Twistianity

235Twistianity

Devil’s Advocate

…Plague of Death

Ptochos | Belittling

On the Other Hand…

Paul’s next sentence was no more accurate than those preceding it. Following a plethora of lies, all leading to many more deplorable deceptions, it is worth noting that the text suddenly, albeit briefly, becomes somewhat more lucid. And that is a welcome relief amid incessant insanity.

In the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27^th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear, we find: “When but came the fullness of the time delegated out the God the son of him having become from woman having become under law...”

Amplified by the lexicons at our disposal, and reordered to accommodate the transition into English, the same words reveal...

“But (de) when (hote) came (erchomai – arrived) the fullness (to pleroma – the complete contents) of the (tou) unspecified time (chromos – indefinite occasion), the God (o ΘΣ) sent out (exapostello – out of being set apart and dispatched the messenger with a message on a mission) the (ton) son (ΥΙΝ) of Him (autos), having come to exist (ginomai – having become and having originated) from (ek – out of) a woman (gune – an adult female), having come to exist (ginomai – having originated and being) under (hypo – through, as an agent of, under the auspices of, by the means of, subject to, or because of) [the] Towrah (nomon – nourishment which facilitates an inheritance; used throughout the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew 236noun towrah, meaning teaching and guidance (written in the singular accusative case, making “Towrah” the direct object of the verb))…” (Galatians 4:4)

It is highly unlikely in his second of three lives that Dowd was born of a woman. In fact, his mother was so irrelevant to his initial life that we are told nothing of her. Therefore, based on the Son of God’s first life, we can intelligently project into his second and third lives. In doing so, it is likely that Dowd’s nepesh | soul was placed within a basar | corporeal body comprised of his DNA in year 3996 or 3997 Yah. This would be three to four years before he fulfilled Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym in the 80^th Yowbel year of 4000 Yah in 33 CE.

Similarly, when Dowd returns as our King on Yowm Kipurym in the 120^th Yowbel year of 6000 Yah / sunset in Yaruwshalaim on October 2^nd, 2033, his nepesh will be placed within a 30- to 40-year-old basar reconstituted again from his DNA. And since he will not return as a baby, there is no reason to believe that he arrived previously as a child in his mother’s arms. This is a myth that Christians developed to incorporate Asherah, the Mother of God and the Queen of Heaven, along with Christmas and Easter into the replacement religion. As such, there is no prophecy pertaining to a virgin birth. It is simply more Roman Catholic and Pauline mythology.

Also, while Paul would have Christians believe that the “pleroma – fullness and complete content” of the Towrah’s time had come to an end with the birth of his baby-god, Yahowah’s Towrah | Guidance is everlasting. Even the portion of God’s Towrah | Teaching currently available to us extends 3,000 years beyond Paul’s pathetic letter – taking us to year 7000 Yah.

Yahowah’s plans for His creation on this rock spinning in space span seven thousand years – not four thousand. God’s story was not nearly complete. The best 237part is still to come – the Shabuw’ah and Taruw’ah Harvests, the Kipurym | Homecoming, and then a thousand years of Sukah | Camping Out together with our Heavenly Father and His Son. Promises made will be promises kept.

Beyond not wanting to shortchange His creation, Yahowah’s timing is precise. It is not “chromos – unspecified, occurring on some indefinite occasion.” For example, ‘Abraham and Yitschaq confirmed their Covenant relationship with Yahowah in year 2000 Yah (1968 BCE). In year 3000 Yah, the Messiah and Son of God was honored four years after his passing as the 89^th Mizmowr, Dowd’s Song, commemorated laying the Cornerstone, representing the Zarowa’s contribution to the Covenant, as the footing of Yahowah’s Home.

Coming home to Mowryah | Moriah in year 4000 Yah (33 CE), Dowd returned to fulfill Pesach | Passover and Matsah | UnYeasted Bread, leading to Bikuwrym | Firstborn Children – each on the prescribed day during the first month of the 80^th Yowbel. And because God is consistently precise, Yahowah will return with Dowd to reconcile His relationship with Yisra’el and Yahuwdah on Yowm Kipurym | the Day of Reconciliations in year 6000 Yah (October 2^nd, 2033 at sunset, 6:22 PM in Yaruwshalaim). Five days later, right on schedule, the Covenant’s Children will Sukah | Camp Out with Father and Son, enjoying the restoration of the Kingdom of Dowd | David for one thousand years – taking us to year 7000 Yah. God’s plans are the antithesis of “unspecified and indefinite.”

Even the two Miqra’ey I did not mention, the Harvests of Shabuw’ah and Taruw’ah will be fulfilled as anticipated. On the Shabat of May 22, 2026, as the Time of Israel’s Troubles escalates seven years before the Messiah’s return. Then, at the last possible moment, a remnant of Yahuwdym will be gleaned ten days in advance of Yahowah’s Homecoming, also a Shabat, this one heralded by a solar 238eclipse on the 25^th of September 2033 / year 6000 Yah.

“Exapostello – separated and sent out” is an accurate depiction of the origin and purpose of the Messiah. Comprised of ek, “out of and away from,” and apostello, “one who is prepared, equipped, set apart, even sent off as a spiritual messenger,” he was “sent off, prepared and equipped,” to serve us.

However, when “Son of God” is being used as a title, which is the implication here, it should rightfully be attributed to Dowd | David – the lone individual given this distinction by God. He spoke of his relationship with his Heavenly Father, writing brilliant and inspiring prose in his Mizmowr | Psalms and Mashal | Proverbs, 1,000 years prior to Paul’s pathetic attempt to write the actual Messiah out of Yahowah’s story.

It is always appropriate to call a child of the Covenant the son of God because it is consistent with Yahowah’s own nomenclature. However, we have to be careful when addressing anyone other than Dowd by this unique title. Even Gospel Jesus avoided this title, consistently referring to himself in the script as the “Son of Man.” Further, largely because of Paul’s letters and his spellbinding influence over Mark, Luke, and through them, Matthew, the title Yahowah afforded Dowd was misappropriated and bequeathed to the Christian Christ, giving the product of identity theft a divine varnish.

“Ginomai ek – come to exist out of, originating from” a woman is largely inaccurate. Since he had a known father, Jesse, Dowd was born in the ordinary sense during the first of his three lives. He was likely a handsome man, but there was nothing about his physical presence in his second life that was so impressive that he was recognized – and that may have been by design. But clearly, there was no virgin birth, and especially not on Christmas Day. These are all Christian embellishments and myths, each designed 239to distract the world’s attention away from the Passover Lamb being Dowd while creating the false impression that their Christ was God.

