188Twistianity
Incredible
…Faith is for Fools
3
Lo’ Shama’ | Do Not Listen
False Prophet…
In the Towrah, and specifically in Dabarym 13, Yahowah tells us that if someone independently establishes himself as a spokesperson for God, as Paulos has done, he is a false prophet. If he claims to have performed miracles as proof of his calling, as Paul has done, he is a false prophet. If he encourages his audience to accept other gods by other names, like the Roman Gratia or Greek Charis, especially the Babylonian Lord, all of whom Paul sponsored, he is a false prophet. If he encourages religious worship, which is the legacy of Paul’s letters, he is a false prophet.
If his writings do not affirm an enduring appreciation and love for Yahowah, the God whose words and plan Paul has called incompetent, impotent, and enslaving, he is a false prophet. If he disregards the terms and conditions of the Covenant or the path Yahowah provided for our redemption, he is a false prophet. And of such self-proclaimed prophets, God says that they are in opposition to Him, both ruinous and deadly, so we should completely remove their disagreeable, displeasing, and evil corruptions from our midst.
“With regard to (‘eth) every (kol) word (dabar – statement) which to show the way to benefit from the relationship (‘asher – to reveal the path to get the most out of life) I am (‘any) instructing (tsawah – providing guidance and direction to) you with accordingly (‘eth 189‘eth), observe it (shamar – closely examine and carefully consider it, focusing your attention on it) for the purpose of (la) engaging in and acting upon it (‘asah – responding by profiting from and celebrating it), not adding to it (lo’ yasaph ‘al – never increasing it (through a New Testament, for example)) and not subtracting from it (wa lo’ gara’ min – reducing or diminishing the intent (by suggesting that it can be distilled into a single promise, a single act, a single statement, or a single profession of faith, for example)).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 12:32)
With this introduction alone, Paul’s goose is cooked. But it only gets worse for the self-proclaimed messenger of god…
“When someone who claims to speak for God arises (ky quwm naby’ – so if someone acting as a prophet is established and is honored) among you (ba qereb ‘atah), or someone who says that they have received Divine revelations (‘ow chalam chalowm – someone who has a dream, even someone who promises to restore you to health), and he offers to produce a sign, especially something which would appear miraculous (wa nathan ‘el ‘atah ‘owth – and they give you a marvelous example, account, or illustration) or claims to be able to orchestrate an extraordinary event (‘ow mowpheth – to provide a show of power that elicits awe), (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 13:1) and even if the signs and wonders occur, coming to fruition (wa bow’ ha ‘owth wa ha mowpheth – and should it be realized), which he has spoken about to you (‘asher dabar ‘el ‘atah), but he says (la ‘amar), ‘Let’s choose to go after (halak ‘achar – let’s live for and be guided by (qal imperfect cohortative)) different and additional gods (‘elohym ‘acher) which you have not known (‘asher lo’ yada’ hem – which you were unfamiliar and unaware (qal perfect)) and let’s allow ourselves to be coerced and compelled into serving and worshiping them (wa ‘abad hem – let’s minister on their 190behalf (hofal imperfect – let’s subject ourselves to relinquishing our freewill such that we are continually forced to be indentured to them and reduced to servitude)),’ (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 13:2) you should not listen (lo’ shama) to the words (‘el dabar) of that particular prophet (ha naby’ ha huw’ – who claims to have received revelations from God), healer, or dreamer (‘ow ‘el chowlem ha chalowm ha huw’ – or to the one who promises to cure what ails you and restore your health through some altered state of awareness, vision, or communication).
Indeed (ky), Yahowah, your God (Yahowah ‘elohym ‘atem), wants to learn the truth about you (nasah ‘eth ‘atem – is desirous of knowing whether you can be trusted such that He is aware of who must be uprooted and displaced), in addition to knowing (la yada’ – to reveal and understand) whether there is some affirmation that you (ha yesh ‘atem) love (‘ahab ‘eth – you desire having a close personal relationship with) Yahowah, your God (Yahowah ‘elohym ‘atem), with all of your heart (ba kol lebab ‘atem – in all of the ways you think, including your motivations and ambitions) and with all of your soul (wa ba kol nepesh ‘atem – with the entirety of your personality, character, aptitude, and attitude).’” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 13:3)
For the past nineteen centuries, a procession of acclaimed rabbis has professed to have spoken for God. They have interpreted His message in some of the most jaundiced ways, claiming to heal while actually condemning. Inexplicitly, millions of Jews have been defrauded by their signs and wonders, holding those deceiving them in high esteem – revering these men above all others. And yet, there has been no trace of Yahowah in their Talmud, Mishnah, or Zohar, not in their Temples, Synagogues, or rhetoric.
You should not listen to those who have failed this test. 191Judaism has become their god. They do not know Yahowah. They are all pomp and ceremony without heart and soul. The religion has been so abusive Jews have become Stockholmed by their rabbis.
There is a better choice…
“‘You should genuinely and continually journey through life (halak – you should consistently walk, traveling and going about (qal imperfect)) following after Yahowah, your God, without hesitation or equivocation (‘achar Yahowah ‘elohym ‘atem – pursuing Yahowah, who is God, without delay or lingering). And it is Him that you should respect, even revere (wa ‘eth huw’ yare’ – and be in awe of Him, honor your relationship with Him), while consistently observing (wa ‘eth shamar – closely examining and carefully considering, indeed focusing intently upon) the instructive conditions of His relationship agreement (mitswah huw’ – His terms and directions associated with His covenant, pondering the implications of His authoritative teaching, guidance, and instructions; from my – to contemplate tsawah – the terms and conditions of a relationship).
And to His voice (wa ba qowl huw’ – to what He has to say), listen (shama’ – hear, paying close attention (qal imperfect)).
You should consistently work with Him (wa ‘eth huw’ ‘abad), and to Him (wa ba huw’) enthusiastically and continually cling, staying close (dabaq – enjoy and remain in a personal relationship).’” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 13:4)
We can trust Moseh’s advice in this regard. He not only knew Yahowah better than anyone, but he also had successfully relied upon Him to liberate his people.
