486Twistianity
Towrahless
…Without Guidance
9
Pistis | Faith
Without Evidence or Reason…
At long last, the Galatians epistle has moved beyond glorifying Paul and demeaning Peter. So let the Great Debate begin. Should a person believe Sha’uwl’s “Gospel of Grace,” or should they trust Yahowah’s Towrah? Okay, so the deck is stacked against Christianity, but since they deal counterfeit cards from the bottom of the deck, we will still proceed with caution.
Recognizing that the last thing Sha’uwl scribed was a sentence fragment, since his next sentence has an unspecified subject, let’s transition into the debate by restating the previous clause… “We (emeis) Jews (Ioudaios – Judeans) by nature (physis – in origin and character) and (kai) not (ou) from (ek) sinful (hamartolos – social outcasts avoiding the way and thus heathen) races (ethnos – ethnicities)...” (Galatians 2:15) Then, in the order of their appearance, and rendered as accurately and completely as his words allow, this is what comes next... “[And now (de – but then by contrast, not extant in the oldest manuscripts)] having come to realize without investigation or evidence (oida – having intuitively appreciated without doing any research, having perceived and become acquainted, having acknowledged without observation (deployed as the weakest form of knowing)) that (hoti – because) by no means whatsoever (ou – not at all and never) is made right, is vindicated, or made righteous (dikaioo – is justified, acquitted, put right, or shown to be in compliance, is judged innocent, removed 487from guilt, or set free, is in the right relationship) man (anthropos – a human being) out of (ek – by means of) tasks and activities associated with (ergon – works someone undertakes, engages in, or acts upon, anything that is done, including actions or accomplishments associated with) the Towrah (nomou – being nourished by that which is bestowed to become heirs, precepts which were apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper and approved, and prescriptions for an inheritance; from nemo – that which is provided, assigned, and distributed to heirs to nourish them) if (ean – a marker of a condition with the implication of a reduced probability) not (me) by (dia – through) belief and faith in (pistis – originally meant trust but evolved to faith or belief as a result of Sha’uwl’s usage in these letters) Iesoun (ΙΗΝ) Christon (ΧΡΝ),...” (Galatians 2:16)
The realization that we do not earn salvation but, instead, receive it by acting upon Yahowah’s instructions is firmly established throughout the Towrah. Our inclusion into the Covenant Family is permissible because of what Yahowah and His Son, Dowd, accomplished by fulfilling Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym. Therefore, redemption is available to those who, having closely and carefully observed Yahowah’s “Towrah – Guidance,” have come to know, understand, and accept the terms and conditions of Covenant, and to those who have answered Yahowah’s Invitations to Meet, thereby walking to God along the path that He has provided. The Towrah, therefore, provides the Instructions and Guidance needed to be adopted into our Heavenly Father’s Family and to have our souls perfected and made immortal.
Said another way, the Towrah, its God, Covenant, and Invitations to Meet announced the way Home on behalf of Yahowah’s children long before Dowd entered Yaruwshalaim a second time to fulfill Passover and UnYeasted Bread. Yahowah etched this truth in stone 488before His Son was born. And apart from accepting the Beryth | Covenant’s terms and answering the Miqra’ey | Invitations, Dowd’s second of three lives becomes irrelevant. Believing in him will not do anyone any good if they don’t come to know who he is, what he did, when he did it, and why he did so, then respond appropriately. None of these things can be known or understood apart from Yahowah’s “Towrah – Teaching.”
Dowd was not only Towrah-observant, he was the living embodiment of the Word of Yahowah. If you know the Towrah, you know him. If you do not understand the Towrah, there is no possible way to understand him or benefit from Dowd’s role as the Passover Lamb.
Paul was attempting to make “belief” the solution to his proposition that the Towrah cannot save. But the Towrah not only can save, and is God’s lone means to save, it is only by responding to the Towrah’s Guidance that we benefit from what the Messiah and Son of God has done by honoring its promises.
Since Sha’uwl’s hypothesis that the Towrah cannot save is untrue, it follows that his remedy, “if not by belief and faith in Iesoun Christon,” is without merit. However, even if his preamble were accurate, and it is not, his conditional proposal is invalid on its own. One’s belief in a myth is beside the point. What matters is that the Towrah is true, reliable, and dependable which Yahowah proved through fulfilled prophecy and accurate depictions of ancient history. Further, it was Dowd’s understanding of and reliance on the Towrah that made it possible for him to fulfill it and enable what Yahowah had promised and demonstrated through it.
Taking this one step further, since Yahowah authored the Towrah and His Son, Dowd, lived it, wrote of it, supported and loves it, and returned to fulfill it, Yahowah’s Towrah explains the Messiah’s purpose. And this brings us 489back to the realization that Sha’uwl created a distinction where none actually exists to create a false hypothesis. But by doing so, by pretending to solve a problem which did not exist by way of faith in a false proposition, Sha’uwl negated Dowd’s sacrifice, his example, his testimony, and his purpose. It is all for naught for all who believe Paul.
To be redeemed, we must walk to Yahowah the way He has provided, along the path Dowd enabled, which begins with the life-giving doorway labeled Pesach | Passover, across the cleaning threshold called Matsah | UnYeasted Bread, and into the loving arms of God on Bikuwrym | Firstborn Children, where the Covenant’s children are adopted into the foremost family. This requires us to know, to understand, to act and rely upon the Seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with Yahowah – a path which is presented exclusively in the Towrah. This is not just a way to God; it is the only Way. So therefore, Paul’s proposition that the Towrah cannot save is in direct opposition to Yahowah’s testimony and Dowd’s example.
If what Sha’uwl wrote were true, ‘Adam and Chawah, Noach and His family, ‘Abraham and Sarah, Yitschaq and Ya’aqob, Moseh and ‘Aharown, Yahowsha’ ben Nuwn and King Dowd, Enoch and ‘ElYah, Shamuw’el and all of the prophets from Yasha’yah to Yirma’yah, from Howsha’ to Yow’el, Zakaryah, and Mal’aky were all subjected to a cruel hoax by a God who lied about their redemption and inclusion within His Covenant, thereby dooming all of them to eternal damnation in She’owl. And if He couldn’t be trusted then, why would He be reliable now?
Since Sha’uwl’s assertion is irrefutably irreconcilable with Yahowah’s testimony throughout the Towrah and Prophets, let’s not rely on my translation of his letter. Please consider the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear presentation of the first half of Galatians 2:16: “Having known but that not is made right man from works of law 490except [not applicable] through trust of Jesus Christ...” (In its raw and unedited form there is no confusing this with the eloquence and purpose of Yahowah’s Towrah and Prophets.)
So now for the housekeeping issues. For those following along using an interlinear, the de, meaning “yet or but” found in modern-Greek manuscripts, and thus in our translations, isn’t found in Papyrus 46, the oldest codex containing this letter, but the rest of the words are accurately attested. So, while I’ve included it, it may be a scribal addition.
Next, you should be aware that of the three Greek words which can be rendered as “know,” oida, which was translated as “come to realize without investigation or evidence,” is the weakest and least thoughtful. In a culture that valued knowing above all else, oida was the most focused on “perceptions and opinions.” It cannot be used in reference to a conclusion that has been predicated upon a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence.
I suspect Sha’uwl chose it because a close examination of the Towrah consistently undermines Pauline Doctrine. Had Sha’uwl written “ginosko – know relationally,” or even “epiginosko – know for certain based upon a thorough evaluation of the facts,” it would have required his readers to observe the Towrah, closely examining and carefully considering it. Doing so would have turned everyone enriched by God’s teaching against him. And it’s not as if he didn’t understand the relative difference between the words. Elsewhere in Galatians, he will use ginosko. Therefore, Sha’uwl is appealing to ignorance.
Oida was scribed in the perfect plural which suggests that the unspecified subjects, which can be either Paul and his source of inspiration or, presumptuously, “we Yahuwdym” from the preceding clause. One or the other have previously realized without due consideration how to 491influence current perceptions. In the active voice, the undisclosed subjects have been responsible for the opinions which follow. As a participle, oida is a verbal adjective, letting us know that in this way the perceptions of Paul’s audience are being modified. Further, the participle can function as an imperative, inferring that this is a command.
And as I have mentioned, oida was scribed in the plural, which is the antithesis of God’s style, because He is one. And finally, oida was scribed in the nominative, which reveals that Paul’s audience is being compelled to accept this unsupported and unidentified opinion.
Ou is a harsh, uncompromising, and unequivocal form of negation, which sits in stark contrast to the fuzzy, opinionated nature of “oida – come to acknowledge without evidence.” But such is the nature of religious positions. While their precepts are based upon faith, which is the antithesis of actually knowing, the evidence and conclusions of those suspected of causing suspicion amongst believers are all too often brushed away by protesting, without evidence or reason, those irrefutable facts and unassailable logic “ou – by no means at all could ever” be true. This is somewhat analogous to not only “being entitled to one’s opinions,” but also demanding that others “respect them.”
Next, we find dikaioo, which was translated as “is made right, is vindicated, or made righteous.” In that it has been negated by ou, Sha’uwl is saying that “no one is justified or vindicated, acquitted and shown to be in compliance, that no one is ever determined innocent or set free, that no one is declared righteous, nor is it possible for anyone to participate in a rightly guided relationship” with God, and thus no one can engage in the Covenant based upon the Towrah – the lone place that same Covenant is presented.
492This verb was written in the present tense, which presents an action that is currently in progress with no anticipation of when it will be completed – if ever. This is to say that no person “is currently vindicated and that no person may ever become righteous” based on the Torah. In the passive voice, the unidentified subjects who have formed this unsupported conclusion receive the action of the verb. That means that they can do nothing that makes them right with God because they are being acted upon as opposed to engaging independently. Further shaded by the indicative mood, dikaioo reveals Paul is claiming that his statement, and in actuality, his commandment, is authentic. This is the voice of assertion, where the writer is portraying the inability to be saved as being actual and unequivocal, without any possibility of a contingency or the intervention or intent of another.