Should any of this be difficult to accept at this point in our study, that is understandable. I am editing this section of Twistianity twenty-three years after I began this voyage of discovery with Yahowah in the fall of 2001. Therefore, I have translated and contemplated thousands of Yahowah’s prophetic statements regarding Dowd and have come to appreciate God’s position relative to the Shepherd and Lamb, the Messiah and King, His Son and our Savior. As you make your way past Twistianity and through An Introduction to God, Yada Yahowah, Observations, and Coming Home, you will no doubt concur.

Hypo, translated as “under,” could have been rendered as “by means of,” thereby making this portion of Paul’s statement accurate if properly associated with Dowd. He returned expressly for this purpose. He came back into our world “hypo – as a result of and because of” his commitment to fulfill the Miqra’ey on behalf of the Beryth and Yisra’el.

However, he was not “hypo – under” the Towrah in the sense of being subservient or subjugated – no one is. And sadly, based on what has come before and what follows, this was clearly Paul’s intent. Moreover, this verse plays off of Galatians 4:2, because “when came the fullness of the unspecified time…” and “until the previously appointed time set by the Father” are parallel concepts. Sandwiched in between them, Galatians 4:3 conveys Paul’s conclusion that the Torah was an inadequate first step and that it momentarily enslaved us. This remains an insurmountable problem for Pauline Doctrine and thus Christian credibility.

Since she will be compared to Hagar, Sarah’s slave momentarily, it is instructive to know that, according to 240Christian mythology, Miryam | Mary was the name of Gospel Jesus’s mother. However, that does not bode well because miry means “rebellious” and ‘am means “people.” Further, Miryam | Miriam led a rebellion against her brother, Moseh | Moses, greatly angering God. Therefore, Yahowah would never have chosen a woman by this name to bear the Passover Lamb. Those who rebelled against God, like Paul, likely chose it for their replacement, with it serving to affirm their disdain for Moseh and the Towrah.

Trying to sweep the mess they have made under a flying carpet, Roman Catholic apologists now claim that hers was an Egyptian name and meant “beautiful lady,” even “well-beloved,” in the language of the land that enslaved the Children of Yisra’el. And speaking of foreign influences, she was not the Mother of God or Queen of Heaven either as these titles came from Babylon.

As we shall soon discover, Paul will play the mythical mother off against Hagar, who was the slave of Abraham’s wife. And while there is no rational comparison that can be made between the women and the fable, Paul, ever the clever one, will hang his theory on the idea that there is a connection between ‘Abraham’s wife, Sarah, who is unnamed in his thesis, and the Mother of his baby-god, as they collectively represent the mothers of freeborn children. This is by way of the undisclosed promise made to her husband, whereas Hagar represents slavery to the Torah. So, by going from “woman” to “woman,” Paul bypasses the Torah and the role of our Spiritual Mother.

The fourth error in Paul’s best sentence thus far is that Towrah never should have been translated as nomon. It was the title of the best-known and most recognizable book in the land at the time. As a title, Towrah should have been transliterated, just as we are doing now in English. And then if he wanted to translate towrah, he should have chosen any of the many Greek words for “teaching, guidance, instruction, and direction.”

241In their quest to garner religious favor for their king, the theologians who crafted the King James Bible wrote: “But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.” Then, the New Living Translation, reflecting the perspective of modern Christianity, turned what could have been construed as an affirmation of the Torah into a disparagement of it based upon the way they translated hypo: “But when the right time came, God sent his Son, born of a woman, subject to the law.”

I had thought that theological animosity for Yahowah’s Towrah was why they rendered hypo as “subject to” as opposed to “because of” or “by the means of” the Towrah. But upon further reflection, the NLT may have accurately reflected Paul’s intended disdain for the Torah based upon the surrounding context.

While this was Paul’s best effort, it was riddled with deceptions. Nothing is more beguiling than hiding the truth by placing a lie on top of it. It is how counterfeits are made. It is the reason frauds prevail. When you see threads of truth woven into an improperly conceived tapestry, you are witnessing Satan’s finest work. This will become obvious with the completion of the sentence.

In this light, those who believe that Paul could not have been a false prophet because some of what he wrote was true, tossing one partly-hewn rock into a pigsty is hardly the standard borne by those who serve Yah. And such thinking fails to appreciate how deceivers operate and how religions achieve their goals. The duplicitous realize their counterfeits must appear credible for them to prosper. And yet, while their bogus bills share many of the same strokes as legitimate ones, they are completely worthless – even illegal.

Along these lines, some Christian apologists posture the notion that it is unfair to label Paul “anti-Torah” 242because he occasionally speaks favorably of the Torah in other letters. But if so, all that would prove is that the man who felt no compunction regarding contradicting God was willing, when the circumstances required, to contradict himself. So how is it that Paul’s willingness to negate his own thesis suddenly makes him credible?

Striving to make his delusions believable by associating his conclusions with God’s Word, Sha’uwl continues to lead unwary souls to She’owl. In the words of the McReynolds Interlinear: “that the ones under law he might buy out that the adoption as son we might receive back.”

This implies that we were all “subject to the law,” which is invalid no matter how Paul’s words are interpreted. The Towrah exists on our behalf, to serve us, not the other way around. It frees us from submission and subjugation.

This also implies that we were redeemed from the Towrah instead of by the Towrah, thereby misrepresenting the entire purpose of God’s Guidance. And if that were not bad enough, the Towrah’s Covenant is the sole means to accommodate our adoption into Yahowah’s family.

Lastly, by saying that we “might be received back,” Paul is protesting that we were once God’s children but somehow became estranged. And that means that God cannot be trusted to protect His family. It suggests that His Covenant isn’t everlasting and that His promises are not enduring.

But should you want a more reliable translation, this is my best effort...

