431Twistianity

Devil’s Advocate

…Plague of Death

 

10

Peithos | Conform

 

Follow Along Faithfully…

It remains puzzling that Paul’s letters can be littered with his admission of abject failure and complete rejection, with him lambasting the communities that denounced his preaching, and yet those who do not know him nearly as well, believe him. How is it that Paul can decry obedience to the Towrah, only to demand the same for himself? Why would anyone put their faith in a man who claimed that he was inspired by the God whose testimony he is fiercely denouncing?

When we compare the merits of Yahowah’s Towrah | Teaching, His Naby’ | Prophets and the Mizmowr | Psalms of His Son, along with the profound insights He provides and His generous nature, including God’s overall consistency, historical and prophetic accuracy, to this man’s hypocrisy, contradictions, logical fallacies, and errant citations, it is a miracle that Paul’s letters are preferred over Yahowah’s testimony by a factor of a million to one. This either speaks very poorly of human intelligence or explains why God hates the debilitating nature of religion.

This might indicate the reason one would have to be a Christian to believe what follows: “You were running well who you hindered in the truth not to be persuaded.” (Courtesy of the Nestle-Aland 27th Edition McReynolds Interlinear)

A verbatim rendering looks more like this: “You were 432running (trecho – you were trying and were progressing) well (kalos – in a fine moral way that was pleasing). Who or what (tis) prevented and impeded (egkopto – it hindered, offended, and troubled, it thwarted, delayed, and detained, it cut into, knocked and severed; from “en – in, by, or with” and “kopto – to cut, strike, smite, or beat”) you (umas) from the truth (te aletheia – of the validity which is in accord with the facts and corresponds to reality) such that you are no longer persuaded and obedient, following along faithfully and conform (me peithos – such that you are no longer convinced, influenced, or converted, failing to agree, to mind, and to adapt)?” (Galatians 5:7)

At this point, we know that this has nothing to do with “objective truth.” The Galatians epistle has been neither “objective” nor “accurate.” Paul has lied about everything from his name to his calling, from his personal history to the veracity of his citations.

Therefore, the problem is that Sha’uwl was so convinced that he was smarter and more persuasive than everyone else, news that the Galatians had rejected him and his message was inconceivable and unacceptable. As a paranoid schizophrenic, narcissist, and psychopath, Sha’uwl imagined his foes sneaking in behind him to undermine his influence and credibility. And for this affront to his fame, he would stop at nothing to squelch them. He attacked their intellect and motives. He demeaned their choices and sources. He unleashed all manner of rational fallacies:

  • Ad Hominem – assaulting a foe personally rather than challenging his or her argument. (The Galatians were ignorant, irrational, traitors, so they were wrong, and Paul was right.)
  • Straw Man – the presenter argues against a fallacious and ridiculously misleading position they have 433created to easily refute. (The Towrah is comprised of laws to obey so it is enslaving.)
  • Appeal to Authority – the presenter’s decrees are considered valid because they claim to be authorized and approved by a higher authority. (Paul cannot lie because he was chosen by God.)
  • Playing to Ignorance – since you cannot know or prove something, it must be either true or false. (You do not know what the Towrah says, so it must be invalid.)
  • Circular Reasoning – also known as begging the question, occurs when the presenter begins by stating their supposition, suggesting that, because their premise is valid, so is their conclusion. (Abraham believed and he was righteous, therefore faith makes righteous.)
  • False Dichotomy – also known as the black-and-white fallacy, reduces the possibilities down to only two options when there are typically many more and better outcomes. (You are either with me or against me, free as a result of faith or enslaved by the Towrah.)
  • Slippery Slope – extrapolating an argument from a somewhat sensible place and moving it to an extreme conclusion, where one thing leads to another without evidence or reason. (By doing anything God says you must do everything God says.)
  • Bandwagon – something is deemed correct because others believe it, having jumped on the bandwagon. (There are billions of Christians, so the religion must be true.)
  • Alphabet Soup – the presenter uses a ruse of obscuring language to bamboozle people into believing that he is an expert and knows what he 434is talking about. (Since zera’ seed is singular, the only seed of Abraham that matters is Christo.)
  • Red Herring – an irrelevant argument that is distracting. Even if it is true, it does not prove the presenter’s point. (Hagar had been a slave, so the Covenant’s children are enslaved.)
  • Name-Calling Fallacy – exercised today with Political Correctness, where the presenter changes the name of something good and makes it seem bad, such as being discriminating becomes discrimination. (Paul changed Towrah | Teaching to Law.)

Paul also promoted a Hasty Generalization, Fallacy of Sunk Costs, False Analogy, and Ad-Hoc Reasoning. He was what he falsely projected upon his foes. And if I may, the term derived by leading neuroscientists when diagnosing schizophrenia, Word Salad, is especially revealing in the context of Paul’s letters.

Based on his words, it is now obvious that Sha’uwl was irrational, clinically insane, and borderline illiterate. It is a wonder this word salad, filled as it is with inaccuracies and contradictions, errant citations and logical fallacies, wasn’t tossed into the trash by the first Galatian to read it. And perhaps it was.

Sha’uwl’s personal copies of his letters were enshrined in the Christian New Testament, not the ones he sent away. But it is a bigger wonder altogether that billions of people henceforth have been beguiled into believing that this verbal diarrhea is the word of the God who created the universe. By any reasonable standard, the writing quality on display in this letter is as asinine as the message presented is perverted.

Let’s turn to the charter members of the Pauline fan club to see how they deciphered Sha’uwl’s message. The Catholic Vulgate promoted: “You did run well. What hath 435hindered you, that you should not obey the truth?” The inclusion of “obey” is telling, especially considering the oppressive rule of cleric and king under the dominion of Roman Catholicism. Therefore, it is not surprising that the Protestant potentate, King James, relished that notion as well. The KJV reads: “Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth?” It is ironic that Paul insists that the problem with the Towrah is that it condemns if not obeyed perfectly and yet he has a tizzy fit when he is not obeyed.

But “obey” is not a term that the pro-democracy, evangelical Christians promoting the New Living Translation felt comfortable advocating. So, they insist Paul actually said: “You were running the race so well. Who has held you back from following the truth?”

There is no evidence delineated in this letter. So how does one come to know “the objective truth” if it is not shared? Sha’uwl’s singular citation from Gospel Jesus was erroneous, as were all his quotations from the Torah and Prophets. The Father of Lies has even created a completely incongruous and revisionist history of the Covenant. Truth is Paul’s short suit.

It is possible that Paul’s preaching may have been more compelling than his writing. However, the emotional charge of impassioned oratory only lasts a short while. Adolf Hitler comes to mind as a modern analog in this regard. The reason I studied Hitler’s Mein Kampf was to compare it to Muhammad’s Quran and Hadith. They were so remarkably similar, I reviewed der Fuehrer’s speeches to see if I could ascertain how delusional egomaniacs like Hitler, Muhammad, and Paul managed to spellbind audiences with an emotional mix of racist drivel and an unfounded sense of hope in their fanaticized approach. Having looked into the faces of thousands of Germans while Hitler was passionately lying to them, I came to realize just how susceptible people are to deceptions that 436tickle their ears – telling them what they want to hear.

But to this particular point, while Hitler’s written and spoken messages were remarkably similar with regard to their conclusions, they differed with regard to the volume of rhetoric underpinning them. And I suspect that the same thing is true with Paul: that his preaching was even thinner on support than his letters.