Therefore, Sha’uwl is saying that God, Himself, cannot save anyone under the conditions He, Himself, laid out. However, ever duplicitous, with the indicative, depending upon the context, the writer may not actually believe that what he is stating is truthful but is nonetheless presenting it as genuine. Lastly, dikaioo was suffixed in the third person, singular, which makes the path away from God single file, once again upending Yahowah’s teaching where the path to Him is singular and the paths away from Him crowded.
This brings us to ergon, which was translated as “tasks and activities associated with,” but could have been just as accurately rendered as “by acting upon or engaging in” that which follows, even “works someone undertakes, engages in, or acts upon, anything that is done, including actions or accomplishments associated with” the Towrah. Ergon, which describes “anything someone does, whatsoever they undertake to do, and whatever activities they choose to participate in,” was scribed in the genitive. This restricts this noun to a specific characterization of the next noun, 493which is nomou, used here to indicate Yahowah’s Towrah.
Now to the meat of the issue: how did Sha’uwl intend for his audience to view nomou? Is it “Torah” or “Law,” or both? There is every reason to suspect that he wants uninitiated readers to see these adverse terms as if they were one and the same.
Fortunately, or unfortunately, based on whose side you may be on in this debate, Yahowah’s or Sha’uwl’s, the context which follows provides the answer. Nomou and nomo, the genitive and dative forms of nomos, are used throughout this section of Galatians to assert that according to Sha’uwl, Yahowah’s Towrah is a set of laws which cannot be obeyed and thus condemns rather than saves. And Paul, himself, translates the Hebrew word towrah in his Galatians 3:10 citation from the Towrah using nomou, forever rendering this question moot. And by doing so, anyone cognizant of the fact that towrah means “teaching and guidance” in Hebrew is being disingenuous when they replace the Greek nomos with “Law” in their Bible translations of Paul’s letters.
For those willing to ignore the basis of nomos, which is nemo, they will find lexicons slavishly supporting existing Bible translations, willing to state that nomos can be rendered as “law,” and even “Law” as the Torah is often misrepresented in these same English Bibles. According to Strong’s, nomos is rendered as “law” all 197 times that it is used in the King James Version of the so-called “Christian New Testament.” And yet they, themselves, define nomos as: “anything established, anything received by usage, a custom, a law, or a command.” They go on to say that nomos describes “a rule producing a state approved of God by the observance of which is approved of God,” even “an action prescribed by reason.”
Unwilling to acknowledge the fact that the Hebrew word towrah does not mean “law” and that Yahowah, not 494Moseh, was the Towrah’s Author, Strong’s defines nomos as “Mosaic law” – “referring to the context, either to the volume of the law or to its contents.” Adding insult to injury, this Christian publication claims that nemos describes “the Christian religion: the law demanding faith, the moral instruction given by Christ, especially the precept concerning love.” Upending this, Strong’s concludes their innovative and convoluted “definition” with: “the name of the more important part (the Pentateuch [five books of the Torah]) is put for the entire collection of the sacred books of the OT.”
While much of what Strong’s provided for our consideration was demonstrably inaccurate, the first thing they wrote, which is missed by most, was actually accurate: “nomos, masculine noun. From a primary word, nemo (to parcel out, especially food or grazing).” Sadly, however, Strong’s does not bother to define nemo further or reference its use elsewhere in the Greek text. Fortunately, there are better lexicons.
The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament reports: “Etymologically, nomos derives from nemo ‘assign.’ Nomos was therefore originally that which has been ‘assigned.’ In Hesiod Philo (Op. 276ff), nomos is ‘the objective order “assigned” to a group of beings.’” In addition, they write: “In translating nomos in the NT one should not resort immediately to the OT understanding of tora. Rather, that a shift in meaning has occurred from tora to nomos should be considered (of the approximately 220 OT occurrences of tora the LXX translates approximately 200 with nomos).” That is to say, while nomos was used ubiquitously in the Septuagint from 200 BCE to 200 CE to represent the Hebrew word, towrah, meaning “teaching, instruction, direction, and guidance,” throughout the Greek translation of the Torah and Prophets, its original meaning was altered. I wonder by whom.
Buried in their analysis, the Exegetical Dictionary of 495the New Testament (EDNT) recognizes that: “the Torah is, therefore,...the ‘instruction’ of Israel found already in the covenant.” And: “from the very beginning the Torah was not understood ‘legally.’ Therefore, the translation ‘law’ (instead of ‘teaching’) does not imply a ‘legal’ understanding.” Those with whom Yahowah initially shared His “Towrah – Teaching,” realized that it represented, not a list of laws, but instead: “guidance, instructions, and directions” from their Heavenly Father.
Of the subsequent misinterpretation, one initiated by infighting amongst rabbis vying for power, the EDNT wrote: “It is open to question whether in the course of the postexilic era [after the return from Babylonian captivity when a compilation of oral traditions was established as a rival to the Towrah] the first traces of a legal understanding of the Torah are evident.”
The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament goes on to share the findings of Monsegwo Pasinya, who wrote: “nomos does not signify ‘Law’ in the legal and juridical sense of classical Greek, but rather ‘Instruction, Teaching, Doctrine,’ in accordance with the original sense of the corresponding Hebrew term tora.”
Taking a step backward, the Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament published: “nomos has a basic meaning law, i.e., what is assigned or proper. Generally, any law in the judicial sphere, as a rule governing one’s conduct, a principle, or more specifically in the NT of the Mosaic system of legislation as revealing the divine will (the Torah) or (Law of Moses).” While errantly representing Yahowah’s Towrah as “law,” at least these folks seem to know that nomos conveyed as “what is assigned and proper,” that it communicated “rules governing conduct,” and that in the “NT,” nomos describes “the Mosaic system of legislation as revealing the divine will (the Torah) or (Law of Moses).” So since Paul’s letter to the Galatians is found in the NT, nomos was intended to 496read “Torah.” But since this concept conveys “the divine will,” it follows then, that according to Paul, it must be God’s will to condemn everyone.
The Complete Word Study Dictionary, at least in the case of nomos, is especially helpful. It begins by telling us that “nomos, genitive nomou, masculine noun from nemo (see aponemo [632]) to divide among, to parcel out, to allot. Etymologically something parceled out, allotted, what one has in use and in possession; hence, usage.” Then doing as they suggest, and turning to 632, aponemo, we find: “from apo, meaning from, and nemo, meaning to give, to attribute, to allot, to apportion, to assign, and to bestow, a derivative of dianemo: to distribute throughout and kleronomos: to become an heir, distributing an inheritance, something parceled out to restore.”
Enriched by this precisely accurate appraisal, let’s consider the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, where we find: “The concept that nomos means law is religious in origin and plays a central role in these cultures.” They go on to state that Rabbinic Judaism and Roman Catholicism were to blame for this corruption of nomos.
In the TDNT, the original meaning of nomos is defined. It isn’t “law,” but instead, its implications “were derived from nemo,” a word which speaks of “being nourished by that which is bestowed to become heirs, of precepts which were apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper and approved, and of prescriptions for an inheritance, that which is provided, assigned, and distributed to heirs to nourish them.”
While not His language, this would suggest that our Heavenly Father is nourishing His children’s minds with His instructions and teaching us how to live as members of His Covenant family so that we inherit all that He is offering. Therefore, while it is apparent that Paul was 497denouncing Yahowah’s Towrah, the original meanings of towrah and nomos did not communicate what Paul intended to convey. This is because someone who benefits from nourishment, becoming an heir and receiving an inheritance, would be right with God, growing, living healthy lives, vindicated and acquitted as a result of the instruction and guidance provided. Sha’uwl, instead, wanted his audience to read nomos as “Law,” something both oppressive and restraining, restricting one’s liberty while, at the same time, associating these things with the Torah. Nomo and nomou are almost always deployed in the singular and directed at the one and only Towrah.
Therefore, while Paul meant for his audience to read nomou as “Law,” and think “Torah,” this requires those who believe him to be ignorant of the fact that Towrah is derived from the verb yarah and actually means: “the source from which teaching, direction, instruction, and guidance flow.” It even requires ignorance of the etymology of nomou because, properly translated, Yahowah’s Towrah is actually a source of “nourishment that has been bestowed so that we can become heirs, inheriting and receiving prescriptions which cause us to be proper and approved.” It requires readers to be unaware that ninety percent of the time “Towrah” appeared in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, nomos was deployed in the Septuagint’s Greek translation of God’s Hebrew terminology.
These things considered, the remainder of this epistle will serve to affirm that the “nomos / nomou / nomo” Paul was attempting to mischaracterize as law, to demean as inept, and to annul as antiquated, is Yahowah’s Towrah. And that means that this debate is between Yahowah’s Towrah and Sha’uwl’s Epistles. It is the word of God versus the letters of a man.
Realizing this, the conditional conjunction in Galatians 2:16, “if not by,” from ean me dia, means that, 498according to Sha’uwl, the remedy for his ludicrous proposition that the Towrah is unable to save those who act upon it “ean me dia pistis ΙΗΝ ΧΡΝ – could be, but probably isn’t, faith in Iesoun Christon.” I say, “could be” because ean is a “marker of a condition with the implication of a reduced probability,” and thus is not a certainty – faith never is.
As we make our way through Sha’uwl’s jarring announcement, we must determine how to render pistis – a word which originally conveyed “trust and reliance.” Written here in the genitive feminine form, I translated it as “belief and faith,” because Paul’s letters leave no other informed or rational option. Sha’uwl never provides sufficient information to know his fabled Iesoun Christo, much less to trust Yahowah, or to rely on His Towrah, precluding these connotations. Moreover, Paul consistently positions “faith” as being preferred to knowing and understanding, which are required for trust. In fact, sharing the Torah, and thus learning what it says, is strongly discouraged in favor of simply believing Paul. This is the intended goal of his letters.