“…in order that (ina – for the purpose and result of) the ones (tous) under (hypo – by means of or subject to) Towrah (nomon – nourishing allotment which provides an inheritance; used universally throughout the Greek 243Septuagint rendering of the Hebrew Towrah to translate towrah – teaching and guidance), he might redeem (exagorazomai – he may make use of the opportunity to ransom, possibly working to buy back) in order to (ina) the son set (ten uiothesian – a Pauline term based upon an assumed compound of huios – son and a derivative of tithemi – to set or place) we might receive back or obtain from (apolambano – we may receive what is sought and due; from apo, to be set apart, and lambano, to be taken by the hand, therefore sometimes translated take aside, lead away, or welcome back).” (Galatians 4:5)

Uiothesian, rendered as “son set” is not actually a word but, instead, something Paul made up and only he used. Rendered as “adoption” in Christian Bibles, this was the first of three deployments in Paul’s epistles. The second and third installments of uiothesian are found in Romans, where Paul contradicts himself and God by asking: “Who are the Israelites to whom the son set (uiothesian) and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Torah and the service and the promises.” (Romans 9:4)

Since this all flows out of the same misguided rant, to properly appreciate his ploy, Sha’uwl has now proposed:

“So I say, as long as the heir exists as someone who is childish and immature, he is no different than a slave, belonging to the lord and master who owns and controls everyone and everything. (Galatians 4:1) Certainly, he is under the auspices of foremen who control the workers and administrators until the previously appointed time set of the Father. (Galatians 4:2)

And also in this way it follows that when we were infants, under the elementary teachings and rudimentary principles of religious mythology, the simplistic and basic initial precepts of the supernatural powers associated with the cults of the earth, water, air, and fire, and the deification of the sun, moon, planets, 244and stars of the world, we were subservient slaves. (Galatians 4:3)

But when came the fullness and complete contents of the unspecified time, the Theos sent out the son of Him, having come to exist from a woman, having come being under Towrah (Galatians 4:4) in order that the ones under Towrah, he might buy back so that to the son’s adoption, we might be received back and obtained.” (Galatians 4:5)

Paul was wrong. We were not “bought back, obtained, or received from” the Towrah, but instead from our own guilt and the corruptive nature of religion. Further, the recipients of this merciful gift are adopted into the Towrah’s Covenant, where Yahowah makes His children immortal, perfect, enriched, and empowered so that we can grow and thrive. No one has ever been adopted by Gospel Jesus. This isn’t even the role of the Passover Lamb.

Buried under Paul’s bogus bill is the realization that our adoption into God’s family is facilitated by Bikuwrym | Firstborn Children as a result of the Messiah’s fulfillment of Pesach | Passover and Matsah | UnYeasted Bread. By exchanging the Son’s gifts for lies, everyone loses.

Dowd was a student of and loved Yahowah’s Towrah. He observed the Towrah, taught from the Towrah, answered the Towrah’s Invitations, and embraced the conditions of the Towrah’s Covenant. It was based upon the Towrah that Dowd was able to serve as the lamb during the Miqra’ of Pesach. And also keeping with the Towrah, Dowd perfected us by carrying our guilt into She’owl and depositing it there during Matsah | UnYeasted Bread. This enables us to enjoy Bikuwrym and become like Dowd – a child of God. Therefore, the Messiah’s response to the Towrah and Sha’uwl’s statements regarding it are polar opposites.

As usual, the New Living Translation is not a 245translation, nor is it even a paraphrase. It is so divergent from the Greek text that it is more akin to a novel. “God sent him to buy freedom for us who were slaves to the law, so that he could adopt us as his very own children.” The authors of this publication appear as if they have never read the Exodus account whereby the Children of Yisra’el were freed from slavery. The Towrah did not enslave them. It was His gift to them on Shabuw’ah – celebrating the promise of seven and the Shabat. The Towrah is Yisra’el’s Emancipation Proclamation.

The KJV is no closer to the text: “To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.” In actuality, and thankfully, we are still subject to the Towrah. According to God, it has not been repealed. And that is fortunate for us because it provides the narrow path to life.

As we approach this next protestation, we find yet another discrepancy between more modern Greek manuscripts like the 16^th-century Textus Receptus and the 20^th-century Nestle-Aland, with P46, the oldest witness to Paul’s letters. The clause “of the son” does not follow the placeholder for Spirit in the 2^nd-century codex.

Reprising his selection of exapostello, this time Paul unwittingly associates its meaning with our Spiritual Mother’s role in the adoption process...

“But (de) because (hoti – that) you are (este – you exist as, represent, and correspond to) sons (huios – male children) sent out (exapostello – prepared, set apart, and dispatched the representative of) the god (o ΘΣ), the (to) spirit (ΠΝΑ) into (eis) the hearts (tas kardias) of us (emon) shouts (krazo – cries out, screams, or croaks), ‘Abba (abba – a transliteration of the Aramaic word used to address one’s father)’ – the (o) Pater | Father (ΠΡ – a placeholder derived from the Greek pater).” (Galatians 4:6)

246In the order the words appear in the text of the modern manuscripts of the letter, at least according to the McReynolds Interlinear, the same statement reads: “Because but you are sons delegated out the God the spirit of the son of him into the hearts of us shouting abba the father.”

The Hebrew word for “father” is ‘ab, while ‘abah is a verb and means “to be willing to accept someone or something.” This is especially relevant because “abba” is not a Greek word, and Yahowah’s chosen language is Hebrew. The Set-Apart Spirit would, therefore, never say “abba,” but instead “‘ab.”

This error would not have been worth mentioning had Paul not switched languages to that of the Babylonians and Assyrians, Aramaic, to make his point. By doing so, he has belittled the language of the Torah, and thus its voice. And that was his intent.

Paul, himself, never knew a father’s love nor the pleasure of being a father. He was sent off to rabbinical school as a young boy – never to return home. He never, in all of his long letters, spoke of his mother or father. And Sha’uwl never married, and thus never experienced the joy of being a parent. All of this I think contributed to his less-than-ideal temperament.

Worse, reading between the lines, it is likely Paul was abused growing up. Psychopaths are seldom the product of loving and nurturing homes. There is a high prevalence of childhood neglect and abuse in psychopathy – making this conclusion essentially certain. It was true with Muhammad as well.

This statement also misrepresents the reasons God sent the “Ruwach Qodesh – Set-Apart Spirit.” She covers our souls with a Garment of Light and does not invade our hearts. She does not speak for us either; She speaks to us when we are engaged in studying Yahowah’s Word. And 247as our Spiritual Mother, Her relationship with Yahowah cannot be defined as “father.”

Considering the vitriol Sha’uwl has unleashed against God’s Word, a relentless assault that began with his opening paragraph and will reach its crescendo in Galatians 4:24, it would be naive to dismiss any sleight he has positioned as anything other than his attempt to demean the Torah. In this light, the one who is unnamed “originating from a woman, having come to exist under Towrah” in verse 4:4, will soon be compared with the “slave woman” of Galatians 4:23 who bears children who are enslaved by the Torah. The “adoption” process in 4:5 is being foisted to imply that the “children of promise” in 4:28 can bypass the Torah and still be part of his god’s family.

The awkward and invalid reference to the spirit in Galatians 4:5 is an attempt to associate our Spiritual Mother with Sarah, just as Sha’uwl will do again in Galatians 4:27-31. And by having the Spirit speak to the Father in Aramaic, Sha’uwl not only dismisses the Hebrew Towrah, but also associates the Spirit and “Mary” with one of the most distinguishing aspects of the Babylonian religion; that of the Madonna and Child and the Mother of God.

