (Matthew 7:24)

And even when (kai) the rain (e broche) descends (katabaino), (kai) the rivers (oi potamos) come (erchomai), and the rapidly shifting winds (anemos) blow (pneo), descending upon (prospipto) this specific (te ekeine) home and household (te oikia), then (kai) it shall not fail (ouk pipto) because (gar) the foundation was previously established and is enduring (themelioo) upon (epi) the rock (petra).” (Matthew 7:25)

Yahowah and Dowd are of one mind, affirming the same testimony. The only one bellowing a different story in an effort to shift our attention is Paul.

349Although the Rock has made his point in this regard, I would be remiss if I didn’t share the next line of Shim’own’s epistle. In the context of Paul’s remaining letters being twisted and misunderstood, even inferior and destructive, what he wrote next is especially relevant.

“You, therefore (gmeis oun), beloved (agapetos – dear esteemed ones, those set apart and welcomed), now knowing this in advance (proginosko – currently possessing this foreknowledge), you should be observant, on guard, keeping your distance (phylassomai – you should choose to keep away and abstain by being especially watchful and protective, isolating yourself from this, completely disassociating to be safe) in order that (hima) not (me) in or of this (te ton) unappointed, unprincipled, and irreverent (athesmon – unrighteous and licentious, unjust and Torahless, self-gratifying) deceptive delusion (plane – perversion and corruption), you are forsaken, having been led astray (ekpipto synapagomai – you yield and fall, you are carried away, drifting off course, and you are judged, being held accountable, submitting to an improper association with the lowly and inadequate (the meaning of paulos), perishing) from the steadfast and dependable One (tou sterigmos idiou – from the firm and unchanging guarantee of the One who saves).” (Shim’own / He Listens / 2 Peter 3:17)

Shim’own Kephas / Peter warned the Galatians to be on their guard, to be especially observant, keeping their distance from Paulos, so as not to be led astray into deception or delusion by the unappointed one, the unprincipled one, who sought to gratify himself by annulling the Towrah. The only thing worse than being forsaken by Yahowah is to be judged by Him. And the best way to prevent that from happening to you is to recognize that God’s guidance is dependable, serving as a never-changing guarantee of salvation. But for you to do that, you 350will first have to reject Paul and the religion he championed.

It is little wonder that Christians disassociate Peter’s last statement from the preceding one. This one line undermines most of what Paul will say in the remainder of his Galatians epistle, because the disciple is establishing the fact that God’s message is dependable because it never changes, in effect affirming that the Torah was and will always be the source of life.

The Galatians, and even the world at large based upon the public distribution of the disciple’s letter, have been made aware that Paul’s epistles would lead countless people astray, into deception and delusion, causing many to forego salvation. In this regard, dikaiosune remains Shim’own’s fulcrum term. As you recall, it speaks of “thinking correctly so as to become acceptable,” of “becoming upright by observing God’s directions,” and of “exposing the evidence required to teach and prove something is consistent and authorized.”

Therefore, those who twist Peter’s words relative to Paul’s epistles, and thus misinterpret the disciple’s overwhelmingly critical assessment of Pauline Doctrine, convoluting a condemnation into a glowing endorsement, must ignore or reject everything that was written before and after the supposed characterization. If an endorsement, why would Shim’own tell those he loves to be wary of Paul’s epistles, to be on their guard lest they be led astray into the delusion of the unappointed one and thus lose their hope of reconciliation? After all, if he isn’t advising us to be wary of Paul’s letters, then the Rock would be suggesting that the Torah itself is a hindrance to understanding. And since that is ridiculous in the context of Shim’own’s alleged discipleship, the Rock’s conclusion affirms he was condemning Sha’uwl’s epistles, not commending them.

351Notwithstanding the last statement, if 2 Peter 3:16 represents the lone Christian affirmation that Paul’s letters were “Scripture” – inspired word-for-word by God – then they are out on a limb of their own making. The Rock gave no such assurances. And these were his last words.



Before we move on, it is past time we consider another ugly underpinning of Christianity: Marcion of Sinope. His influence is especially relevant here because Papyrus 72, the oldest extant manuscript containing Peter’s epistles, was likely influenced by his scribes. Marcion played a pivotal role in the formation of the “New Testament” canon, especially with regard to textual liberty (inaccuracy), and the inclusion of Paul’s contradictory epistles. Born to a bishop in Sinope around 85 CE, Marcion, a wealthy shipowner, fled to Rome during Rabbi Akiba’s Bar Kokhba revolt in 133 CE. There, he studied under Cerdo, an influential Gnostic.