In the midst of conveying the Towrah, Moseh | Moses provided a death blow to Pauline Christianity. As a 192criterion to ascertain whether someone claiming to speak for Yahowah should be trusted, he delegitimized the individual who coerced and compelled others to worship unfamiliar gods. Then he expressed the means to keep us from falling prey to religious edicts – observe the Towrah and listen to God, being particularly focused upon the terms and conditions of the Covenant. The intent is to love and respect Yahowah, as our Father, forsaking all others.
And now, Moseh is making us aware of the deadly consequence of a false prophet and how we should respond to them…
“‘Therefore, that person who claims to have spoken for God (wa ha naby’ ha huw’), or who says that they have received Divine revelations (‘ow chalam ha chalowm ha huw’ – someone who has a dream, even someone who promises to restore you to health), must die (muwth – will be put to death (hofal imperfect – will be forced to endure an ongoing and oppressive absence of life)).
This is because (ky) the words he has spoken (dabar – the statements and messages he has conveyed) are rebellious (sarah – are overtly hostile, presumptuous and revolting, an apostasy brandished) against (‘al – over and above) Yahowah (YaHoWaH), your God (‘elohym ‘atem), who brought you out, descending to serve by withdrawing you (ha yatsa’ ‘eth ‘atem – who extended Himself to remove you), from the realm (min ‘erets – out of the nation) of religious and political persecution (Mitsraym – the Crucibles of Oppression), redeeming and ransoming you (padah ‘atem – freeing and releasing you) from the house of slavery (min beyth ‘ebed – from having to work to survive).
He is trying to seduce you, enticing you (nadach ‘atah – scattering you), from the way (min ha derek) which, for the benefit of the relationship (‘asher), 193Yahowah, your God (YaHoWaH ‘elohym ‘atah), directed you to walk (tsawah ‘atah halak – instructed you to travel) with Him (ba huw’).
As a result (wa), you should remove, purging (ba’ar – you should expunge such that it ceases to exist), this evil fellow countryman (ha ra’ – this wicked immorality, this impropriety and hindrance to the relationship which is so vocal within the community) from your midst (min qereb ‘atah).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 13:5)
And yet, it is to the religious the believers listen. Rather than purge Christianity, Judaism, and Islam from their midst, Jews have expunged Yahowah.
When we read statements like this from the Towrah, we are reminded of the reason Yahowah provided so many prophecies regarding this mission to awaken Yisra’el and call God’s people out of Babylon. When Yahowah intends to do something important for His people, He tells them well in advance so that they pay attention when it occurs. Clearly, God wants His people to know who is speaking for Him rather than against Him and them.
The intent of Galatians was not just to subtract from God’s advice on how to participate in His Covenant, or regarding the importance of its sign, circumcision, it was also to negate the purpose of the Covenant and the Invitations to be Called Out and Meet. Paul strove to counteract and vilify the Towrah’s means to reconciliation – diminishing its status to the point that it would be considered a liability rather than an asset.
Paul’s condescending and antagonistic dismissal of Yahowah’s Towrah | Teaching, its Beryth | Covenant, and Dowd’s participation in the Miqra’ey | Means to be Called 194Out and Meet would not engender love or respect for the God who authored, offered, and enabled them. Therefore, the only way to cling to Paul would be to let go of God.
According to Yahowah, no one has been or will be authorized to add to or subtract from His Towrah. Therefore, any time we witness someone trying to reduce the Towrah’s role in our lives, or if we find a writer adding something new, like a New Testament, be careful because such a person is not speaking for God. This realization alone is game over for Christianity.
Yahowah has reinforced a simple, yet profound, truth: once we take the Towrah seriously, closely examining and carefully considering its guidance, we can no longer take Paul seriously. Paul’s letters are the antithesis of Yahowah’s Guidance, and for that reason alone it would be foolish to believe him.
God revealed that the best way to know who is not speaking for Him is to be observant, distinguishing between His testimony and that of the self-proclaimed prophet. If they differ, when they differ, the man is a liar. Therefore, knowing and understanding God’s Towrah comes first. Then, compare what Yahowah said to what the prophet is claiming. If the Towrah is devalued, condemn the false prophet and encourage others to disassociate themselves from him.
Simultaneously, act upon God’s guidance. If you have not already done so, contemplate the benefits of the Covenant and then engage based on the terms God stipulated.
Since opinions are to conclusions as faith is to trust, and since we have at our fingertips another way to determine with absolute certainty whether or not Paul was speaking for Yahowah or for himself, there was no reason for us to presume anything. Here are God’s secondary means to determine the veracity of a witness...
195“Surely (‘ak – indeed, emphasizing the point, and to establish a contrast), the person who proclaims a message on behalf of a deity (naby’ – a prophet) who (‘asher – relationally) oversteps their bounds and speaks arrogantly, presumptuously, defiantly, and contemptuously (zyd – has an inflated sense of self-worth, demonstrating self-reliance while taking liberties to defy, who conceitedly pretends to know, who insults others and is disrespectful, displaying pride in the pursuit of personal recognition and acclaim while despising rivals, who rebels against that which is established and is prone to rage, who seethes with anger and is often furious, overbearing and rude while insolently promoting their plans (the hifil stem reveals that the prophet and his statements are one, thereby sharing a similar effect and purpose, while the imperfect conjugation speaks of their continual and ongoing influence)) for the express purpose of conveying (la dabar – for the intent of communicating verbally or in writing (piel infinitive construct – by design and intent)) a statement (dabar) in (ba) My name (shem ‘any – My proper designation, renown, or reputation) which accordingly (‘asher ‘eth – inferring access, relationship, and benefit which) I have not expressly appointed, taught, guided, nor entirely directed him (lo’ tsawah huw’ – I have not provided the totality of his instruction, nor assigned, constituted, decreed, prescribed, or ordained for him, deliberately and demonstrably making him My understudy (piel stem and perfect conjugation)) to (la) speak (dabar), and (wa) who (‘asher – relationally) speaks (dabar) in (ba) the name (shem) of other (‘acher – different and additional, even subsequent) gods (‘elohym), indeed, then (wa) that prophet (ha naby’ ha huw’ – that individual who proclaims a message on behalf of that false deity), he (huw’) is deadly (muwth – devoid of life and destructive). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 18:20)
And if you say (wa ky ‘amar) using your best 196judgment (ba lebab ‘atah – in your heart), ‘How (‘eykah – in what way) can we know (yada ‘eth – will we be able to recognize and understand, to appreciate) the statements (ha dabar – the message) Yahowah (Yahowah – God’s name transliterated as guided by His towrah – instructions on His hayah – existence and His role in our shalowm – reconciliation as ‘elowah – Almighty God) has not spoken (lo’ dabar huw’ – that is not His Word), (Dabarym 18:21) when a prophet speaks (‘asher dabar ha naby’) in the name, reputation, and designation (ba shem – using the notoriety and status) of Yahowah (YaHoWaH – an accurate presentation of the name of ‘elowah – God as guided by His towrah – instructions regarding His hayah – existence), if the statement (wa ha dabar) did not occur (hayah – did not happen as claimed (qal imperfect – literally and actually from the beginning to the present time and beyond)) or (wa) does not come to be (lo’ bow’ – does not happen (qal imperfect)), his is a message (huw’ ha dabar – his are words) that (‘asher) Yahowah (Yahowah – the proper pronunciation of YaHoWaH, our ‘elowah – God as directed in His ToWRaH – teaching regarding His HaYaH – existence and our ShaLoWM – restoration) has not spoken (lo’ dabar – has not communicated).