Unfazed by the realization that Paul did not include the phrase “of the Son” in this sentence, the NLT misrepresents the Galatians message once again. “And because we are his children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, prompting us to call out, ‘Abba, Father.’” The verb “krazo – shouts out” was singular in the text, meaning that it is the spirit who allegedly “cries out,” as opposed to “us being prompted to call out.” The KJV wrote: “And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.”

This next thought, in this context, also affirms that Paul had positioned his previous statements to imply that 248Yahowah’s Torah was something from which we had to be freed in order to be saved. In the Nestle-Aland’s preferred Interlinear, it reads: “So that no longer you are slave but son if but son also inheritor through God.”

“So as a result (hoste) you no longer exist as (ouketi eimi) a slave (doulos), but to the contrary (alla) a son (ΥΙΣ). But now (de) if (ei) a Son (ΥΙΣ) and (kai) an heir by chance (kleronomos – receiver of an inheritance through casting lots) through (dia) a theos (ΘΥ).” (Galatians 4:7)

Kleronomos has ghastly connotations. It is based upon kleros and nomos, with “kleros – the casting or drawing of lots in a game of luck” modifying “nomos – the Towrah’s nurturing allotment which provides an inheritance.” Nothing with God occurs or is expressed perchance. That is what makes Him trustworthy. Chance, however, is akin to faith.

Beyond this, no one was ever a slave to the Torah, making Sha’uwl’s premise preposterous. God’s Word is the means to our liberation. Even the Hebrew word most commonly translated as “saves,” yasha’, primarily means “to liberate, free, and deliver from harm’s way.” So, once again, the opposite of what Sha’uwl is proposing is actually true. Therefore, his religion, Christianity, is based on a pile of errant propositions, inversions of the truth, egregious replacements, sleight of hand, and outright lies.

In the process of liberating the Children of Yisra’el from human religious, political, economic, and military oppression Yahowah revealed His Towrah. By so doing, He demonstrated His willingness to do the same for all of us at any time.

The King James rendering of the seventh verse reads: “Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.” And yet, we are called to be coworkers, because it is an honor to serve with 249Yahowah. After all, even Dowd considered himself to be a servant and was predicted in Yasha’yah / Isaiah to be the “rightful coworker who would make many right by bearing their transgressions.”

Continuing to advance Paul’s slavery mantra, the New Living Translation published: “Now you are no longer a slave but God’s own child. And since you are his child, God has made you his heir.”

Unfortunately, the slave reference harkens back to the dark days of Galatians 3:10-12, 3:24-25, and 4:1-5, and thus ties all of these verses together. By doing so, any possibility of disassociating the Torah from the source of enslavement no longer exists.

The best way to understand Paul’s thesis, which claims that we must be “freed from the Torah’s curse of slavery” to become “adopted heirs,” is to consider his rhetorical progression. He begins by calling the Torah a curse.

“For as long as they exist by means of doing the assigned tasks of the Torah, they are under a curse, because it is written that: ‘All are accursed who do not remain alive and persevere with all that is written in the scroll of the Torah, doing it.’ (Galatians 3:10)

So with that Torah, absolutely no one is vindicated or saved alongside God. It becomes evident: ‘Those who are justified and righteous, out of faith will live.’ (Galatians 3:11)

But the Towrah exists not out of faith. Instead to the contrary, ‘The one having done and performed them must live by them.’ (Galatians 3:12)

Christos bought us back from the evil and hateful curse and malicious influence of the Towrah, having become for our sake a repugnant and maligning curse, because it has been written: ‘A vengeful curse based upon divine slander on all those having hung on wood.’ 250(Galatians 3:13)

Then Sha’uwl claims that the Towrah is an instrument of death, saying that there is no life in it or inheritance from it. He would be worse than wrong.

“Indeed, the Torah accordingly is against the promises of the God. Not may it become. For if had been given to the Torah to be the one with the power and ability to impart life, certainly in the Torah would be the righteous and vindicated. (Galatians 3:21)

To the contrary, the writing imposed restrictions, trapping, and enclosing everything under the control of error and evil, missing the way in order that the promise could be from the Faith of Iesou Christou might at some time be passively given to the believers. (Galatians 3:22)

Sha’uwl goes on to associate the Towrah with enslavement, and Christon with freedom, as if the Towrah and the Messiah were not only unrelated but actually on opposing sides. This means that the Christian god was a schizophrenic as was his Apostle to the uncircumcised.

“But before this coming to the Faith, under the control of the Towrah we were actually being held in custody as prisoners, confined and strictly controlled, restricted and trapped until the bringing about of the Faith was revealed. (Galatians 3:23)

As a result, therefore, the Towrah had become our disciplinarian and enslaving pedagogue, pedantic and dogmatic with its strict, old-fashioned methods and overbearing demeanor, a taskmaster, extending until Christon in order that, by means of the Faith we might, at some point in time, while doing nothing ourselves, be justified. (Galatians 3:24)

But now having come forth and arrived the Faith, this belief system and religion, no longer do we exist 251under the auspices of an old fashioned and strict disciplinarian, this pedagogue who instructs in a particularly pedantic and dogmatic manner using harsh, outdated methods.” (Galatians 3:25)

According to Paul, adoption and inheritance required being freed from the enslavement of the Towrah.

“So I say, as long as the heir exists as someone who is childish and immature, he is no different than a slave, belonging to the lord and master who owns and controls everyone and everything. (4:1) Certainly, he is under the auspices of foremen who control the workers and administrators until the previously appointed time set of the Father. (Galatians 4:2)

And also in this way it follows that when we were infants, under the elementary teachings and rudimentary principles of religious mythology, the simplistic and basic initial precepts of the supernatural powers associated with the cults of the earth, water, air, and fire, and the deification of the sun, moon, planets, and stars of the world, we were subservient slaves.” (Galatians 4:3)

Reinforcing the foundation he had laid, Paul restates that abandoning the Torah is a precondition for adoption.

“But when came the fullness and complete contents of the unspecified time, the Theos sent out the son of Him, having come to exist from a woman, having come being under Towrah (Galatians 4:4) in order that the ones under Towrah, he might buy back so that to the son’s adoption, we might be received back and obtained. (Galatians 4:5)

But because you are sons sent out by the god, the spirit into the hearts of us shouts, ‘Abba’ – the Pater | Father. (Galatians 4:6) So as a result, you no longer exist as a slave, but to the contrary a son. But now if a son 252and an heir by the chance casting of lots through a god.” (Galatians 4:7)

Based upon these statements, it would be a fool’s folly to assume that Paul was lampooning the Talmud, Rabbinic or Roman Law as opposed to assailing Yahowah’s Towrah. Moreover, since it is universally accepted that the Galatians were overwhelmingly Gentile, the fact that they were never “under or subject to” Rabbinic Law is proof in itself that Sha’uwl wasn’t condemning his people’s religious traditions or Oral Law.