When the impassioned orator was in their midst making such extraordinary claims while playing to the crowd, many Galatians may have listened in stunned disbelief. But in Paul’s troubled mind, their silence was perceived as a favorable response. They were “running well” and “following along” in Paul’s parlance. But the moment he left, and when informed and rational individuals pointed out the flaws in his reasoning and the inconsistencies in his message, the hot air quickly dissipated from the trial balloons, and they floated back down to earth. The Galatians were likely dismayed that they had even given him an audience. He had played them for fools and was now slandering them, providing the motivation for them to track Sha’uwl down and try to stone him.

The choice Paul has given us is to believe him and reject God or reject him and trust God. As a result, a rational and informed individual would have every incentive to dismiss Paul based on his claims. And in all likelihood, this letter was more appealing than his preaching.

Next, we find…

“The (e) enticing persuasion and inducement (peismone – solicitation and enticement) was it not from (ouk ek) the one (tou) providing a name (kaleo / kalountos – summoning and calling by name) to you all (umas – to all of you).” (Galatians 5:8)

437The implications are fascinating. Do you suppose the name was Yahowah? Could it have been Dowd?

Considering their preference for the secondary connotation of kaleo and their reluctance to acknowledge when “you” was scribed in the plural form, the Nestle-Aland Interlinear is reasonably accurate, not that it helps: “The persuasion not from the one calling you.”

That was not any clearer, so let’s turn to the father of biblical translations, the Latin Vulgate, for elucidation: “This persuasion is not from him that calleth you.” Other than introducing the flourish of Elizabethan English, the KJV copied the Catholic text: “This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you.”

Clearing all this up for us, the NLT authored: “It certainly isn’t God, for he is the one who called you to freedom.” Even for them, this is a stretch. How can the New Living Translation present itself as a “translation” when they supplied ten of fourteen words without textual support and only rendered the definite article tou accurately? Even with “called,” kalountos was scribed in the present tense, not in the past tense. If you own a NLT, you may want to return it because it is defective.

God’s Word stands forever. And one of the things it stands for is freewill. We were given the freedom to choose to reject God and His Word as Sha’uwl and Christians have done. But fortunately for them, some Galatians chose God and rebuked Paul while most rejected both.

This known, the source of the “enticing persuasion and inducement” and the identity of the individuals who “provided a name” were left unspecified. Probably those pesky “Judaizers” again. They were developing a habit of siding with Yahowah over Sha’uwl. Nonetheless, we don’t know what was said to undermine the Devil’s Advocate. So, other than acknowledging that Paul was miffed that someone was exposing him, interpreting beyond that is a 438fool’s folly.

At least his next line was comprehensible. But what if the “little yeast” was Yahowah’s name? What if it was to agree with God regarding circumcision?

“Little (micros) yeast (zyme) whole (holos) of the (to) batch (phyrama – a lump of clay or dough which is mixed, kneaded, and grows) it yeasts (zymoo – ferments or leavens).” (Galatians 5:9)

This reads sensibly, but in this context the message is devastating. The only thing that we could possibly attribute to a “little yeast” in this section of Galatians is Paul’s disdain for circumcision in verses two, three, and four. He is saying that those who observe even a small part of the Torah are completely corrupted by it.

The Nestle-Aland’s rendition of this verse is essentially identical: “Little yeast whole the mixture yeasts.” The Latin Vulgate went into interpretive mode with “corrupteth”: “A little leaven corrupteth the whole lump.” Other than altering the word order, KJV toed a more literal line: “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” And consistent with their novel approach, the NLT authored their own Bible with: “This false teaching is like a little yeast that spreads through the whole batch of dough!” Their errant translation was likely an accurate interpretation of Paul’s intended message.

Even though, and as a pleasant change, Paul’s statement was comprehensible (albeit condemning in this context), it does not add to our comprehension. Therefore, in order to more fully appreciate the distinction between unsupported, errant, and poorly worded human opinions and Godly instruction, let’s consider what Gospel Jesus had to say about yeast. At the very least, we will learn something valuable in the process. This message, which was spoken and recorded in Hebrew, and then translated by “Matthew” into plagiarized Gospel 50 years thereafter, is 439presented translated out of Greek into English...

“And (kai) the Pharisees (ton Pharisaios – the religiously conservative rabbis) and (kai) Sadducees (Saddoukaios – worldly-minded, liberal political leaders) having come to pressure and test him, asked him (proserchomai peirasontes eperotesan auton – having approached to examine and trap him, interrogating him, they requested of him) to show a sign from heaven (semeion ek tou ouranou). (Matthew 16:1)

So then (o de) the One having answered, said to them (apokritheis eipen outois – the One having previously responded, providing a reply [which they had not considered in the Torah and Prophets which He had authored], spoke to them), ‘Having become evening (epias genomenes), you say, it will be beneficial weather (legete eudia), for indeed the sky reddens (purrasei gar o ouranos). (Matthew 16:2)

And in the morning (kai proi oemeron), there will be stormy weather (cheimon), for the sky is fiery red, becoming threatening, gloomy, and overcast (gar pyrrazo stugnazon o ouranos).

So this shows (to men) that the appearance of the atmosphere (prosopon tou ouranou – the face, person, and presence of heaven) is something you recognize and know how to judge and interpret (ginoskete diakrinein – you are familiar with and understand how to evaluate carefully, thinking judgmentally, making a proper distinction). And yet regarding the miraculous signs of this occasion and opportunity, you are incapacitated (ta de semeia ton kairon ou dunasthe – but for the signs of these moments in the history of time you are incapable and powerless). (Matthew 16:3)

A worthless and wicked adulterous generation (genea ponera kai moichalis – a race and age of related people who are evil and morally corrupt, even disloyal, 440untrustworthy, lustful, and treacherous) seeks a sign (epizetei semeion – desires and wants a miracle), but a miraculous sign (kai semeion) will not be given to it (ou dothesetai aute – will not be produced and experienced by it). That is except for (ei me – if not) the sign of Yownah (to semeion Iona – the miraculous symbolism of Yownah (meaning Dove, and thus symbolic of reconciliation through the Spirit of God)).

Then he left them behind and he went away (kai katalipon autous apelthen – so he abandoned them, neglecting them because he could not relate to them, and he ceased to exist for them, passing away).” (Matthew 16:4)

Someone has a sense of humor. As the story goes, the religious and political establishment had dispatched some of their own to investigate him. They requested a miracle, a sign from heaven, even though the miraculous manifestation of heaven was standing right before them. So, should this narrative have occurred, Dowd, representing the Passover Lamb, told them that he had already done so, predicting his arrival long ago.

Then he cited the old sailor’s adage, “Red sky at night, sailor’s delight. Red sky in the morning, sailor’s warning,” to make a point. It showed that they could interpret the appearance of the atmosphere but could not recognize or capitalize upon the appearance of the Messiah, Melek, and Zarowa’. They knew from the sky what the next few hours would bring but could not deduce from the Towrah and Prophets, particularly the Mizmowr, what Father and Son would manifest in their midst and right on schedule.

He would arrive in Yaruwshalaim to celebrate Passover before the sunset beginning the 14th day of ‘Abyb in year 4000 Yah, a Thursday in 33 CE by our reckoning. On Friday, which was a continuation of Pesach, he would serve as the Passover Lamb as his mutilated body was 441discarded. Then as the sun set, commencing the Miqra’ of Matsah, Friday evening, and thus the beginning of the Shabat, his soul, burdened with our guilt, entered She’owl to remove the yeast of religious teaching and political indoctrination from our souls. Dowd’s nepesh remained there throughout the most important Shabat in history.

On the first day of the week, before sunrise, once liberated from She’owl, Dowd’s soul was retrieved by the Ruwach Qodesh and was reunited with his Father during the celebration of the Invitation to be Called Out and Meet of Firstborn Children. During these three days, he would perform the ultimate mission: enabling the Covenant’s promises. God’s children would become immortal and be perfected prior to being adopted into Yahowah’s Covenant family.