The person who claims that his message is on behalf of a deity (naby’ – the prophet) has an inflated view of himself, he is self-motivated, immoral, and insolent and should be held in contempt and disrespected (ba zadon – he should be scorned and rebuked for being wrong, he is presumptuous and haughty; from zuwd – defiant and rebellious) for having said it (dabar huw’). You should not fear him nor revere him (lo’ guwr min huw’ – you should not respect him or show any anxiety toward him).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 18:22)
Based on this, an informed and rational individual would list Paul’s epistles as the prime example of a deadly, arrogant, presumptuous, defiant, disrespectful, and self-197serving fraud. He epitomizes everything Yahowah encouraged us to avoid.
Yahowah’s second test is a relatively simple one. It contains six elements (with six being the number of man):
| 1) | Is the person a naby’: someone who claims to speak on behalf of god? This is a screening codicil. If a person admits that they are speaking for themselves, then they would be excluded from this analysis. The evaluation, therefore, does not apply to Obama but would apply to Osama. Paul’s favorite line, “but I say to you,” would ordinarily have been sufficient to exclude him from this test (and thereby also exclude his epistles from consideration) because, by repeating this phrase, he was admitting that he was speaking for himself and not for God. But since he was duplicitous and often vowed that he had been personally selected and authorized to speak for God, he subjects himself to God’s test. And yet, he has already failed the first codicil. And that is because the preponderance of Paul’s message was delivered under the banner of “but I say,” instead of “Yahowah says.” That should have been more than sufficient to disqualify Paul as God’s agent. So, it is strike one. (Where one strike is deadly.) |
| 2) | Is the person zyd: someone who oversteps their bounds, acting presumptuously with an inflated sense of self-worth, demonstrating self-reliance while taking liberties, someone who arrogantly pretends to know, who insults others and is disrespectful, displaying pride in the pursuit of personal recognition and acclaim while demeaning competitors, someone who rebels against the legitimate authority and is prone to anger, someone who seethes with frustration and is often furious, overbearing, rude, or conceited? Sha’uwl has insulted Shim’own, Ya’aqob, and Yahowchanan, in addition to Yahowah and Dowd. His claim to the 198world as if it were his personal domain has been overbearing and presumptuous. His assertion that he was incapable of lying and that he was the perfect example to follow was conceited in the extreme. He has been rude to the Galatians and disrespectful of almost everyone, consistently misquoting God’s Word and then twisting it. And he has routinely shown great contempt for the Towrah, consistently demeaning it. Strike two. |
| 3) | Does the person la dabar dabar ba ‘any shem: openly and publicly preach to others, communicating their message in the name of God? As was the case with the first codicil, this is also a screening test. If the individual in question has an insignificantly small audience, if their preaching is done in private, if their influence is limited in time and place, then there would be no reason to assess their credentials. However, Paul begins his epistle bragging that he was speaking for God, not men. He claims to have had his own private session with God. This, along with the fact that Paul’s preaching in the book of Acts and his letters comprise half of the “Christian New Testament,” and that his words are quoted more often by Christians than God’s, puts a bull’s eye on Paul. Strike three. |
| 4) | Is the person’s message ‘lo tsawah: inconsistent with what God has instructed and directed, does the message conflict with what God appointed, constituted, and decreed, does it vary from His instructions? Galatians, like Romans, is an attack on the Towrah. As such, Paul’s letters represent the most extreme breach of Yahowah’s fourth test. The only thing worse than advocating ideas that are extraneous to God’s witness is to promote things that contradict His testimony. Paul’s repudiation of the Torah, combined with his replacement theology (which is 199essentially comprised of believing in his euangelion), is, therefore, an egregious and deadly violation of God’s fourth test. It is also a direct violation of the Third of Three Statements Yahowah etched upon the First of the Two Stone Tablets, for which there is no forgiveness. Strike four. |
| 5) | Does the person dabar ba shem ‘acher ‘elohym: speak in the name of gods other than Yahowah? Paul’s Gospel of Grace (Charis/Gratia) elevates the Greek and Roman pagan goddesses above Yahowah. And in his parting comment, Paul excludes Yahowah’s name and signs off using the moniker of the Egyptian sun god, “Amen.” He also revealed a proclivity for addressing his god as “the Lord.” This is strike five in a life-and-death encounter where one strike is fatal. |
| 6) | Does the person hayah: accurately convey what is happening and what has happened in the past, and do their predictions of the future bow’: materialize and come to exist as they have stated them? Paul’s absurdly deviant portrayal of Yahowah’s Covenant discussions with Abraham is a prime example of failing this test. His errant portrayal of the Yaruwshalaim Summit is another undeniable breach of the hayah clause – as was his testimony regarding his contradictory accounts of his conversion experience and his mythical trip to Arabia. The fact that there were no prophecies in Galatians, a false prophecy regarding his personal inclusion in the Trumpets Harvest in his second letter, and no fulfilled predictions in any of his other letters serve as a failure to meet the bow’ clause of this requirement. Therefore, since Paul’s demonic source of inspiration was incapable of properly guiding his false prophet, it is: Strike six. Therefore, it is off to She’owl for Sha’uwl. And if you believe him, your soul will be destroyed at 200the end of your mortal life. Providing all of us with fair warning is why this test exists. |
Yahowah, as we know, proved that He inspired the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms by punctuating His words with prophetic predictions – all of which came true, or are coming true, just as He had revealed. Since only God and those He has brought forward in time with Him have seen the future, He, through them, is not actually “predicting” it but instead reporting in advance what He has shown them will occur. That’s why His prophets are always right, and it’s why He uses prophecy to demonstrate that His testimony through them is reliable.