While pistis is almost always, and correctly, rendered as “faith” or “belief” in English Bibles when penned by Sha’uwl, when spoken by someone else, we should remain cognizant that the Greek word originally conveyed “confidence and assurance in what is known.” It spoke of “reliability and proof,” as well as “persuasion based upon a thoughtful evaluation of the evidence.” In a rational person’s voice, pistis is a translation of ‘aman | to trust and rely.
Therefore, at the time this epistle was written, pistis, like the Hebrew ‘aman, was about “conviction in the veracity of the truth.” Pistis was “that which evoked trust and that which could be relied upon as being dependable.” And as such, pistis was once the opposite of “faith and belief” because, when evidence is sufficient to know, faith 499becomes irrelevant – even counterproductive because it tends to stall inquiry.
However, languages evolve. Influential individuals shape the meanings of words. And pistis is the lever upon which Pauline Doctrine pivots. It is his epistles, especially in Christian parlance, which changed the religious lexicon and caused pistis to transition from “trust” to “belief” and from “reliance” to “faith.” Paul and his lies have influenced more people than anyone in human history. And twisting words and their meanings was the means to his madness.
Moreover, it bears repeating: Paul never provides the kind of evidence required for someone to know Yahowah or understand His Towrah sufficiently to trust God or rely upon His plan. The same is also true of the legend of Gospel Jesus. Paul wallows in his name, Iesou Christou, but it is surrounded within a swamp of his own edits and diatribes.
In the context of Galatians, “trust” is a fish out of water, while “faith” survives swimmingly in this cesspool. Likewise, the founder of the world’s most popular religion transformed the concept of “faith” such that it became synonymous with his religion. Believers are now equated with Christians. Paul and his pals were very good at being bad.
A person cannot rely upon and thus benefit from Dowd’s contribution to Pesach | Passover – God’s method of offering eternal life – without accepting His Towrah invitation to attend the Miqra’ | Invitation to be Called Out and Meet with God. Moreover, Yahowah precludes participation by uncircumcised men – which is Sha’uwl’s | Paul’s primary point of contention.
God established the condition of circumcision regarding Passover for our benefit because Pesach (extended life) without Matsah (being perfected) is exceedingly counterproductive. The worst possible 500outcome is to become immortal while remaining corrupt because this condition requires incarceration in She’owl | Hell as opposed to having one’s soul cease to exist. Without the sign of the Covenant, without accepting the conditions of the Covenant, there is no way to become part of Yahowah’s family or enter heaven – making eternal life highly undesirable.
Someone who is willing to reject Yahowah’s very simple and straightforward instructions regarding the Beryth is not going to understand, much less appreciate or accept, God’s Miqra’ey to the extent that they are prepared to capitalize upon the benefits they provide. And thereby, the Messiah’s sacrifice is nullified and Yahowah’s guidance is muted, leaving the faithful estranged from both.
Paul never explains the purpose of the Mow’ed Miqra’ey, and worse, he demeans them. Therefore, his audience is prejudiced against them and bereft of the information required to trust in or rely upon them. To forego the Towrah is to forego living with God. To believe that Yahowah’s Towrah cannot save is to not be saved.
Paul chose oida as his opening verb, hoping that no one would do the research necessary to question the dichotomy he foolishly purports to exist between the Towrah, the Covenant, and our salvation through responding to Yahowah’s seven Invitations to Meet with Him. This leaves us with God’s consistent, unwavering, and dependable guidance and example on one hand and Paul’s faith-based religion on the other.
The integration of “if not by belief in Iesoun Christon” is completely misdirected. Even if the Towrah had been properly presented and even if Dowd’s name and title had not undergone the assault of Replacement Foolology, it is Paul’s perceptions of the Towrah that are at issue. So to have any hope of being right, rather than placing one’s faith 501in a mythical misnomer, we should be celebrating the realization that Dowd’s reliance was on Yahowah and that he trusted His Towrah, observed it, affirmed it, lived it, and then fulfilled its core mission.
In this regard, since the placeholders point to the mythical name and erroneous title Iesoun Christon, there is also the issue with the title in that Dowd was anointed as a Mashyach under Yahowah’s instructions while there is no mention of an Iesoun, affirming that he cannot be the Messiah. This title was stolen by Sha’uwl to create an errant impression. And he was wrong, even according to Gospel Jesus who ordered his disciples to never use that title regarding him.
How is it that the world’s most popular religion grew out of the misappropriation and errant translation of a title afforded to another individual – stolen from the most important man in human history? Is humankind so foolish, so ignorant and irrational, that it is possible to fool almost all of the people almost all of the time? Are the religious so unaware and misled that billions believe a reprehensible and inarticulate man over the word of God? Evidently so.
The moment we acquiesce to the inevitable and adjust our rendering of pistis in Sha’uwl’s epistles to “faith,” which is what he obviously intended, and then convey “Iesoun Christon,” as Paul most likely said it and wrote it, the few things Paul conveyed that could be construed positively become as deceptive as the rest of his agenda. Consider this proclamation as a prime example: “We Yahuwdym by nature and not from the social outcasts of sinful and heathen races (Galatians 2:15) having come to realize without investigation or evidence that by no means whatsoever is made right, is vindicated, or made righteous man by means of tasks and activities associated with the Towrah if not by belief and faith in Iesou Christou,...” (Galatians 2:15-16)
502This changes the paradigm from being an affirmation that we cannot save ourselves to a referendum on religion. And it is a devastating one for Christians because Iesoun Christon is an invalid moniker for a myth unrelated to the reality of Yahowah. It directs the faithful’s attention to the fable of a man who was killed by men and then resurrected like the pagan gods of the heathen races.
The sum and substance of most religious systems is embodied in the means its members embrace to earn their salvation. Depending upon the religion, the faithful either obey religious edicts, make significant monetary contributions, lead what is deemed to be a good life (which is depicted as committing mass murder in Islam), advance the common good (which in Islam is to wage war against all mankind), deny themselves, or engage in jihad. In Judaism, for example, one achieves righteousness by complying with Rabbinic Law. Becoming liberated from this works-based salvation scheme would have been cathartic for Sha’uwl, literally turning the world of this former rabbi upside down. Right would be wrong. Wrong would be right. Good would be bad and bad would be good. To develop a relationship with Yahowah, everything he had been told, everything he had experienced, everything he had believed, and everything his family and friends held dear had to be rejected. And sadly, based upon what Paul told his detractors in Acts, he was never able to take this step.
This internal turmoil may have led to Paul’s crusade against legalism. And while he would have been right to expose and condemn the religious myth of works-based salvation, he was wrong in not overtly stating that the set of laws he was impugning was conceived by rabbis. But in all likelihood, that was by design. It wasn’t Rabbinic Law that he was speaking about. Unlike the Towrah, Sha’uwl never cites the Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem Talmud. He does, however, misquote the Towrah and even translates the 503word and title “Towrah” using nomou.
During the time Galatians was written around 52 CE, Yahuwdym represented the overwhelming majority of the followers of The Way. As a result, most of them understood the relationship between the Son of God and the Towrah. And yet, some may have been unable to remove religious traditions from their lives as they were ingrained in their culture. For example, even though I know that Christmas is based on pagan myths, it is such a pervasive tradition of our society, that it’s difficult to ignore its influence.
Sha’uwl was equally conflicted. As a student of Gamaliel, whose esteem Paul exaggerated, he would nevertheless have had some knowledge of the Torah and Prophets, but he would have been far more devoted to Jewish Oral Law. As a Pharisee in training, he would have known it better than he knew the Word of God. The same is true today. As I have said, and it bears repeating, Ultra-Orthodox Jews who claim to be students of the Torah are lying. They study Judaism’s Talmud. We know this not only from analyzing their academic curriculum but also through the realization that the Towrah constantly criticizes Jews for being religious.
And therein lies one of the biggest challenges with Sha’uwl’s epistles. For him, and for the preponderance of religious Jews, then and today, “the Law” was not the “Torah,” but instead Rabbinic Law derived from oral traditions known as “Halakhah.” Meaning “the path that one walks,” Halakhah is a set of rules and practices that Orthodox Jews are compelled to follow, including commandments instituted by rabbis and other binding customs. While the Torah is credited as being one of many sources of “Jewish Law,” the overwhelming preponderance of the rules which comprise Halakhah were either conceived or modified by men. Paul’s ubiquitous “But I say” statements are remarkably similar in style and 504format to what we find throughout the Talmud.
Rabbi Maimonides referenced the Towrah to usurp its credibility for his religion (as did Paul, Muhammad, and Joseph Smith). Corrupted and truncated paraphrases of God’s testimony served as the launching point from which he conceived the list of 613 Mitzvot he compiled in his Mishnah. The Talmud is similar in that it consistes of rabbinical arguments on how to interpret the Torah. And in that way, the Talmud reads like Paul’s epistles. It is also similar to the Quran, which Talmud readings also inspired. Likewise, Rabbinic Law references the Torah to give Rabbis the pretense of authenticity. It is being used the same way by Paul. Akiba’s rantings, like Paul’s, and like Muhammad’s after them, claimed that the Torah was inspired by God and yet they had no compunction against misrepresenting it to make it appear as if it were the source of their twisted religious ideas.
The reason I have brought this to your attention is to let you know that one of the many failings of Paul’s letters is that they purposefully blur the enormous distinction between the Oral Law of the Jews and the Towrah Teaching of Yahowah. The result is that the Torah is deliberately and deceitfully miscast as being both Jewish and as comprising a set of Laws. Therefore, when a Christian steeped in Pauline mythology hears that someone is Torah observant, rather than correctly concluding that such individuals are interested in knowing what God had to say, they falsely assume that they are either Jewish or have converted to Judaism. For this alone, Paul’s letters are an abomination.