I suspect that if the Messiah and Son of God walked into either Jerusalem or the Vatican today, no rabbi or priest within the Roman Catholic hierarchy would recognize Him. Both would rebuke him, just as was done two thousand years ago. The same would be true with any Christian church, Muslim mosque, or political statehouse. The Creator and His Son are largely unknown to His creation.

The differences between God’s teachings and Sha’uwl’s proclamations are profound. And Dowd wanted his people to be aware of religious rhetoric and political propaganda so that we would reject it, distancing ourselves from these corruptive cultures. So now having walked away from the religious and political establishment and mocking their inability to understand, he may well have approached those who were still receptive and willing to learn...

“And having come to the disciples / learners (kai elthontes oi mathetai – so then having approached those who were students, eager to learn and willing to follow), 442crossing to the other side (eis to peran – with reference to the opposite side), they were bothered by having forgotten to bring a loaf of bread (epelathonto artous – they neglected and overlooked selecting, receiving, and grasping hold of a loaf of bread). (Matthew 16:5)

So then (o de) Iesou (ΙΗΥ – a placeholder used in the Septuagint to convey Yahowsha’, meaning Yahowah Frees and Saves) said to them (eipen autois), ‘Pay attention to understand (orao). So now (kai) you all should carefully consider, be alerted to, and turn away from (prosecho apo – all of you should beware of and guard yourselves against, and distancing and separating yourself from) the yeast (tes zyme – the leavening fungus and culture of pretentious hypocritical teaching) of the Pharisees (ton Pharisaoios – a transliteration of the Hebrew parash, meaning to separate, to pierce, and to scatter; a conservative, overtly religious order of rabbis who observed their Talmud) and (kai) Sadducees (Saddoukaios – a transliteration of the Hebrew sadah, meaning to lie in wait and to lay waste; a worldly-minded, liberal political party who promoted the notion of an enlightened aristocracy, rejected religious laws, and promoted their own manifest destiny).’” (Matthew 16:6)

While I cannot prove it one way or the other, the evidence overwhelming favors the conclusion that Mathew was plagiarized from three sources – Mark, Luke, and the ‘Ebownym – with the first two being hearsay accounts inspired by Paul’s persona and letters and only the last being actual eyewitnesses. While the Ebonite contribution is limited to ten percent of the current Gospel, it provides one hundred percent of its merit. And in addition to the Sermon on the Mount and Olivet Discourse, there is every reason to suspect that this narrative came from the ‘Ebownym.

There are numerous early 1st- and 2nd-century sources affirming the existence of their early Hebrew accounting of 443the testimony of the Messiah, an account predating the Greek Gospels by five to six decades. These Jews, who were eyewitnesses to the events and discussions they recorded in Hebrew, referred to themselves as either ‘Ebown or ‘Ebyown, which in the plural is either ‘Ebownym or ‘Ebyownym. Their chosen title describes them as those who were “receptive to deliverance” because they “no longer wanted to be oppressed or abused by religious and political authorities.”

Apart from episodes like this one found in Matthew 16, the Hebrew accounting of the Messiah’s words and deeds was rejected by both rabbis and early Christian “scholars” because it was, like this narrative, and those of the Sermon on the Mount and Olivet Discourse, so contrary to the religion they were developing at the time its publication would have destroyed Christianity and Judaism in their infancy. Christians destroyed the Hebrew testimony of Dowd serving Yahowah as blasphemy. And the Romans in 133 CE, during their final and most vicious attack on God’s people, torched every document they could find written in Hebrew – which is why the Essenes hid what is now known as the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Similarly, rabbis, rather than acknowledge that the Messiah Dowd did what he said he would do, and when, took the opposite approach. They admit that they burned every copy of the ‘Ebownym text they could find. Their only concern, according to their own records, wasn’t the consequence of denying that the Zarowa’ had come to fulfill Chag Matsah, but that the Hebrew narratives contained Yahowah’s name. And while it could be renounced and denied, there was a religious edict not to burn it. Somehow, in the recesses of the rabbinical brain, it was both a crime to speak Yahowah’s name and write it, but also to destroy it if someone else scribed it. But fortunately, with rabbis admitting to one of the most egregious crimes ever perpetrated against God’s people, 444we know that the Hebrew ‘Ebyown eyewitness accounting of Dowd’s words and deeds existed and it is the only logical source for the ten percent of Matthew not pilfered from Mark and Luke – all of which read much more like Dowd than the fabulous fable of Gospel Jesus.

I share this to say that the preceding narrative is yet another accurate statement woven in a largely revisionist and fraudulent text of a Gospel. And since myths of the magnitude of Jesus, Muhammad, Odysseus, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny are almost always based on something that happened somewhere along the line in history, the kernel of truth from whom Christ arose was the actual Messiah who had been there and done that.

When we understand this, we can appreciate why Yahowah asked us to walk away from religion and politics before engaging in His Covenant. And then we can capitalize on what Dowd accomplished during the “Miqra’ – Invitation to be Called Out and Meet” of “Matsah – UnYeasted Bread.” By accepting our prior religious and political guilt, and discarding it all in She’owl, our souls are perfected. Therefore, the Covenant and the Invitations are seen working in harmony to achieve the desired result which is a relationship with God instead of pursuing the religion and politics of men.

However, even for those who walked in the Messiah’s footsteps, these lessons would not come easily. They would have to be prompted to think before they would understand. The same is true with us today.

“But then (de oi) reasoning and conversing among themselves (dialogizomai en eautois), they said by way of engaging in the discussion (legontes oti), ‘We neither acquired nor received any bread (artous ouk elabomen).’ (Matthew 16:7)

So having known this (gnous de o), Iesou said (eipen), ‘What kind of thinking and discussion is this 445amongst yourselves (ti dialogisesoe en), those lacking confidence and conviction (eautois oligopistos – those whose trust and reliance is comparatively lacking; from oligos, meaning to have little and diminished, pistis, conviction in the truth, trust, and reliance) just because (oti) you do not possess any bread (artous ouk echete)? (Matthew 16:8)

You are still unwilling to think (oupo noeite – even now you are not able to direct your mind and be perceptive and judgmental, to reflect rationally and consider evidence logically so as to comprehend and understand, to ponder and then reach a valid determination).

Do you not even remember (oude mnemoneuete – neither do you recall, contemplate, or properly respond to) the five loaves of bread for the five thousand (tous pente artous ton pentakischilion), and then how many baskets you received (kai posous kophinous elabete)? (9) What about the seven loaves of bread (oude tous epta artous) for the four thousand (ton tetrakischilion), and how many baskets you collected (kai posas opuridas elabete)?” (Matthew 16:9-10)

In other words, pay attention, consider the evidence, think, and learn to trust what God has revealed. If you want to understand, you will have to be observant and engage your brain. So, let’s do that very thing and see what we can learn.