In a text where a single conflict portends the death of the one testifying falsely, as well as the demise of those who are led to believe him, Paul has failed all six. That’s not my opinion. It is an undeniable conclusion based on Yahowah’s standard. It is case closed. The verdict is “Guilty!” Paul was a false prophet. If you trust him, you do not know or trust God.
There are two additional thoughts in this Towrah passage worthy of our consideration. The first is an indictment of all religions, but especially Christianity and Judaism. Indeed, when you come into the land associated with Yahowah, your God, which is given to you, you shall not accept, teach, imitate (lamad – be trained in, instruct, become accustomed to, disciple others in), or act upon ('asah – engage in, celebrate, profit from, bring about, ordain, or institute) any of the disgusting religious ways (tow'ebah – abhorrent rites, detestable idolatrous things, repulsive and loathsome rituals, abominable festivals) of these Gentile nations.” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 18:9)
Pauline Christianity is Dionysian and thus evolved from Babylonia through Greece. It is also steeped in Greek 201Gnosticism. To this, Constantine’s and Theodosius’ Roman Catholic Church integrated their affinity for Mithras. The resulting religion remains disgusting.
Without the Towrah, there is no call for ‘Abraham to come out of Babylon – to flee man’s religious and political schemes. And worse, Paul’s epistles call believers in the opposite direction, back to Babylon, which is why the faithful remain mired in mankind’s religious muck. And so it should be no surprise that every pre-Constantine 1st-, 2nd-, 3rd-, and early 4th-century codex of Paul’s Christian New Testament was scribed in Mitsraym – the very place from which Yahowah freed His people.
Then speaking of the Word personally delivered by Yahowah on Mount Choreb, and of the reason God would speak through the likes of Moseh, Shamuw’el, Dowd, Yasha’yah, and Chabaquwq, Yahowah inspired and then spoke…
“A Prophet (naby’ – a person who communicates the word of God and is accurate regarding past and future events) from among your midst (min qereb ‘atah – out of your innermost nature), from your brethren (min ‘ach ‘atah), similar to me (kamow ‘any – in accord with me and who can be compared to me), Yahowah (Yahowah – a transliteration of , our ‘elowah – God as directed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), your God (‘elohym ‘atah), will raise up and position to take a stand which establishes and affirms you (quwm la ‘atah – He will validate and confirm, elevating his status to encourage and restore you, enabling you to approach and rise). To him, I want you to actually and continually listen (‘el huw’ shama’ – it is My will that you genuinely and literally hear him with ongoing implications over time (qal imperfect paragogic nun)). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 18:15)
Consistent with everything (ka kol) which to show 202the way to the benefits of the relationship (‘asher) you asked for while questioning (sha’al min ‘im – you requested while inquiring about) Yahowah (Yahowah – written as directed by His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), your God (‘elohym ‘atah), in Choreb (ba Choreb) during the day of the assembly (ba yowm ha qahal – in the time everyone in the community congregated together), when you said (la ‘amar – requesting), ‘Never again let me hear (lo’ yasaph la shama’ ‘eth – no more, not even one additional time, do I want to listen to) the voice (qowl – the sound) of Yahowah ( – a transliteration of YaHoWaH as instructed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), my God (‘elohym ‘any). Nor let me see and witness (wa lo’ ra’ah – nor be visibly shown or perceive) this intense fire (‘eth ha ‘esh ha gadowl ha zo’th – this massively powerful, extensive and important, astonishing and great, growth enabling and magnifying, brilliantly glowing flame of light) anymore (‘owd – again, now or in the future), or that notwithstanding, I die (wa lo’ muwth).’ (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 18:16)
Therefore (wa), Yahowah (YaHoWaH – an accurate presentation of the name of ‘elowah – God as guided by His towrah – instructions regarding His hayah – existence) said to me (‘amar ‘el ‘any – responded to me), ‘They have properly and successfully conveyed their preference (yatab ‘asher dabar – they have responded as expected under the circumstances, communicating what they want regarding the relationship). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 18:17)
I will raise up (quwm – I will take a stand and establish, confirming) a Prophet (naby’) for them (la hem – to approach them and be near them) from among their brothers (min qereb ‘achy – from the innermost part of their brethren and relatives (and thus from Yahuwdah)) similar to you (kemow ‘atah – in accord with you). And I 203will put (wa nathan – I will give, provide, and bestow) My words (dabarym ‘any – My message) in his mouth (ba peh huw’) and he will convey to them (wa dabar ‘el hem) everything, which for the benefit of the relationship (‘eth kol ‘asher), I instruct him (tsawah huw’ – I direct of him). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 18:18)
And it shall come to be (wa hayah – it shall exist) that an individual who (ha ‘iysh ‘asher – that a person, who for the benefit of the relationship, who) will not listen (lo’ shama’) to My words (‘el dabarym ‘any), which he shall declare (‘asher dabar – which he will share to show the way to the benefits of the relationship and to get the most enjoyment out of life) in My name (ba shem ‘any), I, Myself, will seek it of him and hold him accountable for it, requiring it of him (‘anoky darash min ‘im huw’ – I, individually, will inquire about it regarding him and will conduct an investigation to have him accept responsibility concerning it).’” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 18:19)
It is a shame that the Yisra’elites chose not to listen to Yahowah and, indeed, to foreclose on the prospect of ever hearing directly from Yahowah again. But even in their self-imposed impoverishment, there would be a blessing. Not only would God speak through Moseh and Yahowsha’, Shamuw’el and Dowd, Yasha’yah and Yirmayah, Zakaryah and Yow’el, leaving an enduring written legacy to enrich our lives, one of the reasons that I was afforded this opportunity as a gowy is because Yahowah is on record stating that He wouldn’t address His people directly.
But this was their choice, and Yahowah honored their decision. Moseh would be the first of many Prophets who would be asked to communicate the message Yahowah conveyed through them. It was fine with God because He has always preferred working with and through individuals like Moseh. God seldom works alone and He knows that the larger the group, the worse people typically become.