When trying to make a distinction between these things, Gospel Jesus did a far better job because he removed potential confusion by adding “Naby’ | Prophets” and/or “Mizmowr | Psalms” to his Towrah references, thereby making it obvious that he was speaking of Yahowah’s testimony which begins with the Towrah 505followed by the Psalms and Writings, and then Prophets. But unfortunately, Sha’uwl did not follow his man-god’s example – in this or any other way.
When Gospel Jesus criticized the inappropriateness of Jewish Law, according to the mythology, he always did so in the context of its authors, the rabbis. But Sha’uwl only makes this distinction once, leaving those unwilling to consider his declaration in Galatians 3:10, where he actually translates towrah using nomou, guessing which set of instructions he was talking about: Jewish Law or Yahowah’s Torah.
However, the answer screams out of Paul’s letters. If Galatians 2:16 through 5:15 is viewed as a cohesive argument, then every reference to nomos / nomo / nomou must be translated: “Torah.” There is not a single verse referencing Rabbinic Law, and there are many which explicitly reference the Towrah. Moreover, as Paul builds to the climax of his argument in the fourth chapter of Galatians (4:21-25), any doubt that he was assailing Yahowah’s Towrah vanishes. He references the site where the Towrah was revealed to demean its Covenant.
In this light, I would like you to consider the opening statement of Galatians 2:16 once again now that you are aware that its message is hopelessly twisted. “Having come to realize without investigation or evidence that by no means whatsoever is made right, is vindicated, or made righteous man by means of tasks and activities associated with the Towrah if not by belief and faith in Iesoun Christon,...”
Therefore, “faith in Iesoun Christon, now known as “Jesus Christ,” is Paul’s solution to his preposterous notion that Yahowah’s Towrah, His Covenant, and His Seven Invitations are incapable of performing as promised. But if that were true, why did the Messiah observe them and fulfill them? Why did even the events chronicled within the 506Christian fables play out during Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children in year 4000 Yah? Why do they celebrate Pentecost when it represents Shabuw’ah? Why did Paul attempt to predict the timing of the fulfillment of Taruw’ah when he was clueless about it?
While there is no rational answer to any of these questions, it is now undeniable that Galatians establishes a war between Yahowah’s Torah and Paul’s Gospel. It is trust in Yahowah versus belief in Paul. Since this is such an obvious choice, why have as few as one in a million chosen God over this deranged individual?
Paul is committed to negating the Towrah’s purpose, to severing the connection between the Towrah and Dowd, and to pitting his Iesoun Christon against Yahowah. But when any of these things are done, the Messiah’s lives become immaterial, his words lose their meaning, and his sacrifice is nullified. There is no salvation, and life under these circumstances is for naught. God becomes unknowable and heaven unobtainable.
Considering this background, we should not be surprised when Paul repeats himself, creating a darkened mirror image of this diabolical message in the second half of Galatians 2:16. Here it is as he intended (that is to say, translated consistently with the rest of this epistle)...
“...and (kai) we (ego) to (eis – into and on) Christon Iesoun (ΧΝ ΙΝ – placeholders used by early Christian scribes for the misnomer Iesoun Christon | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement to create a Godly veneer), ourselves believed (pisteuo – we have had faith (scribed in the aorist tense to portray a snapshot in time without any consideration of the process which may have brought it about, in the active voice revealing that whoever “we” represents was providing the faith, and in the indicative mood indicating that belief is being presented as valid even though the writer may not, himself, concur)) in order for 507(hina) us to have become righteous, to have been acquitted and set free (dikaioo – for us to be put right or to be vindicated, to be justified and to be shown to be in compliance, to be judged innocent and declared righteous, and to be right in the relationship (scribed in the aorist, passive, subjunctive collectively conveying a current condition without prescient or promise of being acted upon which is probable)) out of (ek) faith in (pisteuo – belief in) Christou (ΧΥ), and (kai) not (ou) out of (ek – by means of) acting upon or engaging in (ergon – works someone undertakes and which are done, including actions, tasks, accomplishments, or activities associated with) the Towrah (nomou – used to say Torah, the books ascribed to Moses, with the word actually conveying an allotment which is parceled out, the inheritance which is given, the nourishment which is bestowed to be possessed and which is used to grow, the precepts which are apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper and approved, and the prescription to become an heir (singular genitive, and thus restricted to a singular specific and unique characterization)), because (hoti) out of (ek) acting upon or engaging in (ergon – things someone undertakes, doing that which is associated with) the Towrah (nomou – used to say Torah, the books ascribed to Moses, with the word actually conveying nourishment which is bestowed to be possessed and used by heirs to be proper and approved) not will be acquitted, vindicated, nor made righteous (ou dikaioo – not will be justified or set free, not be declared innocent or be in compliance, not will be in a proper relationship) any (pas – all) flesh (sarx – corporeal mass of humans and animals).” (Galatians 2:16)
It’s a significantly more sinister version of the same errant and lifeless message, this time in reverse order. The reason that the inverse is worse is that this time Sha’uwl eliminates any possibility of absolving him of the crime of denouncing Yahowah’s Towrah. He goes beyond erroneously and unequivocally stating that salvation is 508entirely the result of “Christon Iesoun believing,” but also that it is absolutely impossible for anyone to be saved by responding to Yahowah’s Towrah | Teaching and Guidance. This is why Yahowah refers to Sha’uwl | Paul as the Son of Evil, the Father of Lies, and the Plague of Death.
While the difference may appear subtle, it is an enormous and deadly step from “having come to realize without evidence that by no means whatsoever is vindicated or made righteous man by means of acting upon the Towrah if not by belief in Iesoun Christon,” to “we on Christon Iesoun, ourselves believed in order for us to have become righteous and to have been acquitted and vindicated out of faith in Christou, and not by means of acting upon or engaging in the Towrah, because by means of engaging in and acting upon the Towrah, not any flesh will be acquitted nor made righteous.” If you are not careful, the initial statement may seem remotely plausible, especially if the Messiah and the Towrah are combined to render salvation through the Passover Lamb, but that cannot be done with the inverse iteration because belief in Iesoun and acting upon the Towrah are distinct, with one prevailing and the other failing.
It is not the biggest problem in this pile of religious rubbish because our “sarx – flesh” is irrelevant. Yahowah constantly encourages us to value our “nepesh – soul” sufficiently to observe the Towrah and capitalize upon the Covenant. There will be no physical bodies in heaven. Paul’s animosity toward and fixation upon the flesh is a derivative of his Gnostic leanings.
As a master communicator, Yahowah presents His story from every imaginable perspective, using a wide array of characters, word pictures, and symbols. Throughout it all, regardless of the viewpoint or occasion, God is always consistent and consistently correct. But more often than not, man simply repeats his mistakes. That 509is what Sha’uwl has done in Galatians 2:16.
Since close and careful observation requires effort, since relationships require both parties to engage, since an invitation must be answered, and since a path necessitates walking along it to get to wherever it leads, it is a mistake to refrain from “acting upon the Towrah.” By doing so, an individual forestalls Yahowah’s guidance such that they wander aimlessly.
Knowing that there is no such thing as the “faith of Jesus Christ,” why do you suppose the authors of the King James Version said that there was? “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” The notion that God would have “faith” is absurd in the extreme.
And it appears as if we have Jerome and his Latin Vulgate to blame for this anomaly of reason: “And we know that man is not justified by the works of the legis/law, but only by the fidem/faith of Iesu Christi. And so we believe in Christo Iesu, in order that we may be justified by the fide/faith of Christi, and not by the works of the legis/law. For no flesh will be justified by the works of the law.”
Not that it is difficult, Galatians must be twisted for Christianity to survive, so the always entertaining New Living Translation makes its faithful contribution with: “Yet we know that a person is made right with God by faith in Jesus Christ, not by obeying the law. And we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be made right with God because of our faith in Christ, not because we have obeyed the law. For no one will ever be made right with God by obeying the law.”
In their novel enterprise, each of the following words 510was added without textual justification – all to satisfy the whims of the religious: “yet, we know, a person, is made right, with God, faith, Jesus Christ, obeying, the, law, we have, believed, Christ Jesus, so that, we might, be made, with God, because, our faith, in Christ, we have obeyed, the, for, no one, will ever, be made right, with God, by obeying, the, law, law.” But they were on solid footing with “that, by, in, not, by, and, in, right, because.” Yet in fairness, the NLT can be credited with accurately conveying Paul’s intended message. Too bad what he wrote was not true.
This is the essence of the Christian religion as it was conceived and promoted by Paul. The Torah, although positioned as the Word of God, was rejected, considered inept and passé. The notion that Gospel Jesus observed it, affirmed it, and lived it was ignored. Inexplicably then, faith in him was established as the means to salvation, even though the god-man’s alleged testimony and example undermined that premise. The proposition remains as insane as the mind of the man who devised it. This reflects poorly on the ability of men and women to think.
In Gospel Jesus’ attack on the Scribes and Rabbis in Matthew 23, he identifies his foes. He explains what they have done to earn his condemnation. And then he reveals why it would be inappropriate for anyone to be similarly religious. Therefore, while this is a translation two times over, from Hebrew to Greek and then to English, to the degree that the tenses, voices, and moods capture the fable’s expressed attitude toward political and religious leaders, it is relevant in our condemnation of Paul since believing the one he is contradicting would be insane...