“How is it that you did not think so as to understand (pos ou noeite)? This was not about loaves of bread (oti ou peri arton) when I said to you (eipon umin), “You all should watch out for and turn away from (prosecho apo – all of you should beware of and guard yourselves against, and distancing and separating yourself from) the yeast (tes zyme – the leavening fungus and culture of pretentious hypocritical teaching) of the Pharisees (ton Pharisaoios – a transliteration of the 446Hebrew “parash – to pierce and scatter”; a conservative, overtly religious order of rabbis who observed their Talmud) and (kai) Sadducees (Saddoukaios – a transliteration of the Hebrew “sadah – to lie in wait and to lay waste”; a worldly-minded, liberal political party who promoted the notion of an enlightened aristocracy, rejected religious laws, and promoted their own manifest destiny)?”’ (Matthew 16:11)

Then, at that moment (tote), they put the pieces together, using their intelligence to understand (ounekan – they drew connections in their minds, bringing the facts together, and they came to comprehend, clearly perceiving, gaining insight, realizing, and recognizing) that namely (oti) he had not implied (ouk eipen) to be on guard against or turn away from (prosechein apo) the leavening yeast in bread (tes zymes ton arton – the fungus which grows in a loaf of bread), but instead (alla – to the contrary), to separate from (apo – to disassociate from, leaving and walking a distance away from) the doctrines and teachings (tes didaches – the instructions, explanations, and content of the discourse) of the Pharisees (ton Pharisaios – the religious rabbis) and (kai) Sadducees (Saddoukaios – worldly-minded, liberal political leaders).” (Matthew 16:12)

In consummating a relationship with Yahowah, there are few symbols more revealing than yeast, few days more essential than UnYeasted Bread, and few lessons more meaningful than knowing that religious and political doctrines corrupt our souls. And since Dowd enabled the gift of Matsah by removing our guilt, it’s obvious that he knew what he was talking about.

Fortunately, after being chided, those who were addressed came to recognize that the yeast removed during Matsah represents religious and political rebellion. Unable to make the appropriate connections, even rabbis fail to understand this profoundly important insight – even to this 447day. Additionally, there is an indivisible connection between the Covenant and the Invitations to Meet, between the Towrah and Dowd’s lives, between the delineation of the path to God and its enablement on behalf of the Covenant’s children.

Just as yeast is a metaphor, the seven Miqra’ey are signs, all designed to help us recognize the path God has provided home. As we look at these signs then, let us not fall into the same trap in which the religious are mired, of being focused upon the mundane rather than the spiritual, and of not trusting Father and Son to do everything they have promised and more. Let us dig beneath the surface as we continue to explore what Yahowah is teaching us through His Word. Let’s come to appreciate the promise of UnYeasted Bread, knowing that the Messiah’s soul removed our yeast (as a metaphor for religious and political doctrines) on this day and deposited it in She’owl, never to be seen again.



Leaving the realm of intelligent instruction and returning to the poison of Paul’s pen, we find this incomprehensible diatribe…

“I (ego) have been persuaded to coax and convince you, winning you over (peitho eis umas – I have been entrusted on your behalf to win you over, inducing and seducing you to listen and obey) with (en – in) the Lord (kurio – the supernatural master who owns people, controls slaves, and possesses spiritually) because (oti) nothing (oudeis – no one) different (allos – other than this) may you all regard or ponder, potentially holding as a belief (phroneo – may you accept the possibly of placing your faith in, acknowledging as an opinion and demonstrating a favorable attitude [aorist subjective in P46 versus future 448active indicative in the NA27]).

So now (de) the one (o) stirring you up and causing you great distress, confusing you (tarasso umas – troubling and agitating you, bewildering and mystifying you), he will undergo and endure (bastazo – will experience and bear) the (to) judgment (krima – sentencing, condemnation, and punishment) whoever this individual (ostis ean) may be (e).” (Galatians 5:10)

This may be what Satan wants, but not God. Winning souls is a Christian ambition, not a Divine mandate. Yahowah has laid all of His cards face up on top of the table. How we react to them is our choice.

Further, every individual must remain free to ponder or believe, to accept or reject, even the most ridiculous notions. And so, while acting upon religious, political, and conspiratorial ideas is rife with consequence, Yahowah wants us to have the right to be wrong.

Divine judgment is real, but it does not apply to those who speak in defense of the Towrah and Prophets and in support of the Beryth and Miqra’ey. When it comes to passing judgment on unnamed individuals, or on the person rather than their philosophy, this is not our responsibility or Paul’s. However, Yahowah taught us how to identify a false prophet, and therefore, we are encouraged to judge public speeches or documents that purport to speak for the Almighty – as we are doing in Paul’s case.

In this light, it is interesting that thus far, even though he is denouncing everyone living in Galatia, the verbs pertaining to Paul’s foe continue to be exclusively singular. Therefore, Paul’s foe cannot be “Judaizers” as Christians protest.

The implications are far-reaching because, other than to condemn “Judaizers,” there has not been a single reasoned defense for Paul’s broadside against Yahowah’s 449Towrah.

Paul has already told us who contradicted his preaching in this region. He even told us who he believes stands “convicted and condemned.” There is no reason to speculate as to the identity of Paul’s foe. It is the disciple Shim’own Kephas, more commonly known as “Peter.” You may recall: “But when Kephas came to Antioch, I was opposed and against his presence. I stood in hostile opposition because he was convicted and condemned (kataginosko – judged to be guilty, to lack accurate information, and to be devoid of understanding; from “kata – opposed to and against” and “ginosko – knowing” and thus ignorant).” (Galatians 2:11)

In the case of the final verb in Galatians 5:10, e is the third person singular present active subjunctive of eimi, “he may be.” “Ostis – this individual” was masculine singular – making the third person singular of e “he.” The present tense infers that he is presently agitating the Galatians, and there is no assessment of when or if he will stop troubling them – at least from Sha’uwl’s jaundiced perspective. The subjunctive mood of the verb indicates uncertainty, conveying the idea that Paul wants Peter to endure condemnation and punishment no matter who “he might be.” That is to say, even if he was allegedly a chosen and beloved disciple, I’m condemning him anyway. If so, it would make Galatians 2:11 a case of premature evisceration.

The scholars associated with the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear believe Paul said: “I have been persuaded to you in master that nothing other you will think the one but troubling you will bear the judgment who if he might be.”

Since that is even more difficult to understand, let’s consider Jerome’s Vulgate: “I have confidence in you in the Lord that you will not be of another mind: but he that 450troubleth you shall bear the judgment, whosoever he be.” The KJV reports: “I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.” While that is not what Paul wrote, and we cannot say for certain if it is what Paul meant, at least it makes sense.

Along these lines, the paraphrase known as the NLT authored: “I am trusting the Lord to keep you from believing false teachings. God will judge that person, whoever he is, who has been confusing you.”

Bringing this cluster of concerning and confusing passages together, we find:

“You were trying, running, and progressing well, in a fine way that was pleasing. What prevented and impeded you from the truth, such that you are no longer persuaded or obedient, following along faithfully? (Galatians 5:7)

The enticing persuasion and soliciting inducement, was it not from the one providing a name to you all? (Galatians 5:8)

A little yeast, the whole of the batch it yeasts. (Galatians 5:9)

I have been persuaded to coax and convince you, winning you over with the Lord because nothing different other than this may you regard or ponder, potentially holding as a belief.

So now, the one stirring you up and causing you great distress, confusing, bewildering, and mystifying you, he will undergo and endure the judgment, be condemned and punished, no matter who this individual might be. (Galatians 5:10)



451As we press on to Sha’uwl’s next statement, we once again need to call on the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear to get the lay of the land. But even then, we find ourselves in the mythical land of the Anti-Circumcision… “I but brothers if circumcision still I announce why still am I pursued. Then has been abolished the offense of the cross.”

“But now (de), brothers (adelphos), if (ei – on the condition) I (ego), nevertheless (eti – yet and still in addition) myself preach (kerysso – I announce and proclaim in an official capacity, I urge and persuade) circumcision (peritome), why and for what (ti) then (eti – besides and yet) am I pursued and persecuted (dioko – am I oppressed and harassed, made to flee and run, put to flight and driven away; from deilos – timid and fearful and diakonos – executing the commands of another)?