204And it has worked well for everyone who is interested in knowing God because, by writing down these prophetic narratives, it’s like we were there with them, listening in on these conversations. God does not have to repeat Himself, but we can repeatedly turn to Him. He is always there for us.
Of course, this is the reason that, in the same chapter of Dabarym, Yahowah provided us with the means to know if someone was speaking for Him or just making it up as they went along. It is how we recognize that Sha’uwl | Paul was a fraud.
There is a lone prophet who meets the criterion Yahowah was addressing in His Towrah. If you are a Christian and believe that this is prophetic of “Jesus Christ,” you would be wrong. First, you cannot credibly claim validation from a book your religion negates – as Paul has done. This is one of many reasons Paul did not cite this prophecy to promote Iesou Christo. Further, since Gospel Jesus wrote nothing down, and no one wrote anything on his behalf for two generations, he’s disqualified. This is because, without exception, Yahowah asked His prophets to memorialize what He was revealing to them on scrolls. Making matters worse for the candidacy of Gospel Jesus, there is no evidence that he existed, much less spoke in Yahowah’s name. This would disqualify him two times over.
Obviously, for anyone paying attention, the name of the predicted prophet is Dowd | David. He is the Mashyach | Messiah, Ben | Son, and Melek | King Paul and Christianity sought to replace. Yahowah put His words in his mouth, and we can listen to him by reading and reciting his Mizmowr | Psalms and Mashal | Proverbs. There are more extant copies of what Dowd wrote among the scrolls and fragments found along the shore of the Dead Sea than even the Towrah. Moreover, Dowd is returning with Yahowah and will rule over the Earth. Moreover, it was 205vital for God to disclose the nature of the man who would fulfill the Miqra’ey Moseh was describing.
And let’s never forget God’s position on His people and family: “Yahowah will lift you up and establish you as a people for Himself, as a set-apart family, to show the way to the benefits of the relationship. He has made a sworn promise to those of you who observe, closely examining and carefully considering, the instructive conditions of the relationship agreement of Yahowah, your God, and walk in His ways.” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 28:9)
The purpose of the book Paul demeaned has always been to provide the information required to know God and then become part of His Family. Salvation is a byproduct of that relationship, making the Covenant and its children perfect and enduring. Moseh explained this and Dowd enabled it.
Moseh also iterated the following message on behalf of Yahowah, not Hagar or Ishmael. In it, there is only one Covenant, and the Covenant and the Towrah in which it is presented are inseparable...
“Just as it came to be that Moseh finished writing the words of the Towrah on the written scroll, completing it, Moseh instructed the Lowy who carry Yahowah’s Ark of the Covenant, saying, ‘Grasp hold of this written documentation of the Towrah and place it beside Yahowah, your God’s, Ark of the Covenant, existing there for you as an everlasting witness and eternal testimony.” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 31:24-26)
This is an unequivocal refutation of Sha’uwl’s claims that Yahowah’s Towrah and Covenant are obsolete and unrelated. God’s position and Paul’s are irreconcilable and mutually exclusive. And that means Sha’uwl lied when he claimed that he spoke for God. As a result, absolutely 206nothing he said or wrote should be considered trustworthy.
The Towrah’s message, its purpose, and its ongoing place in the lives of those who seek to live with God, remain incongruous with what Sha’uwl has written.
“Moseh instructed them, providing directions by saying, ‘At the end of seven years, in the appointed time, the year of canceling debts, releasing debtors from their obligations, during the festival Feast of Sukah | Shelters, when all Yisra’el comes to appear before and experience the presence of Yahowah, your God, at the place which relationally He chooses, you should actually and consistently read and recite this Towrah | Teaching and Guidance before all Yisra’el so that they can listen to it.’” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 31:10-11)
It is God’s hope that we answer His Invitations and choose to Camp Out with Him during the final celebration of life. Therefore, this would be an opportune time to consider Yahowah’s guidance regarding Sukah. He revealed...
“And Yahowah spoke to Moseh, for the purpose of saying, ‘Speak to the children of Yisra’el, to say, “On the fifteenth day of the seventh month is the Festival Feast of Sukah Shelters for seven days for you to be near Yahowah. ...For seven days, approach and draw close to the Maternal manifestation of the light to be with Yahowah.
On the eighth day, there exists, and will always be, a set-apart Miqra’ | Invitation to be Called Out and Meet on your behalf. And you should answer and respond to the invitation, appearing before the enlightening Mother according to Yahowah. Her joyous assembly does not engage in, doing any of the work of the heavenly messenger who is God’s spiritual representative.
207These Godly and specific designated meetings times of Yahowah, which relationally and beneficially you are invited to attend as set-apart Miqra’ey, as Invitations to be Called Out and Meet, for reading and reciting, are for the purpose of coming near and approaching the Maternal manifestation of the light of Yahowah and are a gift which elevates, a reconciling sacrifice for forgiveness, and also a pouring out of the Word – a day for His day.
As part of the Shabats, the seventh days, the days of promise, the days to celebrate and reflect on the relationship with Yahowah, and as part of your contribution to the relationship, of expressing your freewill and commitment to choose to beneficially give yourself to Yahowah.
Indeed, on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when you have gathered in your yield from the land, you should celebrate the Festival Feast of Yahowah for seven days. With the first and foremost day, there shall be a Shabatown for the promise of empowerment and enrichment, and on the eighth day, a Shabatown for reflecting upon and celebrating this opportunity to grow. ...Rejoice and be glad in the presence of Yahowah, your God, for seven days.
Celebrate it as a Festival Feast in association with Yahowah seven days during the year. It is a clearly communicated and inscribed prescription of what you should do in life to live forever, throughout your generations. Celebrate it in the seventh month.” (Qara’ / Called Out / Leviticus 23:33-41)
And that leaves all of us with a clear choice. We can accept God and reject Paul, or we can accept Paul and reject God. But no matter whom you choose to trust or 208believe, one thing is certain: Paul lied.
While the answers are obvious, at least for those who are informed and rational, two questions may remain for the most ardent New Testament advocates. Are all of Paul’s nine other epistles (1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Hebrews), his four personal letters (1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon), and the score of speeches throughout Acts as thoroughly errant and repulsive as Galatians? And what motivated Paul to oppose God?