“Then, at that time (tote), Iesou spoke to (laleo) large crowds of common people (tois ochlos – many, excluding political or religious leaders) and also (kai) to his disciples (tois mathetes autos), (Matthew 23:1) saying (lego): ‘The Scribes (oi Grammateus – the political 511leaders, experts, scholars, government officials, public servants, clerks, teachers, and the media) and the Pharisees (oi Pharisaios – the rabbis devoted to the Oral Law and Talmud, fundamentalist clerics engaged in the public acceptance and expression of perfunctory religious rites, those who claim God’s authority for themselves) have appointed themselves, trying to seat themselves with the influence and authority to interpret (kathizo kathedra – have attempted to put themselves in an exalted seat as judges and teachers along with (aorist active indicative)) Moseh. (Matthew 23:2)
Therefore consequently (oun – accordingly, these things being so), individually (pas – or collectively) if (ean – when if ever, and in the unlikely case, presented as a condition which has a low probability of occurring) and to the degree that (hosos – so long as, as much as, and as far as) they might of their own initiative convey (lego – they, acting on their own initiative perhaps say, maintain, or intentionally imply at some point in time (aorist active subjunctive)) to you (sy), that you may choose to engage (poieomai – you have the option to act, or even carry out or perform the assigned task (aorist (irrespective of time) active imperative (possibly acting of your own volition))) or (kai – also on the other hand) you can choose to be observant (tereo – you may presently elect to be on your guard, eyes open and focused, beholding and contemplating to learn by looking; from theoreo – attentively viewing, closely surveying, and carefully considering everything that can be perceived and discerned with your eyes, scrutinizing everything within your view (the present tense indicates action which is current and ongoing, the active voice denotes the fact that the observant are themselves acting and engaging in this way, and the imperative mood suggests that this was a polite request which as an expression of freewill, may or may not be accepted)) accordingly (kata).
512But (de) the (ta) assigned tasks (ergon – works, acts, pursuits, and undertakings, business, actions, deeds, and things acted upon or engaged in) associated with them, you should refrain from, choosing not to do them ever again (autos me poieomai – these things you should question and be averse to doing them, regarding them you should want to be hesitant, aware of the negative purpose and consequences of these assigned tasks, choosing of your own volition to no longer or ever again, act this way, in denial of the ideas behind these behaviors, negating their assumptions (third-person personal plural masculine pronoun, negative particle, present active imperative verb)).
For indeed (gar – because), they choose to speak (lego – they try to attribute and imply), but (kai) they never actually act (ou poieomai – they do not desire to genuinely engage or elect to really perform the assigned tasks on an ongoing basis (present active indicative)).” (Matthew 23:3)
In this instance, Gospel Jesus was warning Jews to be wary, even to suspect and to be critical of Yahuwdah’s leadership – questioning those in positions of political, academic, and religious authority – to the point of disassociating from them. He reportedly called those with the most influence “hypocrites.” The claim is that the religious and their leaders say one thing while doing another. In opposition to them, he revealed the means to their madness, saying that they had appointed themselves, claiming the authority to influence the nation by usurping the Towrah’s authority. But contrary to their claims, as was the case with Sha’uwl, neither their authority, their interpretations, nor their instructions came from God – something we would be wise to consider today.
But what is especially relevant here is that Gospel Jesus is equivocal, telling Jews that there is no possibility that a nation’s leaders might actually say something useful 513relative to the Towrah. He is translated using “oun – these things being so,” “pas – individually or collectively,” “ean – in the unlikely event with a low probability of occurring,” and “hosos – as far as or to the degree,” that “lego (in the aorist subjunctive) – they might possibly at some time convey something” “sy – to us,” we then can take it under advisement. He said “poieomai (in the aorist imperative) – we could choose the proper response, which might be to engage and act, or not,” in recognition of the fact that the most influential deceivers make their lies appear credible through counterfeit, where some of the strokes are genuine.” Consistent with Yahowah’s guidance in the Towrah, Gospel Jesus is “tereo (in the present active imperative) – encouraging Jews to be observant, to keep their eyes open and be on their guard, so that they can survey and assess the situation, gathering information, and then contemplate what they would learn by listening to Yahowah so that they might make an informed and rational decision.”
In complete discord with most English Bibles, Gospel Jesus did not ask anyone to “keep or obey” what clerics say. He was instead asking Jews to be wary of clerics, so as to scrutinize their words, and thereby determine whether they are in concert with the Towrah or out of tune with it.
The phrase “autos me poieomai,” when scribed in the present imperative, tells Jews that they should not only refrain from religious and political behavior, but that they should attempt to thwart the political and religious agenda, bringing it to an end – stopping it here, now, and always. He said, “Don’t do it,” therefore encouraging his people to refrain from engaging in religion or politics.
This particular variation of negation expressly encourages Jews not to get into the habit of participating in national customs, societal traditions, political parties, or religious rites. In other words, don’t follow their example or their behavior, and do not act upon the stipulations of 514government employees, the media, scholars, one’s political leadership, or clerics, especially fundamentalist religious leaders who attempt to assert their authority and who claim to speak for God. He wanted Jews to question their political and religious leaders, to be averse to them, and to be hesitant to follow them. He asked them to consider the negative consequences of the religious agenda.
Similarly, Yahowah’s Guidance is the antidote for the plague of religion. God repeatedly encourages His children to listen to Him rather than religious men and doing so through closely and carefully observing His Towrah. Yahowah is anti-religious and anti-political.
Gospel Jesus had more to tell us about the hypocrisy and negative influence of societal leaders, both religious and political. It is as if the myth of Gospel Jesus saw people in positions of authority as parasites, burdening their citizens so that they are compelled to serve them. As fables go, he was much smarter than most, and clearly brighter than those who would come to claim him.
“So they tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they, themselves, are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. They do all their deeds to be noticed by men, to be watched and to be seen; for they broaden their phylacteries (read: religious quotes, pontifications, and outward appearances) and lengthen the tassels of their garments (read: decorated uniforms, clerical robes, and distinguished suits and trappings). They love the place of honor at banquets, the most valued seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi (meaning “exalted”) by men.’” (Matthew 23:4-7) Sounds like he’s berating the Haredim today. I would say the same of them.
Gospel Jesus was blunt when he exposed and condemned the Scribes and Pharisees. He was not only 515rebuking their hypocrisy, he demonstrated how Jews should respond to all religious and political proclamations. They ought to be wary of Rabbinic Law, of the Talmud, and of religious and political parties. His advice was to scrutinize everything they say and to avoid doing anything they did. And in this context, it is worth noting that Sha’uwl bragged about being a Rabbi. He was and remains one of them. He acts and sounds remarkably similar to those Gospel Jesus scorned and warned about. And that would make Paul an outright liar.
But there was more to the instruction of Gospel Jesus. Under the surface, he was contrasting man’s legalistic religious schemes with his perspective on the Covenant relationship. Men place burdens on people, oppressing them. Religions are works-based, and thus one’s salvation is predicated upon what they do. By contrast, while God wants us to engage in a relationship with Him, He gives infinitely more than we provide. And when it comes to our salvation, God requires nothing of us, except that we accept the conditions of His Covenant, answer His Invitations, and walk along the path He and His Son have provided. Said another way, by fulfilling Matsah, Dowd lifted the burden of guilt from us, taking it upon himself and then depositing it in She’owl.
It is an odd thing to be writing about the words attributed to a myth under the label of Gospel Jesus. But in a rebuke of Paul, it is incumbent upon the critic to explain that his mantra was not only diametrically opposed to Yahowah, but that it was also contrary to the testimony of his god-man, Iesou Christou. Beyond this, there is also the realization that the narrative attributed to “Jesus Christ” did not fall from the sky. As was foretold by Dowd, himself, someone exceedingly well known appeared, and something exceptionally important occurred, on schedule in Yaruwshalaim during Passover, Matsah, and Bikuwrym in April, 33 CE / the 80th Yowbel year of 4000 Yah. The 516Messiah, Son of God, and Savior was here. So, much of what was subsequently attributed via hearsay to Iesoun Christon four to eight decades after the fact by non-participants, was likely said and done by Dowd.
And it is the specificity and proper perspective attributed to the substitute which is in contrast to what was missing in Paul’s writings. On the surface, Paul’s communication skills are deplorable. And the deeper one looks, the more obvious it becomes that he was weaving a web to ensnare his victims.
There is no more devilish or diabolical act than misrepresenting Yahowah’s testimony, and yet this is what Sha’uwl has done by denouncing God’s demonstrated ability to save His children.
Therefore, don’t be confused by Sha’uwl’s repetitive claims to have been authorized by God. Muhammad did the same thing, and in his religion, Allah is Satan. Both sought to satiate their lust for unchallenged power and to neuter their critics.
Sha’uwl neither met, spoke with, nor knew Yahowah. He never once explains the meaning behind the name or title attributed to his replacement for Dowd, both of which are essential to knowing who he is and what the genuine article sacrificed for us. Paul never once explained the terms and conditions of the Covenant, which is the only way to engage in a relationship with God. He never speaks of Yahowah’s seven annual Meetings or mentions that they represent the narrow path to God and thus to our redemption. There isn’t a single reference in his letters to the Instruction on the Mount, where it is probable that Dowd conveyed the enduring nature of the Towrah to all who would listen. Not once does Sha’uwl present Dowd as the Passover Lamb, and twice he lied by promoting the preposterous myth that “the completeness of the godhead resided on him bodily.” It is like saying that a grain of sand 517represents the entirety of the Earth, every form of life, and all pertinent information.
Everything Paul has written is untrue. And while we have not yet seen an example, should one arise, the occasional accurate statement would only serve to distract those who are easily confused. He was an extraordinarily evil man. And with his last statement, he has removed the veil hiding his hideous nature.
Since we are dispelling myths, this is as good a place as any to reveal that, just as the words and deeds attributed to Jesus didn’t just fall from the sky, but were predicated upon what the actual Messiah and Son of God did in Jerusalem at this time, the fables associated with Christianity also have a past.