In the process, Marcion became a raging anti-Semite who rejected Yahowah and the entirety of His Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. He saw Paulos of Tarsus as the only true Apostle, and he sought to canonize his thirteen epistles, as well as his own significantly edited version of Luke and Acts (which were written under Paul’s influence), elevating their status, while at the same time rejecting all other books. In his view, one which shaped Christendom in the 2^nd and 3^rd centuries (and continuing to the present time), Yahowah was a lesser, wrathful, tyrant and evil demiurge when compared to the “all-forgiving, loving, and gracious” god, Iesous Christos, found in Paul’s epistles. Ironically, his dualistic view was both Gnostic in nature and shared by the Jewish theologian, Moses ben Maimon (Maimonides) – blending the worst of Greek 352philosophy and rabbinical thinking, not unlike Paul, himself.

Had it not been for Marcion, in all likelihood, all of Paul’s letters would have been rejected as Apocrypha and ultimately disassociated from the eyewitness and historical texts. They would not have been canonized. And had this occurred, the Christian religion would not exist.

Christians are universally ignorant of the influence Marcion had on their faith because Marcionism was ultimately denounced as heresy in 144 CE, not so much because he was wrong, but because he became a competitor of the emerging Roman Catholic Church, threatening their desired exclusivity over establishing doctrine and manuscript production. He was, therefore, bad for business. But that didn’t stop Marcion from preaching to large crowds and forever altering the mindset of the religious community.

Foremost among his influences, Marcion was the first to capitalize on Paul’s categorization in Galatians 1:4, where he claimed that what Yahowah had revealed represented the “aionos – old system of past circumstances” which Iesou the Christou was “exaireo – tearing out” because it was “poneros – disadvantageous ineffective,” thereby coining the term “Old Testament,” in the sense of being the obsolete will of a now retired and out of touch deity. In its place, and as a replacement, he promoted Paul’s “New Testament,” a canon comprised of the Pauline epistles, and his heavily edited versions of Luke and Acts – where all things “Jewish” were demeaned.

In the process, Marcion promoted the division Sha’uwl had established, one which had not previously existed. Capitalizing on Paul’s letters to the Galatians and Romans, he advanced the notion that the Torah was now obsolete, having been replaced by the “Gospel of Grace.” Anything which didn’t support this view was either erased 353or ignored. It was a transition in perspective that would influence and haunt Christianity forevermore.

While these teachings and titles continue to permeate Christian doctrine, Marcion’s most haunting legacy was his propensity to edit the text so that it could be interpreted to support the religious views he shared with Paul. Over time, Marcion became the father of what’s called the “Western,” “Popular,” or “Free” text of the “Christian New Testament.” Under his influence, scribes were encouraged to harmonize the accounts, improve their readability, and add popular traditions and beliefs as they saw fit.

Marcion not only made copious copies of his “Gospel” and “Bible,” his followers became prolific copyists, and using Marcion’s considerable wealth, they flooded the empire with their versions of Luke, Acts, and the Pauline epistles. As a result of the sheer quantity, immense popularity, and appealing anti-Semitic tone of their manuscripts, much of what now appears in today’s Majority Texts of the “Christian New Testament” is suspect because it has all been heavily edited. Proof of this is the realization that there are more than three hundred thousand known discrepancies between the oldest manuscripts – nearly twice as many variations as there are words in these codices.

Papyrus 72, the late 3^rd-century manuscript we were unfortunately required to use in our rendering of 2 Peter (in that it is the oldest surviving witness to the disciple’s letters), is the most “Free,” and thus least reliable, of the seventy manuscripts which predate Constantine. It was written by someone who was neither a professional scribe nor interested in accurately conveying what had previously been written. And as such, Marcion’s fingerprints are all over it. Therefore, we need to be sensitized to anything and everything that artificially elevates Paul – especially when derived from the hand of Sha’uwl’s most outspoken critics, Shim’own, Ya’aqob, and Yahowchanan.

354Although, in actuality, Paul’s most outspoken critic is Yahowah, followed by His prophets and especially His Son. And somewhere along the line, I suspect that I have earned my place among Sha’uwl’s most vocal opponents.