Over the course of Twistianity, I have chronicled copious amounts of material gleaned from Paul’s letters to Corinth, Thessalonica, Rome, and Ephesus, and we have studied his preaching as it is reflected in Acts, in addition to the morose conclusions he conveyed to Timothy. What we discovered was that they were even less credible and more condemning than what we read in Galatians.
That is not to suggest, however, that nothing Sha’uwl wrote elsewhere was accurate. I cite the following example in Acts 24: “Paul responded: ‘But this I will admit to you, that according to ‘The Way,’ which they call the sect, I do serve the God of our fathers, trusting everything that is in accordance with the Torah and that is written in the Prophets.” (Acts 24:14) If that was all that Paul stated, or if the rest of his rhetoric didn’t contradict that lone affirming statement, then the verdict regarding his testimony would be different. But the same man also said that he pretended to be Torah observant when it served his interests even though he was not. (1 Corinthians 9:19-23)
The fact is liars lie, but not all the time; otherwise, no one would believe them. To make something false appear 209credible, every myth must include some accurate elements. Although, with Paul, strands of truth have been few and far between.
Christian apologists might cite the “Gifts of the Spirit” in 1 Corinthians 12 as evidence that Paul was inspired by God. And yet, most of everything he included in his list was inconsistent with Yah’s teaching. Others will protest that the next chapter in Corinthians, which was dedicated to “love,” could not possibly be errant, but it is nonetheless – and from beginning to end. What Paul wrote is the antithesis of God’s perspective on the same subject. The evidence behind these conclusions is provided as these issues arose in other volumes of Yada Yahowah (Observations, Volume 5 – Understanding, Chapter 7 – Wanting to be Worshiped).
It should be obvious to everyone that Sha’uwl was a living contradiction – routinely displaying behaviors that contravened his own testimony. Consistency was never his strong suit.
Recognizing that the preponderance of Galatians is overtly opposed to God’s revelation, for there to be any hope of finding some beneficial testimony in the letters to the Thessalonians, Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, or Hebrews, Christian apologists would have to propose that they were written by someone other than the author of Galatians. And yet each was explicitly identified with Paul in their salutations, and each was expressly associated with communities Paul visited according to the book of Acts.
Therefore, the odds Galatians was written by someone other than Paul, the man depicted in Acts, and the author of the other thirteen epistles and letters is remote in the extreme. Consider the required makeup of an imposter and the circumstances under which a con man would have had to operate under to perpetrate such an astonishing fraud…
210The Galatians’ ghostwriter would have to have convinced the Shim’own Kephas that Paul wrote this letter to the Galatians. And that means the Pauline imposter would have had to have perpetrated his fraud during the height of Paul’s fame, and while Shim’own / Peter was still alive because he specifically and adroitly addressed the letter to the Galatians in his second epistle. Considering the number of times these men met, the imposter would have had to have been exceedingly persuasive.
This charlatan, should one have existed, would have had to pull off this stunning fraud without Paul, himself, knowing about it or objecting to it. And therein, the hypothetical scenario of a ghostwriter crumbles because, as anal as Paul was about signing his letters to prevent frauds from being perpetrated, as intense as he was about not allowing anyone to alter his message, as self-indulgent and paranoid as he was, it is ludicrous to think that Paul wouldn’t have had a conniption fit over someone pretending to be him and writing a falsified letter in his name.
There is no way to credibly push out the timeline on Galatians beyond Sha’uwl’s and Shim’own’s lives (which terminated around 65 CE) because these men left a written legacy of their reactions to people around them. Especially relevant, it’s apparent that Galatians was written between 51 and 52 CE, and that it was Paul’s first letter, composed in the immediate aftermath of the Yaruwshalaim Summit, when nerves were still raw and tempers were flaring. This was all very personal, emotional, self-serving, and self-promoting, and thus very, very Paul. Further, the self-proclaimed “Apostle” would have had twelve subsequent letters in which to expose an imposter – something Paul would have done had there been one.
There are a score of reasons to acknowledge that Galatians was Paul’s first letter. It is the only one that details his life story from birth to the Yaruwshalaim 211Summit. It uniquely strives to validate his calling. It even details the inception of his preaching. In his salutation, Paul uncharacteristically greets the Galatians alone, having been recently separated from Barnabas (Paul’s companion while in Galatia) but not yet united with Timothy (whom Paul would meet in the immediate aftermath of the Yaruwshalaim Summit).
Further, the Galatians epistle shares something in common with those penned in haste to Corinth and Thessalonica – in that these hurried and defiant replies were written to the three most rebellious assemblies Sha’uwl encountered – and he rebuked and demeaned them for it. And since we know that he crafted both of his letters to the Thessalonians and to the Corinthians within two years of his initial visits to these places, it’s instructive to know that the timeline which can be deduced from the book of Acts places Paul and Barnabas in Lystra, Galatia in 48 to 49 CE.
Moreover, this con man would have had to fool Barnabas and Timothy, and then Luke as well. But knowing Luke’s penchant for detail, that would have been unlikely. If Luke smelled a fraud, his suspicions would have been chronicled in Acts.
But there is more to consider. A potential impostor would have to have studied the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. In Galatians, and again in Romans, the author cited (albeit misquoted) Habakkuk, a book most people don’t even know exists. He identified a passage which could be misconstrued to associate the Torah with a curse. He even recognized that zera, the Hebrew word for “seed,” was singular throughout Genesis. And yet this imposter would have to have despised the Torah sufficiently to dedicate himself to denying its purpose. You could count such individuals on one hand and not use all of your fingers, meaning that the pool of potential applicants in line to impersonate Paul in the mid-1st century would have been 212nil. In fact, there was just one: Paul himself.
Should there have been a pretender, the con man would have to have been schooled sufficiently in Rabbinic Law to pass himself off as a former Pharisee who trained under Gamaliel – an esteemed religious teacher of his day. And yet, he would have to have hated Judaism sufficiently to demean the religion and condemn Jews – positioning them as the faith’s foe. And while it is not uncommon, even today, to find Jews who are self-destructive and self-loathing, Paul’s condemnation of his own people in 1st Thessalonians 2:14-16 is a league apart – uniquely qualifying Sha’uwl as the anti-Semite who wrote Galatians and then inspired most of the Christian New Testament.