I first stumbled upon them when trying to accurately convey the name Shachar in the following prophetic portrayal of Yahowah’s revulsion over Israel’s continued flirtation with religion. My favorite prophet revealed…
“And when (wa ky – so to the contrary, rather and instead) they say to you (‘amar ‘al ‘atem – they plead with you, encouraging you), ‘You should consult (darash – you should choose to seek previously unknown information, expecting answers, resort to, petition, and ponder, seriously consider revelations (qal imperative active)) with (‘el – in consideration of, moving toward) the mediums (ha ‘owb – those who claim to communicate with ghosts of the dead which is a form of sorcery, the witches, wizards, soothsayers, and occultists speaking for saints and familiar spirits; a conjunction of ‘ab and ‘owr – fathers of light) and (wa) the spiritualists (ha yada’ony – those claiming to possess spiritual insights, revealing knowledge gleaned 518from the spiritual world, false prophets, diviners, and necromancers; from yada’ – to know and claim familiarity) who meditate and mutter (ha hagah – who ponder selected information, devise a plot, and express their woeful and imaginative opinions) and (wa) who twitter satanic musings (ha tsaphaph – who chirp like birds, whisper, and mutter that which is deadly; related to tsapha’ – the offshoots of venomous serpents and poisonous vipers),’ instead, shouldn’t the people (ha lo’ ‘am – as a rhetorical question, would it not be better for the family) consult (darash – seek information and expect answers, petition and seriously consider the revelations, look for, care about, and seek to develop a relationship (qal imperfect active)) with (‘el) their God (‘elohym huw’) through (ba’ad – from and for the benefit of) the living (ha chay – those who are alive, nourished, growing, and actually exist as a conscious being) not (‘al – as opposed to) the dead (ha muwth – those absent of life)?” (Yasha’yah / Deliverance is from Yahowah / Isaiah 8:19)
With the answer so obvious, why do as few as one in a million consult with Yahowah through the living and why do billions listen to the dead – particularly in rabbinic Judaism and its fascination with Kabbalah? Paul is dead, as are Akiba and Muhammad. So is every Christian Saint, the sages among Rabbinic Talmudists, and successful suicide bombers among Islamic jihadists.
Even if you are not checking, I want you to know that there were a number of options regarding the translation of ‘al as “not.” To begin, can be transliterated as either ‘el or ‘al. As a noun, ‘el is “Almighty God.” As a preposition, ‘el is translated: “to, toward, in the direction of, on, at, by, among, or for.” But ‘al can also serve to negate a verb or a noun as it is here with ha muwth. It seemed logical to select the definition which best fit the context of the discussion.
While there are shades of grey for those who have read the wrong material and listened to misleading people, for 519those speaking publicly about God there is only light or darkness, right or wrong, truth and lies, life and death. It is Yahowah or Shachar. The single adjudicating factor determining which side of this divide the speaker or writer is on is whether or not their testimony is consistent with the Towrah and Ta’uwdah, Yahowah’s Source of Teaching and Guidance and His Written Testimony Regarding Restoration…
“According to (la – approaching and concerning) the Towrah (Towrah – Source of Teaching, Guidance, Instruction, and Direction) and (wa) according to (la) the written Testimony which presents correct and corroborating information regarding restoration (Ta’uwdah – the authorized documentation regarding the confirmation of the binding relationship agreement pertaining to an inheritance, a compound of towrah – source of guidance, instruction, direction, and teaching and ‘uwd – to repeatedly testify about restoration and to continually bear an affirming witness), if (‘im – whenever and whosoever on the condition) they do not speak (lo’ ‘amar – they do not answer and respond (qal imperfect active)) consistent with (ka – in a manner which is comparable to and compatible with, in accordance with, like, and overlapping, the same as and in agreement with) this specific word and message (ha dabar ha zeh – these statements, accounting treatises, and communications), then by association (‘asher – then as a result) they lack discernment, are for naught, are without light, and are approaching Shachar (‘ayn la huw’ shachar – they are without and are negated, black, having nothing, failing to seek or earnestly inquire, they are lacking even so much as the first glimpse of light, and are moving toward Satan).” (Yasha’yah / Salvation is from Yahowah / Isaiah 8:20)
In the 14th chapter of Yasha’yah, which is where we are eventually headed in our rebuke of Pauline Christianity, we discover Satan’s ploy, the Adversary’s name, fate, and 520association with the Babel that became the Christian Bible. As for the Adversary’s name, it was stated here as Shachar – meaning “darkness seeking the light reminiscent of the rising sun.”
If a person is preaching from any one of Sha’uwl’s | Paul’s fourteen letters, they lack discernment, their words are for naught, and they are headed to Shachar in She’owl. If a person is speaking or writing in a manner that is consistent with the Towrah and Ta’uwdah, Yahowah’s Source of Teaching and Guidance and His Written Testimony Regarding Restoration, they are discerning, their words matter, they are enlightening and on their way to Yahowah. In the end, this is the only litmus test that actually matters.
As it relates to Shachar, we discover in the Canaanite and Phoenician iteration of the Ba’al | Lord myth as memorialized in the Tell Ras Shamra texts, Shachar refers to the “dawn and its dim light emerging out of the darkness.” As such, it served as the name of the Canaanite and Phoenician god, Shachar. He is especially relevant because the central character in these myths is the Lord Ba’al, the name and title Yahowah ascribed to Satan. In that they are fascinating, and incriminating, I’ll discuss the Ras Shamra texts momentarily.
But first, here is the conclusion of the 8th chapter where Israel is accused of having chosen to be religious rather than participate in the Covenant, having associated with Shachar rather than Yahowah. So, once again, Yisra’el was headed in the wrong direction. Worse, no matter how bad things became for them, they remained stubborn. It was, indeed, perplexing and exasperating.
“Then (wa) they will pass through it (‘abar ba hy’ – intoxicated, they will travel through and cross over the darkness of Shachar) stubborn and stiff-necked, strong-willed and perplexing (qashah – wholly resistant to any 521advice or assistance due to a puzzling lack of humility and an attitude of superiority, and will experience cruelty and brutality as a result, enduring hardship and distress) and (wa) starving and famished (ra’eb – malnourished and weakened; akin to roa’ – willfully malicious and overtly evil, afflicted and injured).
And it shall come to pass (wa hayah – so it will come to be) when (ky) they are malnourished and weakened (ra’eb – starving and famished as a result of being willfully malicious, overtly evil, and deliberately afflicted), they will become antagonized and provoked to anger, struggling with their change in status (wa qatsaph – they will be enraged and vengeful, displeased and furious, suffering from cognitive dissonance and dissidence in conjunction with their strife, fretting that the situation in which they find themselves is unfair and undeserved, showing dissension at having been uprooted and splintered). Their status will diminish, and they will be treated with contempt as a result of their propensity to slander and insult the reputation (qalal – they will be despised and seen as vile, they will curse and blaspheme, becoming an object of scorn as a result of their reputation) of their leaders (ba melek huw’ – against their kings, dictators, and elected officials) and (wa) against their God (ba ‘elohym huw’ – in opposition to the Almighty), turning away (wa paneh – facing away (qal perfect)), unfaithful in the relationship (la ma’al – moving toward adultery).” (Yasha’yah / Isaiah 8:21)
How many times have we heard Jews lament being “God’s Chosen People?” To quote Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof, “I know, I know. We are Your chosen people. But, once in a while, can’t You choose someone else?” It is as if the abuse they have suffered was at His direction and not as a consequence of their own actions – and inaction.
The Towrah is resolute in this regard. If a people 522embrace the Covenant, they will prevail, and if they reject Yahowah’s testimony they will fail. And as it is so clearly stated in the Towrah, the status of those who reject Yahowah will be diminished. Why then have Yisra’elites chosen to slander and insult their God for having done precisely what He said He would do? Why do so many people find it so difficult to accept responsibility for their mistakes and then correct them?
“Unto the Land (wa ‘el ‘erets – then to the region) they will look (nabat – they will gaze), but (wa) behold, they will see (hineh – pay attention, they will find) disfavor (tsarah – anguishing trouble, calamitous distress, and unfavorable circumstances as a result of an antagonistic and competitive rival mistress who is vexing and adversarial) and (wa) darkness (cheshkah – obscurity with an absence of light) with discouraging (ma’uwph – dejection and sadness, gloom) oppression (tsowqah – anguish as a result of being constrained and distressed). And (wa) into a place devoid of light (‘aphelah – into total darkness, lacking any light), they will be driven and stray (nadach – they will be exiled and enticed, lured and scattered, outcast and banished).” (Yasha’yah / Deliverance is from Yahowah / Isaiah 8:22)
For most, being devoid of light will simply mean that their souls will fade away. But for some, their souls will be exiled, banished to the place wholly devoid of light in She’owl.
The conclusion of the 8th chapter of Yasha’yah reveals that Jews should not go along with the flow, acquiescing to the ploys of their religious or political leaders. The excuse that we were observing cultural mores but that is not what they mean to us, just following orders, or that others are doing the same thing, is not going to fly with God. Further, while Yahowah is Spirit, being spiritual is a bad idea because the most active spirits are those of demons. Moreover, the affinity civilizations and religious 523institutions have for their founding fathers is not shared by God. If only we could effectively convey this to every religious person who believes they do not have to study because “the spirit will guide them.” One may, but more likely than not, it will be in the wrong direction.
As promised, I would like to share some of what I have learned by researching the Ras Shamra texts because they explain the origins of Christianity. The ancient Mediterranean city of Ugarit where they were unearthed between 1929 and 1994, rose and fell during the Late Bronze Age, circa 1450 to 1190 BCE. It was located on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea in what is northern Syria today. The Canaanite / Phoenician civilization traded with the Hittites to the north, Egypt to the south, Mycenae to the west, and Assyria and Babylon to the east, because it was the closest port to the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.
The Ras Shamra tablets were inscribed in a previously unknown variation of cuneiform, mostly in the decades before the city’s fall at the hands of the “Sea People” in 1190 BCE. Wedges were used to form twenty-nine or thirty letters, twenty-two of which were decidedly Hebrew, written in the same order, conveying the same meaning, all while presenting similar sounds. The grammar, vocabulary, and syntax recorded in these tablets are decidedly Hebrew. Two additional inscriptions in this same alphabetic form were also found in Yisra’el, one on a tablet at Beth-Shemesh and the other on a bronze knife near Tabor, demonstrating that this depiction of the Hebrew alphabet was widespread.