As a result (ara – then therefore perhaps it is possible), this (to) offending trap and scandalous stumbling block (skandalon – obstacle which causes sin, ensnares, and is offensive) invalidates (katageomai – abolished and annulled, rendered useless and impotent, inactivated and rendered inoperative) the (tou) crucifixion (στρωΥ – placeholder from stauros-staurou meaning pointed upright stake).” (Galatians 5:11)

Obviously “adelphos” wasn’t much of an endearing term the way Paul wields it while calling the Galatians nincompoops and traitors. And oh brother, why would anyone care what Paul was preaching when we can turn to the Towrah and learn what Yahowah is teaching?

This statement seems to imply that Sha’uwl’s position on circumcision vacillated based on the viewpoint of his audience and their propensity to hold him accountable. He is suggesting that the Galatians would still be prosecuting him for other lies, even if he came clean on the sign of the Covenant.

452But then the overly intoxicated, in a less than sober moment, wants us to believe that if he were to agree with God on circumcision, that by falling into such a scandalous trap, he would become the stumbling block that invalidates the crucifixion. Sha’uwl thought he had the power to negate Passover. And the means to perpetrate this crime would have been to invite the uncircumcised to participate.

It is obvious based upon his rhetoric that Paul did not personally deploy the placeholders that are now found throughout the oldest scribal copies of his letters. I think that they were added in the scriptorium in Alexandria, Egypt to make his epistles appear similar to the Septuagint. So rather than στρωΥ serving to depict the Upright One affixed to Passover’s Door, Paul meant to convey the gruesome spectacle made infamous by the Romans.

While “why and for what further am I pursued and persecuted” is the most sensible rendering of ti eti diokomai clause at the end of the first sentence, recognizing that it was scribed in the first-person singular, present passive and indicative, Sha’uwl was not being persecuted. He was instead pursuing his alleged foes. All they were doing was disagreeing with him. Further, he was not “still preaching circumcision” and never had done so, eliminating any reason for him to be harassed for not stopping what he had never started.

And yet this contradictory and hypocritical introduction is the easy part of this passage to decipher linguistically. There is nothing “offensive, scandalous, or ensnaring” associated with Mount Mowryah’s “στρωΥ – Upright Pillar.” What happened on the Doorway to Heaven serves as the first step in Yahowah’s path home. The fulfillment of Passover was not a “trap,” a “stumbling block,” or an “obstacle,” but instead the way God provided to extend our lives. Dowd’s Miqra’ of Pesach sacrifice was neither a “sin” nor a “temptation” but, instead, a compassionate and courageous gift. The “στρωΥ – Upright 453Pillar” is the embodiment of one of the Torah’s most essential promises, because it enables the Covenant’s children to live forever – just as it did forty Yowbel (2,000 years) earlier with Abraham and Yitschaq.

Nothing Sha’uwl or anyone could say or do could ever “katageomai – invalidate, abolish, or render inoperative” the value of what the Messiah and Son of God achieved by enduring Passover as the Lamb of God. Although, by disassociating the Zarowa’ from Yahowah, his lives from the Towrah, and Passover from God’s plan of salvation, Sha’uwl has effectively rendered God’s Word moot – at least for all of those who believe him. What Sha’uwl has written has been scandalous and offensive, creating a stumbling block that has caused billions of souls to fall needlessly short of Heaven’s Door.

Passover apart from the Torah is nothing more than a gruesome and deadly scene – one which is the furthest thing from life. UnYeasted Bread is meaningless to those who do not understand its purpose, which is to remove the culture of religion and politics from our souls, redeeming us. Sha’uwl has concealed, corrupted, contradicted, and condemned these truths which comprise the lone, narrow path to life everlasting, in our Heavenly Father’s home.

This known, why was the self-proclaimed messenger of God “running away, timid and fearful of the commands of another?” Was his god “impotent” and “incapacitated?” Or perhaps this question: does Paul want us to believe that he is so important that his negative personal circumstances actually annul and invalidate Dowd’s contribution to our lives?

As a reminder, if we were to use the Nestle-Aland Interlinear as a guide, we would understand Sha’uwl to have said: “I but brothers if circumcision still I announce why still am I pursued. Then has been abolished the offense of the cross.” Consulting with those who felt at liberty to 454copyedit and interpret Paul, we find the Roman Catholic Vulgate proclaiming: “And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? Then is the scandal of the upright pole [later changed to crucis/cross] made void.” The KJV’s rendition states: “And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? Then is the offence of the cross ceased.”

Methinks we need more interpretation and copyediting, so let’s turn to the novelists at the NLT: “Dear brothers and sisters, if I were still preaching that you must be circumcised—as some say I do—why am I still being persecuted? If I were no longer preaching salvation through the cross of Christ, no one would be offended.” In actuality, almost everyone is offended by the truth.

After having endured an onslaught of horrendous writing, a dearth of reasoning, and a pitiful attitude, we are now subjected to verbal diarrhea as revolting as the worst found in the Quran.

“And also (kai) how I wish (ophelon – if only it would be possible it would be my desire) that (oi) they might castrate and emasculate themselves, suffering amputation (apokoptontai – they may cut off their own penis, arms, legs, and testicles (rendered in the aorist subjunctive in Papyrus 46 rather than future indicative in the NA27)), those troublemakers among you who stir you up to rebel (anastatoo umas – those disseminating religious error or political seditions, unsettling you (rendered anastatountes (present active masculine plural))).” (Galatians 5:12)

Given the opportunity to cut off Paul’s troublesome tongue to spare billions of souls, the exchange would clearly be compassionate and moral. But for other than a serial rapist or pedophile, castration is no more appropriate than any of the tortures perpetrated by Catholics during their Inquisitions. By wanting such a thing, Paul was 455opening up a dark window into his soul.

Keep in mind, Paul was not only circumcised, and personally circumcised his lover, Timothy, he was castrated sexually by his duplicity on homosexuality. It is why Yahowah mocked his fixation on the male genitalia.

By moving from a singular foe to multiple antagonists, perhaps Sha’uwl was being inclusive and counting Ya’aqob and Yahowchanan among his rivals. However, if we were to understand this correctly, according to Paul, circumcision was too brutal to endure, he would have preferred castration. Yet I suppose that it is ironic in a way. Yahowah told us in His Towrah that He “karat – cut” His “beryth – Covenant relationship” with Abraham, separating him from religion and to Himself, which is why circumcision became the sign of this Familial Covenant Relationship. So now Sha’uwl would like to amputate those who advocate participation in the Covenant.

Sanitized and scholarly, the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear portends: “Would that also will cut off themselves the ones upsetting you.” Even Jerome was hesitant to convey the full force of what his patron saint had scribed. “I would they were even cut off, who trouble you.” And as is their custom, the KJV simply left bad enough alone: “I would they were even cut off which trouble you.”

Then while the NLT translated the operative verb accurately, they grossly misrepresented Paul’s intent: “I just wish that those troublemakers who want to mutilate you by circumcision would mutilate themselves.” But you have to give them credit for creative thinking. A politician who has just tripped on his own tongue would love these guys.

Unfortunately, Paul’s statement gets even worse for those considering Papyrus 46, the oldest witness to his letter, where “ara – I pray” is written in place of “ophelon – 456how I wish.” In addition to conveying “prayer,” ara describes “an earnest request to impose an evil, malicious curse.”

Therefore Galatians 5:12 actually reads: “And also how I wish and pray for a malicious curse, that they might castrate and emasculate themselves, suffering amputation of their penis and testicles, those troublemakers among you who stir you up to rebel by disseminating religious error and political seditions.” (Galatians 5:12)

As such, I invite you to compare Paul’s recital on behalf of his Lord to Muhammad’s on behalf of Allah. Quran 5:33 reads:

The Noble Quran: “The recompense of those who wage war against Allâh and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.”

Pickthal: “The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom.”

Yusuf Ali: “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.”