It is bone-chilling to recognize that Sha’uwl – Christianity’s first and foremost author in the religion’s foundational text – composed and published the most appalling and unGodly diatribe in human history. This is particularly distressing considering how many souls he has taken with him and how many Jews he and his flock have abused.

Sha’uwl told his audience that all they needed to be saved was to believe him, doing so while lying through his teeth. With every intoxicating thought and sickening word, the plague of death spread throughout the world. For something this poorly written, Paul’s faith would be surprisingly contagious. Not only would billions die estranged from God, the faith Sha’uwl | Paul promoted would become the Chosen People’s most menacing adversary.



Now that Paul has laid the foundation of his thesis – “the Towrah condemns and enslaves” and “faith in him as the beneficial messenger with the good message saves” – we are confronted with a trilogy of statements whereby the enslaved are associated with “nature,” with “false gods,” 253with “the inadequate initial constitution,” and with “the observance of special days, months, and years.” Therefore, bereft of a transition away from Paul’s castration of the Torah, and in the midst of his crusade against God’s Word, logic dictates that Paul was continuing to associate some very unsavory things with Yahowah’s testimony.

The next three pronouncements advance a singular thought. Here is the first of them through the eyes of the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear: “But then indeed not having known God you were enslaved to the in nature not being gods.” Or if you prefer...

“Certainly (alla – to the contrary and by way of contrast) on the other hand (men – indeed) then (tote) not having known, perceived, or acknowledged (ouk oida – not having been aware of) theos (ΘΝ), you were enslaved (douleuo) to (tois) nature (physis – the laws of the physical and natural world; from phuo – your birth and how you were begotten) not existing as (me ousin – not being or corresponding to) gods (theois – deities).” (Galatians 4:8)

God did not design us to be slaves, ergo, we were not begotten as slaves to nature. In fact, in the Towrah, nature is subservient to man.

Not knowing God does not enslave anyone. Throughout human history, men have enslaved men. And they have justified subjugating others because kings claimed to be gods and were dictatorial.

In the corollary, however, freedom, while advantageous, does not turn men into gods. Yet, this was what Paul wrote. Theois is the plural of theos | god.

My former business partner, speaking of someone like Paul, said: “You can fix a lot of things, but you cannot fix stupid.” I only wish that was what we were dealing with here. This is entirely too sinister to call mistaken.

While pagan gods and goddesses were often 254associated with nature, the Greek and Roman religions practiced in Galatia were considerably more sophisticated. Therefore, with this statement, Paul was demeaning the intelligence of his audience which would have done nothing but irritate them. Too bad more modern audiences are not similarly offended.

Speaking of being irritating, remember that Sha’uwl deployed “stoicheion – elementary teachings and rudimentary principles of religious mythology” in Galatians 4:3 the same way he used “slave to nature” in his previous statement. So now, making sure that his audience would also make this same connection, he wrote...

“But (de) now (nyn) having known (ginosko – having become personally familiar with) god (ΘΝ), but (de – and or) more (mallon – instead, to the contrary, or by contrast), having been known (ginosko – having been recognized and understood) under (hypo) god (ΘΥ), how (pos) have you returned, changing your beliefs (epistrepete – you changed your ways, your faith, your religion, and your opinions, reversing course) back (palin – again and again repetitively) upon (epi) the (ta) incapacitating and incompetent (asthenes – feeble and weak, powerless and infirmed), even (kai) worthless, belittling, and terrifying (ptochos – lowly and little, destitute and impoverished; from ptoeo – to terrify and to diminish and pipto – to fall, crouching in submission before dying) elementary teachings and rudimentary principles of religious mythology (stoicheion – simplistic and basic initial precepts of the supernatural powers associated with the cults of the earth, water, air, and fire, and the deification of the sun, moon, planets, and stars representing the underdeveloped, inadequate, simplistic, and improperly formed first step) which (ois) back again (palin – repetitively) and again from above (anothen – from heaven and for a very long time) you are choosing (thelete – you are desiring and taking pleasure in, wanting) to be 255controlled as a slave (douleuein)...” (Galatians 4:9)

Sometimes I wonder: Who was worse – Paul, Akiba, Hadrian, Muhammad, Maimonides, Tamerlane, Hitler, Stalin, or Mao? And while this race to the bottom of hell is often too close to call, at times like these, Sha’uwl / Paul seems to be way ahead of his competition.

It is shocking but true: Yahowah does not present Satan as deplorably as Sha’uwl describes God and His Word. I am so disgusted, I am bereft of ways to properly project my revulsion.

Just a moment ago, Paul was telling believers that they had become gods, but now they are incompetent and worthless. Nevertheless, by slandering the Galatians for the third time, we can be assured that Paul’s preaching was no better than his writing. Those who knew the Devil’s Advocate best, those who suffered through his verbal diatribes against the very God he claimed inspired him, rejected him – all of them. What is wrong with the rest of humanity?

Since morality is based upon sound judgment, Christians are hopelessly immoral.

Demonstrating that I’m being unfair to this piece of human excrement, the Interlinear associated with the Nestle-Aland 27^th Edition renders the same statement: “now but having known God more but having been known by God how you returned again on the weak and poor elements to which again from above to slave you want.”

Beginning at the beginning, considering the fact that most people’s written expressions convey vastly more information than their verbal proclamations, and recognizing that Sha’uwl has consistently misquoted and contradicted Yahowah, there is no chance whatsoever that anyone came “to know God” based upon his preaching. The same is true of his writing, even today, and as a result, 256God does not know a single Pauline Christian. Therefore, Paul had this wrong.

Beyond this, “mallon – more” is inappropriate in the context of the Covenant. Once we know Yahowah through His Towrah, after coming to understand what He is offering and asking in return, we are in a position to respond accordingly. It is only then that God reciprocates and comes to know us as His children. However, the last thing we should desire is for Him to know us better than we know Him.

The more closely we examine what God said about Himself, the more we will come to love and respect Him. However, the same is not true for us. The entire purpose of the Set-Apart Spirit’s Garment of Light is to replace the darkness in our souls with His Light so that, as our Father, He sees Himself in us. Therefore, Paul had this wrong.