As far back as 1930, the tablets were readily deciphered by University of London professor of Assyriology, D.J. Wiseman, because the alphabet presented a Canaanite dialect of Hebrew – among the best-known ancient languages. Further, many of the names and accounts on the first 350 tablets were recognizable because 524they were part of the Towrah’s historical portrayals of these people, places, and cultures even though the Towrah predates the Ras Shamra tablets. In other words, the Towrah in its original paleo-Hebrew script served as the Rosetta Stone for the Ras Shamra tablets.
To the utter amazement, and quiet disdain of many linguistic scholars, the alphabet used by the early Canaanites and Phoenicians unearthed in the ruins of Ugarit was Hebrew, revealing that the phonetic writing system we have been examining was used more than 3,500 years ago – dating to the time of Moseh and beyond. The earliest known abecedaries prove that the order and expression of the Hebrew alphabet – a b g d h w z ch th y k l m n s e ph ts q r sh t – had long since been established and was passed along to the Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hittites, Greeks, and Romans. This is remarkable in that the initial phonetic writing system is inarguably our single most valuable invention and useful tool, and it forms the basis of the Towrah. In fact, the names attributed to the first twenty-two letters are a perfect match for the Hebrew alphabet.
As the Towrah suggests, most of the tablets are religious in nature. The “‘Ab – Father” of the gods was named “‘El – the Almighty.” This is not surprising since Satan not only covets Yahowah’s title, but the Adversary also wants to be worshiped as if he were “‘el – god.” But that was not all Satan plagiarized. ‘El’s favorite number was seven, reflected in the seventy gods and goddesses he originally surpassed in supremacy.
But that’s just the beginning. In a nod to what would become Christianity, the old god was ultimately discounted. He was a standoffish and shadowy father figure, uninvolved in human affairs. Also, in keeping with Christianity, ‘El’s consort, ‘Ashirath (called ‘Asherah in the Towrah and Prophets), and then later, ‘Elat (who is also mentioned as a goddess and intermediary in the Quran), 525was the Queen of Heaven and Mother of God. Providing the model for the Trinity 1,500 years before Christians would borrow the concept, the Lord | Ba’al was ‘Ashirath’s most popular and beloved son.
While it is required in Christianity for Paul to be credible, ‘El | God was a capricious and schizophrenic character, lost in a fog of contradictions in an arcane world of his own making. At times, he was unable to refuse any request, and at others, he was either impotent or uncontrollably violent. The cult craved a kinder, less imposing and wrathful, more involved and caring, merciful and loving god. Continuing to forge the groundwork for Christianity, the Ba’al | Lord became the Ben | Son of ‘El | God by way of ‘Asherah | the Queen of Heaven and Mother of God.
As a result of his supposed benevolence toward man, his cult elevated Lord Ba’al’s status above ‘El | God, the ‘Ab | Father. The Lord, as the Son of God, is said to have driven his Father from his throne, becoming the principal object of worship, with the help of ‘Asherah | the Mother of God and Queen of Heaven, who would now be worshiped in her own right. These prototypes served as the predecessors of Mary and Jesus, with the Roman Catholic Church establishing them as their primary objects of worship.
Also telling, the cults of the Lord | Ba’al and the Mother of God | ‘Asherah celebrated annual holidays which both plagiarized and bastardized Yahowah’s Mow’ed Miqra’ey, in similar fashion to Christianity. The Roman Catholic Church established their Good Friday, Eucharist, and Easter Sunday to replace Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym. Pentecost, now signifying the Birth of their Church, replaced Shabuw’ah. Among Protestants, their Rapture replaced Taruw’ah. Their Second Coming has served to replace Kipurym. And for all Christians, Christmas has replaced Sukah. I don’t call it Replacement 526Foolology without reason or justification.
The quintessentially Canaanite culture had long been forgotten. It was buried under sixty feet of sediment when in 1929 a peasant’s plow struck the first of many tablets to be unearthed from the Tell Ras Shamra site. Archeologists found a massive royal palace with ninety rooms laid out around eight enclosed courtyards. Crowning the hill upon which the city was built, two temples rose above the people. The larger was for Lord Ba’al, the Melek / King, and the Son of ‘El / God. The smaller was to Dagon, a deity now memorialized by the pope’s elongated hat.
Among the ruins of the neighboring High Priest’s palace, the scriptures of the Ba’alym religion were found. The most important literary documents present the Cycle of Ba’al, depicting the basis of the Lord’s religion. Over the span of six clay tablets, presenting 1,500 poetic verses, a royal scribe named Ilimiku composed the sweeping tale of the Lord Ba’al’s struggle to rise above every god and obtain the most elevated position within the pagan pantheon. It was exactly as Yasha’yah described Shachar in his 14th chapter.
The epic tale begins with Yam, the god of the sea (read: Gentiles) and of chaos (read: evil), serving as the Adversary. He was the embodiment of the identity Satan is desperate to disown. Also telling, Yam is afforded Dowd’s title.
In the midst of this divine intrigue, the priestly texts reveal that ‘El orders the gods to build a palace for Yam. He then bestows his authority and power upon his son, symbolizing that opposition to Yam is useless. Holding a banquet in Yam’s honor at the confluence of the rivers, ‘El, after anointing Yam with curdled milk, reveals that henceforth, “Yam’s personal name shall be Yaw, and he shall be known as the Dowd / Beloved of ‘El.” Then ‘El tells Yaw, his Beloved, that he must drive his other son, 527Lord Ba’al from the throne.
As the myth progresses, when Yaw, formerly Yam, pursues Ba’al, Kothar and Chasis come to the Lord’s aid, providing him with supernatural clubs with magical names to strike Yaw, promising Ba’al that “he will be victorious and will win a kingdom without end.” Wielding the clubs, Ba’al kills Yaw. With the Beloved of ‘El / God dead, the Lord Ba’al cries out that he should be King and worshiped as God.
The Lord Ba’al’s rebuff of Yam, the god of the sea and of chaos, who is now masquerading as Dowd, is consistent with the Assyrian and Babylonian religious myths. It also portrays the Lord as the hero, with his victory over death establishing a new religious order on the ruins of the chaos and infighting that came before.
This is the model upon which Christianity’s “Jesus” and his New Testament would prevail over the God of the “Old Testament.” And in all of this, we should see Satan, in the guise of the Lord Ba’al establishing the battleground for his rivalry with Dowd. Also in this way, Allah, who is Satan, can be worshiped as God while creating the illusion that he is opposed to the Adversary. The same is true in Paul’s letters, where the wannabe apostle appears opposed to the spirit possessing him.
Ba’al, of course, wants to rise above the Most High and be worshiped as ‘El / God. Swelling with pride, the Lord, with the help of ‘Asherah, his mother, who is revered in her own right as the Queen of Heaven and Mother of God, after receiving a number of bribes is persuaded to allow him, her son, to have a Temple of his own. He commissions Kothar and Chasis, the Skillful and Wise, who supplied the bribes, to construct it for him. He is both soothsayer and carpenter, magician and stone mason. The resulting palace of cedar, silver, and gold is replete with a single window which the Skillful and Wise opens each 528year, traveling from his home in Memphis, Egypt, so that Ba’al can come and go, bringing rain and fertilizing the earth, providing for the continuance of life.
All the while, Anath, Ba’al’s sister and virginal lover, is shown attending a banquet in Ba’al’s honor. And in true Canaanite fashion, she murders the guards, slays the warriors, and then exiles the townsfolk, all while claiming to embody the religion of peace. She then tells Ba’al that she knew the secret behind lightning and would perform the religious rite on the Lord’s behalf to give him control over thunderbolts in the sky and flashing lights. Is it any wonder then that Paul witnessed his Lord as flashes of light speaking to him with a thunderous voice on the road to Damascus? Should we be surprised that Yahowah describes Satan as the Prince of the Air and thus with limited command over the weather?
The Lord’s arrogance was now aligned with Satan’s hubris and reminiscent of Sha’uwl’s ego. He would brag about his victory over Yam, now Yaw, the Dowd / Beloved of God. Sitting upon the throne of god, he boasts that should anyone attempt to resist his power he would send Mot, the god of death, to deal with them. It is the basis of the line Paul would repeat from Dionysus: “It is difficult to kick against the goad.” In fact, it would be through the myths of Dionysus that Satan would beguile billions to worship him as “Jesus Christ.”
Now worshiped as the King of the Gods and Ruler of the World, the Lord Ba’al invited Mot, who was the personification of death, into his temple so that Mot / Death could acknowledge the Lord’s sovereignty over him. But by inviting Mot to a banquet of bread and wine (Pesach and Matsah), Mot becomes offended, saying, “Like a lion in the desert (read Yahuwdah in Yisra’el), I constantly hunger for human flesh and blood.” Mot threatened to “wilt and collapse the Heavens and break Ba’al into pieces, eating him.” Knowing the power of death, Ba’al tries to deceive 529Mot, the Lord telling Death that he will be his slave.
At this point, Shapash, who is Shachar in Yasha’yah, representing the Rising Sun, addressed Ba’al, advising him to find a substitute in his image that can be sought out and slain by Mot. There are echoes of this in the Quran. She then promises to bury his body if he agrees to enter the underworld. After doing so, the Lord God is presumed dead. This myth would be repeated in Christianity.
Thereafter, and reminiscent of Lent and the Weeping for Tammuz, Anath seeks after Ba’al “like a cow for its calf” and finds his body, which she “buries with sacrifices and weeping.” Oddly, then, she goes to ‘El and ‘Asherah, telling them that they can rejoice because the Son of God is dead. Knowing, however, that it is all a lie, Anath searches She’owl for the “shade of her brother, demanding that Mot restore him to her.”