Craig Winn Quran 005.033 The only rendering and reward for those who are in conflict with or frustrated by al-Laha and his Messenger, who walk or work upon the earth, wrong or invalid, corrupt or mischievous, is that they be slaughtered, they be put to death by crucifixion, they have their hands and feet be cut off and 457severed on opposite sides, or they be banned, driven away, cast out, and removed, from the earth. That is for them the vile and despicable abasement, the shameful affliction, and evil degradation, in the down-low world of the here and now. And for them in retreating during the hereafter a glorious and grievous punishment, magnified and abounding torture.

Prior to reading Paul’s words in the original Greek, I had thought that Quran 5.33 was the most repulsive verse ever written in the name of God. And while Muhammad’s words are a bit more graphic, the spirit behind Paul’s message is worse, so it appears that I owe Muslims an apology.

Leaving the Quran and returning to the Christian “New Testament,” we find that according to the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear, which dutifully reflects Paul’s actual word sequencing, Satan’s messenger reported: “You for on freedom were called brothers alone not the freedom into opportunity to the flesh but through the love slave to one another.”

Or would you prefer, the man who despised circumcision, preferring castration, said:

“For (gar – because) you (umeis) upon (epi) freedom (eleutheria – freedom) you all were named and were called (kaleo – you all were summoned and invited by the name) brothers (aldelphos).

Only (monon – just) not (me) in the (ten) liberty (eleutheria – freedom) to (eis – to the point of or in reference to) the starting point of the original violent attack (aphorme – the beginning or base of operations for a pretext for an opportunistic assault, as an excuse for the original impetus to harm through separation; a compound of “apo – separation” and “horme – to impetuously assault while inciting savage violence”) of the (te) flesh (sarx).

To the contrary (alla – nevertheless), through (dia – by) of the (tes) love (agape) you all are slaves (douleuo – 458all of you serve and are controlled by) each other (allelon – one another).” (Galatians 5:13)

Since I love God, it is hard not to hate this man. He has told believers that they are free of the Towrah and from its “enslaving” god, but they are not free to return to the Towrah, which was the source of this violent assault against humanity. According to Sha’uwl, mankind “does not have the liberty to return to the starting point” where this walk with God known as the Covenant began. Even worse, the original opportunity God provided was now being presented as “violent, impulsive, impetuous, vehement, and savage,” according to the man who just prayed that his rivals be castrated and mutilated.

The sadistic fellow who one sentence ago wished savage acts of violence to be perpetrated upon the bodies of his “brothers,” and a man who built his reputation by brutalizing the few who recognized the Messiah, tells his followers to “be love slaves to one another.” Caligula would have loved this guy.

To his credit, the Devil’s Advocate has just come full circle and reprised his use of stoicheion in Galatians 4:3, when the Lord’s witness wrote: “And also, in this way, it follows that when we were infants, under the initial elementary teachings and rudimentary principles representing the first steps of religious mythology (stoicheion), we were subservient slaves.”

Therefore, according to Sha’uwl, the Torah is the one place man cannot go. Evidently, its vision was inadequately and improperly developed when compared to the liberties Paul has now taken.

In a way, it is a shame that Christians are unaware of the clever scheme Paul and Satan conceived to lure them away from God. While schizophrenic and sadistic, it is breathtakingly bold.

459Unfortunately, the only way to make any sense of this verse is to scramble the order of the words, which is what Jerome has done: “For you, brethren, have been called unto liberty. Only make not liberty an occasion to the flesh: but by charity of the spirit serve one another.” By inadequately translating “aphorme – the violent and impulsive starting point (a.k.a. the opportunity), they missed out on Paul’s cleverness.

Following the Catholic’s lead, the Authorized King James Version presents: “For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.” Francis Bacon, the occultist at the helm of the KJV translation, was more than clever enough himself to have appreciated the irony of Paul’s ploy.

Operating in their own universe, the NLT contrived: “For you have been called to live in freedom, my brothers and sisters. But don’t use your freedom to satisfy your sinful nature. Instead, use your freedom to serve one another in love.” While these folks claim that Paul was inspired by their god and was writing “Scripture,” their interpretation surely takes precedence.

Next, the perverted and savage sadist offered this fantasy which the scholarly Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear scribed as: “The for all law in one word has been filled in the you will love the neighbor of you as yourself.” Or more literally, the man who hated the disciples and who despised the Towrah the Mashyach observed, the very same guy who a moment ago condemned his foes and advocated amputation, wrote:

“Because of this then (gar o) all (pas – the entirety of) the Towrah (nomos – the nourishing allotment which enables an inheritance; used throughout the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew word “towrah – source of instruction, teaching, direction, and guidance”) in (en) one (heis) word 460(logos) has come to an end (pleroo – has been completed and finished) in (en) the (to) you loving (agapeseis) of the (ton) nearby neighbor (plesion – friend and a fellow countryman who is close by) [of you (sou) was omitted from P46] as (os) yourself (seauton).” (Galatians 5:14)

Once again, it is obvious that Paul can’t count. Even in the Greek text, he used six words.

In Papyrus 46, we find that the generic “agapao – to love” was rendered in the aorist instead of the future tense as agapesai. If it is correct, then “a previous act of you loving continues to provide the desired effect.” As such, if not for the second-person singular pronoun, “you,” it would indicate that the “Torah was fulfilled because of a prior commitment to love, one which still prevails.” But set in this context where the “Towrah” is finished, we would be giving Paul too much credit by suggesting that this was his intent.

Instead, the man who never knew the love of God, a wife, or children now wants us to believe that he is an expert on such things. And even though a critic might complain and say that Paul was a pro when it came to loving himself, the verbose self-adulation that emanates from insecure individuals like Paul is nothing but a mask to hide their personal self-loathing.

But one thing is for sure, Sha’uwl was not an expert on anything pertaining to Yahowah or His Word. Beyond the fact that the Towrah will not come to an end until its every promise and prophecy is completely fulfilled, and until the universe no longer exists, “loving one’s neighbor” is not even remotely a summation of it, much less its fulfillment. Moreover, the primary purpose of the Towrah and its Covenant is to encourage us to love Yahowah.

Yahowah’s most earnest request was clearly articulated by Moseh:

461“Hear, O Yisra’el, Yahowah is our God. Yahowah is one. Therefore, you should choose to love Yahowah, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might. And these words which I am instructing you today, they should be integrated into your inner nature. You shall teach them diligently to your sons and talk of them in your homes.” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 6:4-7)

This was the first time, but not the last time, Sha’uwl would err on this subject. In his letter to the Romans, he wrote: “Owe nothing to no one, except love one another, for indeed loving another completes and brings an end to (pleroo) the Torah (nomon). Because the not committing adultery, not murdering, not stealing, not lusting and coveting, and also whatever other commandments are in the Word, this is summed up in the coming to love the nearby neighbor as yourself.” (Romans 13:8-9)

It is frustrating to read “and also whatever other commandments are in the Word.” Paul’s disdain for God is appalling.

You no doubt noticed that Sha’uwl left some of the Instructions Yahowah provided off his list. Do you suppose that this was because he did not remember them or because he didn’t want his audience to know that he was guilty of violating them?

The answer to that question is found in the Instructions Paul omitted. Therefore, let’s turn to Shemowth / Names / Exodus 20 and see what the Devil’s Advocate failed to disclose.