Should Galatians have been penned by a mystery writer, the perpetrator would have had to have received some training in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, as well as in classic literature and mythology, at a time when just being literate was rare. Keep in mind, while Paul’s message has been hard to decipher, that’s partly because elitists of the day sought to impress one another by communicating in the fewest possible Greek words, leaving the reader with the challenge of correctly interpreting them. And that is some of what we are witnessing in Galatians and is why the New Living Translation has more than doubled the letter’s word count in their attempt to convey its intent.
The ghostwriter, should there have been one, would have to have accompanied Paul and known the timing and nature of his travels during a time bereft of rapid or public communications. He would have had to know intimate details about his life, including the grotesque physical stigmata he bore while visiting the Galatians. He would have had to have known what Paul said to this audience during his previous visit and also know why this remote province was now rebelling against him. And he would have to have had a reason to intervene in the midst of a nasty argument and then somehow benefit from such 213animosity.
The supposed Galatians’ imposter would have had to be willing to perpetrate a fraud to artificially elevate Paul’s status above the disciples in the midst of conceiving a new religious faith. And yet the only person in recorded history known to hold such views, and to be similarly motivated, Marcion, had not even been born when this fraud would have had to have been perpetrated. Further, in the case of Marcion, entire tomes have been written to marginalize him, yet nothing was ever said about this hypothetical ghostwriter who would have been vastly more influential.
Pseudo Paul would have had to have been a party to the Yaruwshalaim Summit because, rather than coming up with an entirely different story, he was clever enough to twist what actually occurred such that it would serve the wannabe apostle’s peculiar agenda. Thereafter, he would have to have been in the room when Sha’uwl condemned Shim’own for hastily leaving a meal – and to have had a reason for demeaning him. And why, if this person wasn’t Paul, was he so obviously angry and so emotionally involved in Paul’s affairs?
What’s more, this imposter would have had to be skilled at impersonating Paul’s handwriting because the last half of the last chapter of Galatians claims to have been penned in Paul’s hand. And that would have been especially challenging since it is obvious that this is the first letter Paul wrote – such that he would have been matching handwriting no one save Paul had seen. Moreover, the charlatan would have had to have had Paul’s jargon down pat, including knowing his propensity to use alla, charis, euangelion, stoicheion, and pistis, in addition to the now ubiquitous: “but I Paulos say...”
To exonerate Paul from the stigma of having written Galatians, the supposed ghostwriter would have had to have hired a courier whom the Galatians would have 214trusted as one of Paul’s emissaries. And then he would have had to convince the leaders of wealthier assemblies to pay scribes to copy his fraudulent letter and include it in codices with other Pauline epistles.
And along these lines, since we know that Paul wrote a letter to the Galatians, if the one we have is a fraud, the pretender would have had to have confiscated Paul’s original before replacing it with his own and to have done so without anyone noticing. I say this because the time interval is not sufficient for an authentic Galatians epistle to have arrived, been circulated, and then been forgotten so that the imposter’s letter could have replaced it without anyone noticing that they were different.
And lastly, Paul’s letter to Rome reprises the climax of Galatians – the existence of two covenants, one of the flesh, the other of the promise. This was Paul’s amazingly clever, albeit devastatingly deadly, means to circumvent the Torah, bypassing it by going from Abram to Iesou, with nothing in between. It is the crowning achievement of Pauline Doctrine, his signature. Therefore, the man who wrote Romans also wrote Galatians.
As we have discovered, 2nd Corinthians was penned by a man whose ego, credibility, and spirit were a perfect match for those on display throughout this epistle. Moreover, the adversarial approach conveyed throughout the Thessalonian letters is consistent with what we have read in Galatians.
But even if someone could pull off the greatest fraud in history, why would they? Who in the 1st century benefited from defending Paul by attacking God? Who else met the criterion of the devastating prophecies Yahowah and Dowd leveled against this man?
As we have learned, Galatians is all about Paul, about his childhood, his education, his qualifications, his preaching, his detractors, and his trials and tribulations, 215even his personal issues with God. Within its text, we find the author referring to himself as the mother of the faithful, as the parent of his spiritual children, as the perfect example to follow, as a person who can do no wrong, and as someone who cannot lie – themes which are echoed in the other epistles attributed to him. So, if Paul didn’t write it, why would anyone ascribe such a lofty status to another, especially in the midst of a letter purported to speak on behalf of God?
How was it possible that a copy of Galatians was included in the midst of the oldest extant codex containing Paul’s epistles: Papyrus 46? There we find in the order of their appearance: Romans, Hebrews (which was either written by Paul or one of his disciples), 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1st Thessalonians. And since P46 is dated to the 2nd century, there would be no way to attribute this fraud, if it is such, to someone writing at a time when everyone who had actually known Sha’uwl was long since dead.
With Galatians, Paul did more than just sign his name. The last chapter attests to having been penned in his own hand. He even commands believers to pay particular attention to the specific characteristics of his handwriting so that they could use it later to verify the veracity of subsequent epistles.
Recognizing also that Sha’uwl knew the Torah, that he was an expert in Judaism, that he was a spirited, albeit irrational debater, and that he was fixated on proving his calling, all of which are prerequisites for authorship, that leaves us with only one viable alternative: that the person depicted in Acts and associated with the epistles to the Thessalonians, Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Hebrews, and Timothy was the author of Galatians as well.
Therefore, the only informed and rational conclusion 216is that Paul wrote Galatians to establish a new religion. As a result, the best possible spin we can put on this disastrous tome is that he was clearly angry and may well have dashed off an emotional response that, from a soberer perspective, he should have thrown away. But, then again, Paul’s ego was way too big for sober reflection.
You do not need me to tell you that Sha’uwl was the Plague of Death... Yahowah affirmed this in no uncertain terms in Chabaquwq / Habakkuk – 666 years in advance, no less.
You do not need me to tell you that Paul was a false prophet… We now know that he failed all of Yahowah’s tests in Dabarym / Deuteronomy 13 and 18.
You do not need me to tell you that Sha’uwl lied… His testimony regarding our means to become part of God’s family was in complete conflict with Yahowah’s Towrah.