We can quit our job, we can move to a different state or country, we can change political allegiances, we can even divorce our spouse, but we cannot disown our children. The same is true with God. So, while each of us is given the opportunity to ignore, reject, or accept the Covenant, should we embrace its terms and conditions, we are Yahowah’s sons and daughters forever. That is His promise, a vow memorialized among the Covenant’s benefits. When it comes to the revolving door to heaven, Paul had this wrong as well.

Paul is suggesting that, when he thought the Galatians believed him, they were saved, but by rejecting him they were doomed. His pivotal term is intriguing in this regard. Epistrepte, which was translated as “have you returned, changing your beliefs,” is a compound of “epi – upon or against” and “strepho – to turn on oneself, no longer caring for oneself by changing one’s mind.” It is defined by various lexicons as “to change faith or religious beliefs toward true worship and obedience.” Since God is opposed 257to religion, since God does not want to be worshiped, and since He places no value in faith, Paul is once again wrong. And it only gets worse from here.

In Galatians 4:1 through 4:5, Paul not only directly associates stoicheion with the Towrah, but he also demeans the Torah by calling it childish, enslaving, controlling, works-based, overbearing, and thus oppressive, in addition to being mythological:

And also in this way it follows that when we were infants, under the elementary teachings and rudimentary principles of religious mythology, the simplistic and basic initial precepts of the supernatural powers associated with the cults of the earth, water, air, and fire, and the deification of the sun, moon, planets, and stars of the world, we were subservient slaves. (Galatians 4:3)

But because you are sons sent out by the god, the spirit into the hearts of us shouts, ‘Abba’ – the Pater | Father. (Galatians 4:6) So as a result, you no longer exist as a slave, but to the contrary a son. But now if a son and an heir by the chance casting of lots through a god. 258(Galatians 4:7)

Certainly, by way of contrast, on the other hand then not having known, perceived, or acknowledged theos, you were enslaved to nature not existing as gods. (Galatians 4:8)

But now having known theos, but more and by contrast, having been known under theos | god, how have you returned, changing your beliefs back upon the incapacitating and incompetent, also infirmed, even worthless, belittling, and terrifying, submitting before dying in the elementary teachings and rudimentary principles of religious mythology which, reverting back again and again, you are choosing to be controlled as a slave...” (Galatians 4:9)

May I issue this warning? One’s sanity may be tested by such absurdity. The realization that 2.5 billion people are under the spell of this schizophrenic psychopath and demonic charlatan is exasperating.

Especially troubling is the recognition of how readily Christianity and its mythical man-god Iesous Christos are disproven by examining its original texts. So, this being true, why was the Jewish leadership, political, cultural, and religious, asleep at the switch from Dowd fulfilling the Miqra’ey to this incredulous rendition of replacement Foolology? Collectively, by failing to do what I’m doing, they allowed the most abusive anti-Semitic religion to grow in their midst. They would never confront its lies with the truth and, indeed, waited a full century before opposing the Christian false messiah with a Rabbinical false messiah. As a result, rather than celebrating the actual Mashyach’s offer to save them and restore their fellowship with Yahowah, they gave rise to two religions that condemned them.

After all of these derogatory comments, and after proposing a ludicrous affinity between “stoicheion – 259religious mythology” and the “nomos – Towrah,” Paul calls Yahowah’s Testimony “asthenes – incapacitating and incompetent, even sickening” as well as “ptochos – worthless, belittling, and terrifying, as well as deadly.” There is nothing Paul could have written that could have been more obnoxious.

But that was insufficient for the Devil’s lead witness. He went on to claim that the “religious mythology” to “which they had returned again and again” came “from above,” as in from God in heaven. And that by “choosing” God’s “elementary teachings,” they were “deciding to be controlled as a slave...” The opposite is true. Yahowah and His Towrah exist to liberate us from men such as these.

A man on a mission, the Devil’s Advocate, ripped the heart and life out of the Towrah, rejecting the Shabat, the Miqra’ey, and the Yowbel: “Days you keep watch and months and seasons and years.”

The Father of Lies is repudiating Yahowah’s instructions to celebrate the Shabat, the seventh day, so that it is special. By denouncing the central elements of God’s plan and promise, man’s opportunity to know Him and enjoy His company was obscured. And that was the intent of these words. Paul was denouncing Yahowah’s Miqra’ey | Invitations to be Called Out and Meet at the time designated in the spring, summer, and fall seasons, meeting with God in the first, third, and seventh months of the year. By so doing, there would be no hope of reconciliation for those who foolishly believed the Son of Evil.

Even the reference to years was designed to negate the observance of the Yowbel, designating the time when debts are forgiven, slaves are freed, and God’s children return to the Land. As a result, Paul’s devotees remain clueless regarding the Towrah’s purpose and the date of God’s imminent harvests and ultimate return. For Christendom, Paul’s statement was devastating and irrecoverable. All 260Christians would die. Sha’uwl had foreclosed Heaven, eternal life, and reconciliation.

Those reading along in an English Bible, or even keeping tabs with the Nestle-Aland Greek rendition of Paul’s epistle, may have noticed that the ninth verse appears to conclude with a question mark, leaving us to believe that the tenth verse is independent of the ninth’s diabolical hypothesis. However, Papyrus 46 corrects the first word of what would otherwise have been the next sentence, changing “paratereisoe – you are observing and attending” to “paraterountes – by observing and attending,” thereby combining these thoughts. In so doing, Sha’uwl’s statement goes from bad to worse because he is saying that we choose to be controlled and enslaved by Yahowah’s Towrah by observing and attending the Shabat, the Miqra’ey, and the Yowbel.

Therefore, corrected to reflect the oldest extant codex, this same concluding statement reads:

“...by observing and carefully attending (paraterountes – by closely examining so as to be present, by taking a stand being perceptive through careful consideration, by paying unremitting attention to, by looking for benefit in by attending; from para – from, beside and near and tereo – to carefully attend), days (hemera), and (kai) months (menas – using moon phases), and (kai) seasons (kairos – appropriate or opportune occasions, proper or specific times), and years (eniautos – annual solar cycles or eras)?” (Galatians 4:10)

According to Paul, by observing Yahowah’s “days,” His “months and seasons,” and His “years,” and therefore by accepting Yahowah’s Miqra’ey | Invitations to be Called Out Meet, especially as they were and will be fulfilled by the Messiah in harmony with the Yowel | Emancipation, is one of the ways God enslaves and controls humankind – the opposite of which is true. It was 261the next illogical step in Sha’uwl’s diabolical thesis. Having separated the Messiah and Son of God from the Torah, he was now separating mankind from Yahowah.