“Then (wa) God (‘elohym – the Almighty; plural of ‘elowah) conveyed (dabar – communicated, spoke, and wrote, provided instruction and direction with (piel imperfect consecutive – the subject, God, causes the object, these words, to be effective, enabling and empowering 462them with ongoing and unfolding implications over time as a function of His will)) all of (kol – every one of) these statements using words (ha dabarym – this message and declaration) in our presence (‘eth – in association with us and in proximity to us), providing perspective (ha ‘eleh – from a relatively close vantage point), by saying (‘amar – explaining, claiming, answering, counseling, warning, and promising), (Shemowth / Exodus 20:1) ‘I am (‘anky) Yahowah (Yahowah – from the Hebrew vowels Y aH oW aH), your God (‘elohym ‘atah – your shepherd, a ram among the sheep, and the doorway to an expansive and abundant life for those who are engaged, standing up, reaching up, and looking up), who relationally and beneficially (‘asher – who to show the correct and narrow path to get the most out of life) brought you out and delivered you (yatsa’ ‘atah – descended to serve you (hifil perfect – at a moment in time God engaged with us in such a way that we were empowered to come out)) away from the realm (min ‘erets – out of the land, region, territory, nation, and country) of the Crucibles of Oppression (mitsraym – the smelting furnace where metals are refined (serving as a metaphor for political, religious, economic, and military oppression)), out of the house (min beyth – the household and place) of slavery (‘ebed – of worship and servitude, of bondage and working for one’s salvation, of government authority and religious officials). (Shemowth / Exodus 20:2)

You shall not continue to exist with (lo’ hayah la ‘atah – you will neither function nor move toward, live nor appear with) other (‘aher – someone else’s, different, extra, or additional) gods (‘elohym) over and above (‘al – elevated beyond or in addition to) My presence (paneh ‘any). (Shemowth / Exodus 20:3)

You should not continue to associate yourself with (lo’ ‘asah la ‘atah – you should not make a practice of attending to or doing anything with, you should not act 463upon nor engage with, fashion or profit from (qal imperfect – conveying a literal interpretation of ongoing practices)) a religious image or object of worship (pesel – a designed icon or idol associated with the divine, a representation of any god), or any (wa kol) visual representation of something (tamunah – a likeness, appearance, picture, or form which attempts to establish a relationship by way of a substitution), which is (‘asher) in (ba) the heavens above (ha shamaym min ma’al – including the sun, moon, planets, and stars above), or (wa) which is (‘asher) on (ba) the earth (ha ‘erets) below (min tahath), or (wa) which is (‘asher) in (ba) the waters (ha maym) beneath the land (min tahath la ha ‘erets). (Shemowth / Exodus 20:4)

You should not speak about them on your own initiative nor make a practice of bowing down and worshiping them (lo’ chawah la hem – you should not continue to promote their message on your own accord or display their words because such uncoerced and ongoing verbal declarations and announcements will influence you), and (wa) you shall not habitually serve them nor compel anyone to be passionate about them (lo’ ‘abad hem – you should not continually work or labor in their cause or make a career of working as their ministers).

For, indeed (ky), I (‘anky), Yahowah (Yahowah – a transliteration of , our ‘elowah – God as directed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), your God (‘elohy ‘atah), am a fiercely protective, steadfastly loyal, and jealous God (qana’ ‘el – a God who is desirous of exclusivity in a deeply devoted relationship), actually counting and reckoning (paqad – literally taking stock of and genuinely recording) the perversity of twisting and distorting (‘awon – the depravity of perverting and manipulating) of the fathers (‘ab) upon (‘al) the children (ben) concerning (‘al) the third and the fourth generations (silesym wa ‘al ribea’) of those who actually dislike Me (sane’ ‘any – of those who are 464openly hostile and adverse toward Me, literally striving maliciously against Me, shunning Me by refusing to engage in a relationship with Me (qal participle – serving as a literal and vivid depiction as a verbal adjective)). (Shemowth / Exodus 20:5)

However (wa), I will genuinely act and actually engage to literally prepare, perform, and produce (‘asah – I will actively effect and appoint, offer and celebrate, and I will demonstrate by doing what is required to deliver on behalf of those who respond) loyal and devoted love, unfailing mercy, unearned favor, and genuine kindness (chesed – actual forgiveness) on behalf of (la’) thousands (‘elephym) who move toward Me and love Me (la ‘ahab ‘any – who form a close and affectionate, loving and familial relationship with Me) and also (wa – in addition) who approach Me by closely observing and carefully considering (la shamar) My instructive conditions of the relationship (mitswah ‘any – the verbal and written stipulations, statements, and structure which uphold My Covenant). (Shemowth / Exodus 20:6)

You should not continue to deceive, nor should you tolerate or support delusions (lo’ nasha’ – you should not habitually deploy or advance clever tricks to enrich yourself by indebting others, and should avoid actually beguiling people on an ongoing basis by consistently lifting up, promoting, or forgiving that which causes them to miss the way) associated with (‘eth) the name and reputation (shem) of Yahowah (Yahowah), your God (‘elohym), thereby advancing worthless and lifeless deceptions (la ha showa’ – deploying that which advances devastating dishonesty, nullifying one’s existence, leading to emptiness and nothingness, so as to advance deceitful and lifeless lies which are ineffectual, futile, and ruinous).

For, indeed (ky), Yahowah () will not forgive or leave unpunished (lo’ naqah – as an ongoing 465admonition unconstrained by time, He will not purify or pardon, He will not acquit or free from guilt, He will not exempt from judgment or sentencing) those who (‘eth ‘asher – in association with others) consistently deceive, actually beguile, and habitually delude, promoting or accepting trickery so as to forget (nasha’ – use religious deception to continually mislead, lifting up and advancing a clever, albeit dishonest, ruse) in association with (‘eth – through) His name (shem – proper designation) to advance and promote (la – to bring into effect) vain and ineffectual lies which lead to lifelessness, nullifying one’s existence (showa’ – devastating deceptions which destroy, deceiving in a ruinous manner). (Shemowth / Exodus 20:7)

“Remember (zakar – recognize and be earnestly mindful) that the Shabat (‘eth ha shabat – the seventh day, the time of promise where our debts are settled so we can settle down with Him based upon the oath) day (yowm) is set apart to approach Him (la qadash – is separated unto Him for purifying and cleansing and thus special to Him (piel stem – where the object, Yahowah, is engaged and acts in response to the subject’s (our) willingness to set this day apart and infinitive construct – serving as a verbal noun)). (Shemowth / Exodus 20:8)

Six (shesh) days (yowmym) you should actually and continuously work (‘abad) and (wa) choose to act, engaging in (‘asah – express your freewill to prepare and produce the full extent of) all of (kol) your service as a spiritual messenger (mala’kah ‘atah – your usefulness as a spiritual envoy; from mal’ak – spiritual messenger and heavenly envoy). (Shemowth / Exodus 20:9)

But (wa) the seventh (shaby’y – the solemn promise which fulfills and satisfies those who listen and are observant of the role of the seventh) day (yowm), the Shabat (ha Shabat) is to approach (la – to draw near) Yahowah (), your God (‘elohym). You should not 466continually engage in (lo’ ‘asah – you should not habitually do, consistently prepare or produce, and you should not consistently fashion or finish, advance or assign, accomplish or act upon (qal stem imperfect conjugation)) any part of (kol) the work of God’s Representative and Messenger (mala’kah – from mal’ak, the ministry and mission of the heavenly envoy, the Divine endeavors and labor of God’s corporeal manifestation) yourself (‘atah), your son (ben), your daughter (bat), your male and female servants and staff (‘ebed wa ‘amah – your employees and those men and women who work for and with you), your means of production (behemah – your animals and beasts of burden), as well as (wa) those visitors (ger – foreigners) who relationally (‘asher) are in your home, property, or community (ba sa’ar). (Shemowth / Exodus 20:10)

For indeed (ky – because) in six (shesh) days (yowmym), Yahowah () acted and engaged, preparing and producing everything associated with completing (‘asah – totally fashioning, instituting, advancing, accomplishing, doing, celebrating, and attending to the full extent) the heavens (ha shamaym – the spiritual realm) and the earth (wa ha ‘erets – the material world), and the seas (wa ha yam), and all (kol) which relationally (‘asher) is in them (ba hem).