But Mot claims to have eaten him. At this point, Anath, the Virgin, and Ba’al’s incestuous lover, goes into jihadist mode. As the mythical embodiment of Quran 5.33, she is depicted wading knee-deep in blood, slashing off heads, hands, and feet, binding the decapitated heads to her torso and hands to her sash, her heart filled with joy as she shoots her arrows into the enemies of Ba’al she is trying to terrorize. Slaying Mot, the personification of death is “burned in the fire and ground with millstones.”
Anath then boasts that she has put an end to the Seven-Headed Serpent who is the Darling of ‘El, to Atik, the Quarrelsome Calf of ‘El, and tellingly, to ‘Ishath, the Feminine Fire of ‘El who is the “Bitch of the Gods.” Satan clearly holds the Set-Apart Spirit in low esteem.
In the process, Lord Ba’al is reborn, bodily resurrected, returning to his Temple on Mount Zephon. Not to be outdone, Mot is also resurrected, complaining to Ba’al about the treatment he received. In response, Ba’al tries to appease Death by offering to feed Mot his servants. 530Unimpressed, Mot and Ba’al meet to duke it out on Mount Zephon, at which time Mot capitulates because Shapash, speaking for ‘El, has declared that fighting against Lord Ba’al is futile. Mot’s submission not only allows the Lord to rise above every god, by defeating death, Ba’al is seen as the Savior of mortal man. With the Lord Ba’al, a.k.a. Satan, having triumphed, and now reigning as ‘El / God, the Canaanite religion would serve the Adversary for the next 2,500 years.
As the Lord does battle against the personification of death, and against the influence of Dowd, Yahowah’s Beloved, and his devotion to the Towrah, Ba’al is afforded Dowd’s attributes while embodying Satan’s ambitions. The myth even plays along the lines of a Trinity, with the elderly father-god, ‘El, and his consort, ‘Asherah, the Queen of Heaven and Mother of God, playing roles in Ba’al’s, the Son of God’s, rise.
Now that it has become obvious that the Towrah and Prophets convey a historically accurate depiction of the Canaanite religion, and that the Canaanites established the underpinnings of Christianity, it is no longer surprising that Yahowah presents Ba’al and ‘Asherah as the mythological building blocks of the most popular Satanic religion ever conceived – consistently railing against their cults. And while it is true that many Yisra’elites adopted these reprehensible heathen myths, the principal participants in the Canaanite religion were dead and all but forgotten not long after the Children of Yisra’el entered the Promised Land. So, it wasn’t of them that Yahowah was speaking of per se but, instead, of what would emerge from their religious myths: Christianity and Islam.
But there is more to all of this. For example, the Ras Shamra tablets attest to the fact that there were male and female prostitutes serving in the Lord’s / Ba’al’s and the Mother of God’s / ‘Asherah’s temples, and that making donations to them would grant the petitioner’s plea for 531abundant harvest, success in some worldly endeavor, or renewed health. But if bribes proved insufficient, the Canaanites resorted to child sacrifice (also attested in 2 Kings 3:27).
Indeed, proving that their “iniquity was complete” (Bare’syth 15:16), a plethora of religious canisters have been found with the bodies of young children distorted by suffocation as they struggled for life after having been buried alive as a sacrifice to the Canaanite gods. This helps to explain why Yahowah insisted upon ridding His home of these people before His children moved into the Promised Land.
It is interesting to contrast the real with the myth. Unlike ‘El, ‘Asherah, and Ba’al, Yahowah does not personify the characteristics of natural phenomena, He was not represented by the stars, constellations, sun, or moon, He does not love or war with other gods, He does not die, and He is not resurrected. Unlike the pagan myths which were embroiled in subversive dramas with other gods, Yahowah intervenes in human history to free His people and lift them up.
He created humankind in His image, whereas Ba’al, ‘El, and ‘Asherah were created by men and women in their image. Further, Yahowah is alone. He has no consort. There is no Queen of Heaven, Mother of God, or Virgin with Child. In fact, Hebrew does not even have a word for “goddess.”
There are no images of Yahowah, no pictures, carvings, or statues. Not a single figurine of Yahowah has ever been found. And while the Canaanite, Phoenician, Assyrian, and Babylonian gods and goddesses were relentlessly immoral, Yahowah is the living embodiment of the world’s most moral text. His singular purpose is His Covenant, a family-oriented relationship with His creation rather than competing for supremacy with other gods.
532Also, let’s ponder the difference between hayah, an always-existing, eternally living God of light as Yahowah has defined Himself, and the dying and resurrected gods like Ba’al, Tammuz, Osiris, Dionysus, Bacchus, and, of course, the Christian Jesus. It is why we find in Yahowah’s rebuke of Sha’uwl / Paul and Christianity in Chabaquwq, the prophet clearly stating, “God, You cannot die.”
Speaking of the 2nd chapter of Chabaquwq / Habakkuk, there is even more that we can learn by studying the Hebrew text of the Ugaritic legal documents. Scholars who have read them have determined that the first word in the 3rd verse of the 2nd chapter, the adverb, ‘owd, should have been diacritically marked as the noun, ‘uwd, and therefore have been translated as “testimony” rather than “still” or “yet.”
Not knowing this, in the King James Bible, rendered three hundred years before these tablets were unearthed, we find: “For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie: though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry.” Similarly, in the New American Standard Bible, we find: “For the vision is yet for the appointed time; It hastens toward the goal, and it will not fail. Though it tarries, wait for it; For it will certainly come, it will not delay.”
Chabaquwq 2:3 reads: “Indeed (ky – so therefore it is truthful and reliable), the testimony (‘uwd – the restoring and eternal witness) of this revelation from God (chazown – this divine communication) is for the Mow’ed Appointed Meeting Times (la ha mow’ed – for the time of the Mow’ed). It provides a witness to and speaks, pouring out evidence (puwach – it reveals facts which condemn, trapping and ensnaring) in the end (la ha qets). The extended period of time required for this question to be resolved (‘im mahah – question him, because no matter how long it takes) shall not prove it false (lo’ kazab – this revelation shall not deceive, delude, nor fail).
533Expect him in this regard (chakah la – be certain concerning this) because indeed (ky), he will absolutely come (bow’ bow’ – he will certainly come upon the scene and make his appearance), neither being delayed nor lingering (lo’ ‘achar).” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:3)
Immediately prior to this, we find…
“Then (wa) Yahowah (Yahowah – an accurate transliteration of the name YaHoWaH, our ‘elowah – God as guided by His towrah – instructions regarding His hayah – existence and our shalowm – reconciliation) answered, approaching me (‘anah – responded to me), and He said (wa ‘amar), ‘Write (katab – use the alphabet to inscribe) this revelation (chazown – this communication from God), and then (wa) expound upon and reiterate it using those letters (ba’ar – teaching others its significance by plainly and clearly declaring it using large and distinct alphabetic characters) upon (‘al) writing tablets (luwach – engraving it in stone) so that (ma’an – for the express purpose and intent that), by reciting this (ba qara’ – by reading this), he might run and go away (ruwts – he might flee).’” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:2)
Yahowah’s prophetic testimony regarding Sha’uwl needed to be recorded so that when Paul came along 666 years thereafter and fulfilled it, the world should have known to reject him. The written record proved God to be trustworthy when His prediction was actualized in human history, while at the same time proving that the founder of the world’s most popular iteration of the Canaanite religion was dead wrong.
Also interesting in light of the Ras Shamra texts, the presupposition of natural explanations required by the scholastic endeavor of “higher criticism” has subsequently been proven invalid with these archeological discoveries. The scientific, historical, political, and religious basis of 534Yahowah’s arguments is consistently shown to be valid. And the miraculous nature of His prophecies was indeed committed to writing long before the events He predicted transpired.
Moreover, the principal argument rendered in favor of five authors of the Towrah by higher criticism hinges on words the skeptics claim were not ever written by the same author, when the Ras Shama tablets, which date to the same time period, reveal quite the opposite. In particular, the pronouns said to have indicated different sources are routinely used in conjunction with one another in the same clay tablets. Even the words for “sacrifice,” which allegedly required a different author and time period for the “Leviticus” text, were shown to be in common usage circa 1450 BCE, further nullifying the scholastic arguments.
Of particular interest relative to the controversial declaration in Yasha’yah 7:14 of a young woman versus a virgin giving birth to a son, a tablet unearthed in Ras Shamra dating to 1400 BCE uses both “bethuwlah – virgin” and “‘almah – young woman” in the same verse, speaking of Anath, the unmarried goddess who was both virginal and young when she served Ba’al by killing Mot.
Further, beyond proving that the Canaanite religion served as the model for Christianity, there are some interesting additional nuggets that can be gleaned from it. For example, prior to reading the Ras Shamra tablets and learning that the Canaanites boiled a kid (a young male goat) alive in their mother’s milk to appease their deities as part of their religious rituals, it wasn’t clear why Yahowah issued a prohibition against doing so in Shemowth 23:19, 34:26, and Dabarym 14:21.
Yahowah was trying to convince His people not to ascribe to a sickening religious custom. After all, roasted meats are healthier, and they offer improved flavor. Then there is the ambiance of the fire, in addition to its 535symbolism relative to the smoke rising up and the flames providing light. Additionally, we ought not forget the fire’s ability to eliminate the body of the sacrificial victim.
God wanted His people to be healthy and He wanted His children to enjoy themselves. If He could convey some meaningful symbolism along with the fire, so much the better. Moreover, He did not want His people to mimic heathenism.
Similarly, the instruction in Dabarym 23:17-18 against male and female prostitution was designed to differentiate Yahowah’s family from the surrounding civilizations. God wanted to inoculate His children from the prevalent immoral religious practices of man. The “Most Holy One” in the Canaanite religion was the most acclaimed temple prostitute – a sacred whore.
The message here is simple. Yahowah does not want us to corrupt our relationship with Him by bringing other gods to His parties. And when it comes to violators, none were worse than Sha’uwl / Paul. But at least now, you know where he stole his material.