More deceitful, deadly, destructive, and damning than any words ever written, those Paul scribed nearly 2,000 years ago have precluded billions of souls from knowing God. Christians do not celebrate the Shabat, attend the Miqra’ey, or understand the Yowbel – and thus cannot engage in a relationship with Yahowah. They do not know what these days, months, seasons, and years represent. Most find them despicable.

Paul’s message was translated by Jerome in the Latin Vulgate to say: “But then indeed, not knowing God, you served them who, by nature, are not gods. But now, after that you have known God, or rather are known by God: how turn you again to the weak and needy elements which you desire to serve again? You observe days and months and times, and years.”

Copying the Catholics, the Protestant Authorized King James Version said something fairly similar: “Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.”

The NLT’s liberal interpretation is more in keeping with Christianity’s antagonism for the Torah, and especially Yahowah’s instructions regarding His Sabbath, Invitations to Meet, and Yowbel Redemptive years. “Before you Gentiles knew God, you were slaves to so-called gods that do not even exist. So now that you know God (or should I say, now that God knows you), why do you want to go back again and become slaves once more to the weak and useless spiritual principles of this world? You 262are trying to earn favor with God by observing certain days or months or seasons or years.”

While the New Living Translation isn’t an accurate rendition of what Paul wrote, they have accurately encapsulated portions of Sha’uwl’s intended message. The difference is that Paul wasn’t assailing the Roman or Greek religions and their pagan gods but was, instead, demeaning the heart of the Torah: Yahowah’s Shabat (where we celebrate our relationship with God), His seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet (where we are freed from death, our guilt is removed, we are adopted into the Family, and are enriched and empowered), and His Redemptive Years (where souls are freed and debts are forgiven). The wannabe Apostle has renounced the essence of God’s plan of reconciliation.

On my first pass through this material, I was focused on translating one verse at a time and thereby lost sight of the connection between these spurious notions. And at that time, I was predisposed to render each of Paul’s statements as consistent with Yahowah’s overall message as the words themselves would allow. At the time, I evaluated this trilogy of verses also as if Paul was assailing pagan traditions and festivals, especially those observed by the Persians, Romans, and Greeks, whereby they worshiped gods predicated upon the natural and physical world.

And while I will share where that thought process led, as it is always beneficial to understand the nature of religious counterfeits, I must now admit that my “metanoeo – attitude, perspective, and thinking has changed” based on a more contextual, careful, and complete review of Paul’s letter. Considering what he has said thus far in Galatians 2:16 through 4:7, and what he will say in verses 4:21 through 4:31, the inescapable conclusion is that all of this represents a singular doctrinal disposition. According to Paul: “the Torah is worldly, antiquated, enslaves and must be rejected for his euangelion to be believable.”

263As an affirmation of this abomination, Paul first introduced the concept of our “inheritance,” in Galatians 3:18, whereby he disassociated the Torah from God’s “promise to Abraham to forgive us.” Subsequently, Paul asked, “So why then this Towrah?” clearly referring to the Word of God, as he would have no reason to explain the origin of human edicts. By the 19^th verse, Paul spoke of the Towrah existing only “until the prescribed Messenger’s arrival.”

Then in the second half of the 21^st verse, the man with the audacity to contradict God’s Word while claiming to be His Apostle claimed that no one has been made right with God based upon the Towrah, which further undermined any attempt to pin the blame for man’s enslavement on worldly schemes. The Towrah remained the subject of the 22^nd verse, where Paul used hypo to speak of “but to the contrary, the writing imposed restrictions, completely shutting the door on heaven, imprisoning everything under error and evil,” just as he used hypo in the first three verses of the fourth chapter to speak of us being childish slaves under the control of oppressive authority figures – themselves apparently representing the Torah’s tendency to enslave.

So it was in the midst of this that we were confronted with Galatians 3:25, “But now having come to the Faith, no longer do we exist under an old fashioned and strict disciplinarian,” whereby a direct comparison was made to Galatians 4:1-3: “So I say, as long as the heir exists childish and immature, he is no different than a slave, belonging to the lord and master who owns and controls everyone and everything. (Galatians 4:1) Certainly, he is under the auspices of foremen who control the workers and administrators until the previously appointed time set of the Father. (Galatians 4:2) And also, in this way, it follows that when we were infants, under the elementary teachings and rudimentary principles of 264religious mythology, we were subservient slaves.” (Galatians 4:3) Therefore, the oppressive “lord and master” in Sha’uwl’s view is the “Towrah,” effectively destroying any chance of redeeming his testimony by subsequently disassociating the “foremen,” “managers,” or “enslavement” from the Torah.

Stroke by stroke, word by word, Paul is building his case against Yahowah, His Word, and His plan of reconciliation so that he can replace it with his own foolology. And he will stop at nothing, including demeaning his audience, misquoting God, and denying the Messiah, while contradicting Gospel Jesus to establish himself and his doctrine. It is Paul versus God and all of His witnesses and prophets. Therefore, Paul is the Devil’s Advocate.

Men are enslaved by other men through their religious, political, militant, and caste system schemes, not by nature or by God. Moreover, the Messiah did not come to liberate anyone from the Torah, but instead to fulfill the Towrah’s promises and thereby provide liberty.

We come to know Yahowah through the Towrah and the Prophets, and yet Paul has only presented mutilated snippets of five verses thus far from them – all of which he misappropriated, misquoted, and mangled. And there is no reason to assume that his preaching (at least in content) would have been any better than his writing.

Coming to know Yahowah as He presents Himself in the Towrah, results in God coming to know us. Yahowah does not, however, know those who don’t know Him. Respecting Yahowah and His revelation results in being able to benefit from what God is offering by accepting what He is asking of us. Those who do are valued sufficiently by God to be adopted into His family. But those who do not revere God sufficiently to study His Word (a.k.a., the Towrah) are excluded from His family.

265Those who do not know and understand the Towrah remain susceptible to Paul’s doctrinal delusions. And that poses a particularly difficult problem for Christians because they have been conditioned by Paul to ignore the Towrah. Therefore, they do not know what they are missing, and they miss the fact that, by demeaning it, Paul was contradicting the God he claimed to represent.

This presents a conundrum. If Christians study the Towrah before rejecting Paul, they remain too averse to Yahowah and His message to appreciate it. And yet, the most effective way to encourage Christians to reject Paul is to compare this man’s letters with God’s teaching. Those who are rational will adjust their perspective, thinking, and attitude, recognizing that it is irrational to believe that God inspired a man to contradict Him.