And (wa) He became completely settled spiritually (nuwach – He settled all unresolved issues) during (ba) the Almighty’s seventh (ha shaby’y ‘al – God’s solemn promise which fulfills and satisfies those who listen and are observant of the role of the oath) day (yowm).

Therefore (ken), Yahowah () blessed and adored (barak – knelt down and lowered Himself to greet those He had created and did everything to lift them up on) this day (‘eth ha yowm), the Shabat (ha shabat – the seventh day, the time of observance, reflection, and celebration of the relationship), setting it apart (qodesh – 467separating it from others, making it special).” (Shemowth / Exodus 20:11)

Not surprisingly, Paul failed to mention any part of the first four statements Yahowah etched in stone. Little wonder. They were all pro-Towrah and anti-Pauline.

“You should choose to carefully consider, view as worthy, enormously valuable, extremely significant, and highly enriching (kabed – I want you of your own volition to elect to respect and honor, and to perceive as awesomely impressive, intensely relevant, and massively important, even glorious so as to influence and engage (written in the piel stem revealing that our Heavenly Father and Spiritual Mother are influenced by and respond to our perceptions of them, and in the imperative mood which expresses an exhortation which is subject to volition)) accordingly the symbolism of (‘eth – that which is represented by) your Father (‘ab) and (wa) that which is represented by your (‘eth) Mother (‘em) for the purpose of (le’ma’an) continuously lengthening (‘arak – choosing of your own volition to constantly elongating and always prolonging, growing and continuing) your days (yowm) within and upon the Almighty’s (‘al) land (‘adamah) which relationally and as a blessing (‘asher) Yahowah (), your God (‘elohym), has actually given to you (nathan la – has literally produced, provided, and genuinely bestowed freely to you as a gift).” (Shemowth / Exodus 20:12)

Paul omitted this statement as well. He disrespected our Heavenly Father and Spiritual Mother as he neglected his own father and mother – of whom he never spoke.

“You should not kill on an ongoing basis (lo’ ratsach – you should not make a practice of taking the life of another whether in revenge, by manslaughter, premeditation, assassination, governmental execution, military slaughter, or murder (qal imperfect)). (Shemowth / 468Exodus 20:13)

You should not continue to participate in idolatrous worship or make a habit of taking another’s wife (lo’ na’aph – you should not be unfaithful by being religious and pursuing other gods or have sexual relations with a married woman). (Shemowth / Exodus 20:14)

You should not make a habit of stealing (lo’ ganab – you should not routinely take something from others without their permission, neither kidnap nor commit robbery using deception or acting secretly).” (Shemowth / Exodus 20:15)

For obvious reasons, Paul also neglected this instruction…

“You should not continuously answer and respond (lo’ ‘anah – you should refrain from replying by providing testimony or consistently making a declaration) against (ba) your neighbor’s evil thoughts (rea’ ‘atah – the sinful and improper, regretful and debilitating way of your countrymen, friends, companions, or associates) as a deceptive or misleading (seqer – false, conniving, clever, mistaken, vain, or unreliable, dishonest or fraudulent, useless or irrelevant) witness (‘ed – source of evidence by way of testimony).” (Shemowth / Exodus 20:16)

This is the Instruction the Roman Catholic Church changed into two separate “commandments” so that they could eliminate the 2nd Statement and still remain at 10. The “no graven images” notion was a wee bit of a problem for an institution awash in idols, from Crucifixes to Madonnas.

“You should not make a practice out of desiring (lo’ chamad – you should not habitually covet, delighting in, lusting for, craving, or seek pleasure from (qal imperfect)) your neighbor’s (rea’ ‘atah – your countryman’s, friend’s, companion’s, or associate’s inappropriate 469behavior and improper opinions) home or household (beyth – family of house).

You should not continuously covet (lo’ chamad) your improper neighbor’s (rea’ ‘atah) wife or woman (‘ishah), or (wa) his male or female servants (‘ebed huw’ wa ‘amah huw’ – his employees or the working men and women serving him), his comings and goings or his domesticated animals (sowr huw’ wa chamowr huw’ – that which is capable of providing mobility and bearing a load, carrying cargo), or anything (wa kol) which is associated (‘asher) with (la) your maligned neighbor’s errant opinions or inappropriate behavior (rea’ ‘atah).” (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 20:17)

Sha’uwl was the most dishonest and deceptive person who ever claimed to speak for God – and that is saying a lot because Muhammad was particularly evil. It is little wonder he skipped over the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and eighth Instructions.

Paul’s preaching was in conflict with six of Yahowah’s ten most essential statements. But that’s not even the end of the bad news. He committed adultery by entering into a covenant with Satan. His preaching and letters are responsible for the death of over a billion souls. By dispensing with the Towrah, he stole the most valuable thing in the universe: the gift of reconciliation. And that leaves “coveting,” which is what made Sha’uwl susceptible to Satan in the first place. But even if we were to replace God’s list with Paul’s, the Devil’s Advocate not only didn’t love his neighbors, he attacked them savagely and wanted the best of them mutilated.

Returning to Galatians 5:14, here is what the English translations had to say. The Catholic Vulgate published: “For all the law is fulfilled in one word: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” In the Protestant King James, we find: “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; 470Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” And the New Living Translation proposed: “For the whole law can be summed up in this one command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself,’” They were all wrong, because Paul was wrong.

But alas, we have returned to the incomprehensible. Paul’s words actually read:

“But (de) if (ei) each other (allelon – one another) you all bite (dakno – you chomp on with your teeth, you harm and lacerate, wounding and irritating) and (kai) you eat up (katesthio – you all devour and consume, you exploit and destroy), you see (blepo – you all watch out) not (me) under (hypo) one another (allelon – each other) you might be consumed (analoo – you may be destroyed and eaten up).” (Galatians 5:15)

And yet, do not take my word on the fact that his diatribe isn’t literate. The Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear published: “If but one another you bite and you eat up see not by one another you might be consumed.” Nearly 1,700 years ago, Jerome blended a host of Old Latin texts together to render: “But if you bite and devour one another: take heed you be not consumed one of another.” The Protestant Christians composing the KJV could do no better, so they promoted: “But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.” This pearl of wisdom was then buffed and polished by the NLT to say: “But if you are always biting and devouring one another, watch out! Beware of destroying one another.”

Since commenting on this cannibalistic drivel would be a waste of time, let’s simply summarize this interlude in Sha’uwl’s ongoing assault on God’s Word:

“But now, brothers, if I, nevertheless myself preach circumcision, why and for what then am I pursued and persecuted? As a result, this offending trap and scandalous stumbling block invalidates the crucifixion. 471(Galatians 5:11)

And also how I wish and pray for a malicious curse, that they might castrate and emasculate themselves, suffering amputation of their penis and testicles, those troublemakers among you who stir you up to rebel by disseminating religious error and political seditions. (Galatians 5:12)

For you, upon freedom you were named and were called brothers. Only not in the liberty to the point of the starting point of the original violent attack of the flesh. To the contrary, by love you all are slaves of each other. (Galatians 5:13)

Because of this then all the Towrah in one word has come to an end and is finished in you loving of the nearby neighbor as yourself. (Galatians 5:14)

But if each other you all bite and you devour, you watch out, not under one another you might be consumed.” (Galatians 5:15)

If we have to believe Paul to be in their club, let’s opt out. Haning out with Yahowah and Dowd, ‘Abraham and Sarah, Yitschaq and Ya’aqob, Moseh and Yahowsha’, ‘ElYah and Yasha’yah is a lot more rewarding and fun..