After falsely testifying that the recipients of his preaching knew God and were also known by Him, the wannabe Apostle backtracked, suggesting that the Galatians were now orphaned. If that were true, then salvation would be predicated upon our fidelity as opposed to God’s provision, and spiritual rebirth would be temporal, not eternal. If this were possible, heaven would have to be equipped with a revolving door, and for Paul’s pleading to have any merit, so would hell.

But this egomaniac’s errant theology pales in comparison to his abysmal attitude toward God. By asking the Galatians “how can you ‘return’” to “the initial teachings (a.k.a., the Torah), Paul is implying that his preaching was vastly superior to Yahowah’s teachings. And by calling God’s plan a “worthless and incompetent initial step,” he is suggesting that only a fool would choose to trust God’s solution over his.

To which the man who played his audience as if they were fools said that, by choosing to observe the Torah, such individuals were choosing to be controlled as if they were 266slaves. Rather than freeing His children from bondage in Egypt, Paul would have you believe that Yahowah’s domineering persona dragged His people away from the liberty they enjoyed in the Promised Land and then forced them to serve as slaves in Egypt.

But let’s pretend for a moment that Sha’uwl’s view of Yahowah is correct, that God was a despicable deity, that He was completely incompetent, even counterproductive, and that His plan was incapable of freeing anyone, much less saving them. Who then was Sha’uwl speaking on behalf of? Was Sha’uwl going to save his believers based upon his authority and power, or were they going to have to rely on the same “mean-spirited, counterproductive, and unreliable” God Sha’uwl repeatedly demeaned?

If you have not studied, and thus do not intimately understand, the Spirit behind Yahowah’s special day, the Shabat (where we learn to celebrate our relationship and calibrate time), the purpose of Yahowah’s seven annual meetings, or Invitations (wherein God delineates the path to eternal life, perfection, adoption, enrichment, and empowerment), or Yahowah’s Yowbel years (wherein all debts are forgiven and all people are freed), then please invest the time to read the volumes of Yada Yahowah.

Rather than facilitating our freedom from man’s works-based religious schemes, rather than providing the means to salvation, rather than enabling adoption into our Heavenly Father’s family by way of His Covenant, Sha’uwl would have Christians believe that they would be “controlled and enslaved by observing and attending certain days, months, seasons and years.” And yet the most important elements in Yahowah’s plan of adoption are delineated through these Miqra’ey. The very days, months, seasons, and years the Messiah observed and attended have been recast as God’s means to control and enslave His creation. When it comes to twisting, even inverting, Yahowah’s Word, and revising, even contradicting, His 267plan, this is as bad as it gets.

By connecting the message presented in verses nine and ten, as is required by reason and the evidence found in the oldest surviving manuscript of Galatians, it becomes impossible to overlook Paul’s hatred of the Torah, and specifically his antagonism toward “observing and attending” Yahowah’s set-apart times for us to meet each week and year. This passage cannot be seen as anything other than an assault on the Shabat, Passover, UnYeasted Bread, Firstborn Children, the Promise of Seven, Trumpets, Reconciliations, Shelters, and the Yowbel years, whereby the self-proclaimed “Apostle” would have those who believe him reject the core aspects of God’s plan. And that is in spite of the fact that each element was described as an “eternal and everlasting prescription” in the Towrah.

Therefore, for Paul to be right, the God whose plan he had rejected and demeaned would have to have given Paul the authority to contradict Him. But that would make Paul the opposite of the Messiah Dowd and more competent than God. Moreover, since Paul claims to speak for Him, it should be noted that the endorsement of a god who needs correcting is as useless as is the advice of that god’s supposed apostle.

I’ve always wondered how Christians reconcile the realization that Gospel Jesus was said to have observed the Shabat and the Miqra’ey, even acknowledging the Yowbel, and that he was allegedly killed on Passover to give Christians new life. Yet in complete conflict with these connections, Christians justify Sunday worship, Lent, Easter, Halloween, and Christmas, all based upon Paul’s senseless claims.

A rational review of this irrational diatribe leaves no other option than to realize that Paul, not “Jesus Christ,” is responsible for the faith of Christianity and serves as its founder. Without his 14 epistles and influence over 268Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts, which all emerged much later, there is no religion.

Paul was telling the Galatians not to observe any aspect of Yahowah’s plan of reconciliation. As a result, the Galatians, as Celtic Gauls who were heavily influenced by the Druid religion as well as the Babylonian belief system through the Persians, even Greek mythology, would have continued to celebrate the pagan holidays which were incorporated into the Christian religion.

By this time, the Galatians were also Romans – and thus compelled to honor the Roman pantheon – which had come to include seeing certain men as gods. Octavian Augustus, for example, had rebuilt a temple in their midst to the Phrygian goddess, Cybele, calling it the Monumentum Ancyranum, or the Temple of Augustus and Rome in Ancyra, to venerate himself. It retains the extant text of the Res Gestae Divi Augusti, “The Deeds of the Divine Augustus,” on its interior walls.

According to Acts 14, Paul and Barnabas were called “Zeus and Hermes” during one of their visits after they had participated in the healing of a lame man. Pagan priests offered sacrifices to them. But when they refused, Paul alleges that Jews from Antioch persuaded the crowds to drag him out of town to stone him. And if true, and it is not, it would make these people highly impressionable.

In the context of worshiping Zeus (king of the gods) and Hermes (messenger of the gods), it would have been appropriate for Paul to do what he did not say: to denounce the assimilation of Roman, Greek, and Babylonian mythological holidays. Having not done so, Christians would incorporate many of them into their amalgamated religion.

For example, Dionysus, the god of grapes and wine, died each winter and was said to be resurrected each spring. This “renewal” became an annual religious festival 269celebrating the promise of resurrection from the dead. Held over the course of five days each Spring, the Dionysia set the stage for the Christian replacement of Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children, with Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday (“institution of Communion”), Good Friday (“death and burial of ‘Jesus’”), Holy Saturday (where “‘Jesus’ slept in the grave”), and Easter Sunday (the ‘resurrection’ of ‘Jesus’) occurring during the last week of the Babylonian festival of Lent.

Similarly, misguided practices are observed today in astrology, especially with the horoscope. As evidence of this, those who promote astrology say: “Days of the week are also associated with Sun signs and Planets and have their own Lucky Days,” to which some list each astrological sign along with its propitious time. And then they claim “numerology can help you predict your Lucky Days, and the destiny of your life based upon your birthday number, because it is your life number.”

Recognizing that all of this was conceived in Babylon, and assimilated into Judaism during their captivity, it’s worth noting that, had Paul not been so fixated on demeaning God’s Word, there were aspects of the Babylonian religion which were incorporated into Rabbinic Judaism which were deserving of criticism.