You do not need me to explain what happened on the road to Damascus. Paul confessed to the crime. And in this regard, even Gospel Jesus would denounce what the wannabe Apostle claimed that he saw on the road to Damascus. Describing Satan’s fall from heaven, and our dominion over him, Luke, in 10:18, translates Gospel Jesus saying:
“But then (de) he said (eipon) to them (autois – addressing the seventy witnesses he had sent out), I saw (theoreo – I was watching) the Adversary, Satan (ton Satanan – the Devil who opposes; a transliteration of the Hebrew satan – adversary and antagonist who slanders and accuses in opposition), as (hos – like and similar to, approximating) lightning, a bright beam of flashing light (astraphe – a ray of light in the form of a natural, weather-217based phenomenon like lightning; from astrapto – a shining and dazzling object) from (ek – out of) the heavens (tou ouranos – the sky and the spiritual abode of God), having fallen (pipto – descending to a lower realm, now prostrate, bowed, failed, and inadequate).
Behold (idou – now pay attention, indeed), I have given you (didomi umin – I have offered and provided to you all) the authority, ability, and opportunity (ten exousia – the legal jurisdiction and authorization, the control, power, choice, and right) to trample (tou pateo – to step and tread underfoot, to crush, subdue, subjugate, and devastate), being superior to (epano – being above and having authority over), serpents (ophis – venomous snakes which serve as a metaphor for Satan and his fellow demons) and scorpions (kai skorpios – poisonous insects which sting and supernatural demonic powers, from skopos, skeptics who conceal).
So, upon (kai epi) the entirety of (pas – all of) the Adversary’s (tou echthros – the hated and odious hostile enemy’s) power (dynamis – ability and rule, capability and strength, especially the performance of miracles), therefore (kai), you (umas) will absolutely never be harmed by his fraudulent deceit (ouden ou me adikeo – will not be injured by his wrongdoing and injustice or his violation of the standard).” (Luke 10:18-19)
Now, let’s compare that to Paul’s depiction of what he experienced: “But (de) to me (moi) it happened (ginomai – it came to be), traveling (poreuomai – going to) and (kai) approaching (engizo – nearing) Damascus (te Damasko – a transliteration of Damaskos, the capital of Syria; from the Hebrew Dameseq, a compound of dam and tsedeq: justice torn asunder leaves the righteous weeping) around noon (peri mesembrian – near midday), suddenly and unexpectedly (exaiphnes – unforeseen and immediately) from (ek – out of) the sky (tou ouranou – the atmosphere (singular masculine)), a nearby lightning 218strike (periastraphai – lightning glittering roundabout, shining brightly all around, flashing nearby; a compound of peri – about, near, and concerning, and astrape – lightning, a beam or flashing ray of bright light which dazzles (aorist as a moment in time unrelated to any plan, active and thus doing the flashing or striking, and infinitive, turning glittering into a verbal noun)), sufficient and adequate (hikanos – enough) light (phos) about (peri – around and concerning) me (eme).” (Acts 22:6)
Paul’s depiction was eerily similar to the way Gospel Jesus would describe the fall of Satan. Paul even used the same words. As such, it is remarkable that Christians disregard the accurate prophecy to embrace the false prophet.
He even went on to say: “And (kai) do not (ou) wonder (thauma – marvel at this miraculous vision, nor be amazed in admiration) for, indeed (gar), he (autos), the Adversary Satan (Satanas), changes his appearance (metaschematizo – masquerades, disguising himself, transforming his image) into (eis) a spiritual, heavenly messenger (angelos – divine representative) of light (photos).” (2 Corinthians 11:14) How’s that for an admission of guilt?
You do not need me to tell you who Sha’uwl heard on that frightful day. The false prophet already did so by quoting the false god, Dionysus… “And everyone (te pas) of us (emon) having fallen down (katapipto – having descended from one level to another, lower one) to the earth (eis ten ge), I heard (akouo – I paid attention, listening, comprehending, and obeying) a voice (phone – a sound, crying out) saying to me (lego pros ego – speaking according to me) in the (te) Hebrew (Hebrais) language (dialektos), ‘Sha’uwl, Sha’uwl (Saoul, Saoul – a transliteration of the Hebrew name, Sha’uwl, meaning “Question Him,” a designation synonymous with She’owl – the pit of the dead), Why (tis) are you actually pursuing 219me (dioko me – are you following me, really striving with such intense effort to reach me, hastening and zealously running toward me)? It’s hard (skleros – it’s demanding and difficult, even rough, harsh, violent, and cruel, especially offensive and intolerable) for you (soi) to resist (laktizo – to kick, to strike with the heel) against (pros) the goad (kentron – a pointed sharp stick used to prick and prod and thus control animals featuring the stinger of a deadly scorpion with the power to ruin and kill, making resistance vain or perilous).” (Acts 26:14)
Paul deliberately put a popular pagan proverb into the aberration’s mouth in the third of his three depictions of his conversion experience in Acts 26:14. In this instance, he was defending himself before King Agrippa.
Paul’s citation came from Euripides’ The Bacchae, where “rebelling against the goad” was used to describe the consequence of personally having to endure the havoc and madness that would be wrought by the Greek god, Dionysus, on the kingdom if someone refused to worship him. But before we consider why Dionysus was chosen by Paul (or Satan), please note the intersection between the “scorpions” in the demonic reference and Sha’uwl’s quote. This, too, is telling.
When we examine the myths that grew out of Satan’s religious counterfeits, we find that the Grecian mythology regarding Dionysus provides the closest counterfeit to Gospel Jesus, which is why it was usurped to make the Christian Iesou Christo appear divine. Just as the man-god’s blood was represented by wine, Dionysus (Bacchus in Roman mythology) was the god of wine. He died each fall but was reborn at the Winter Solstice (December 25th on the Julian calendar) and then was supposedly resurrected each spring. This “renewal,” became an annual religious festival celebrating the promise of an afterlife – akin to the Christian Easter. Held over the course of five days each Spring, the Dionysia set the stage for the 220Christian replacement of Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children, with Palm Sunday (“Passion Sunday”), Maundy Thursday (“institution of Communion”), Good Friday (“death and burial of Jesus”), Holy Saturday (where “Jesus rested in the grave” during the last day of the Babylonian festival of Lent, where there was great weeping for Tammuz – the son of the sun), and Easter Sunday – named after the Babylonian Queen of Heaven and Mother of God, Astarte / Ishtar.
Just as Gospel Jesus is alleged to have had a divine father and a mortal mother, Dionysus’ father was said to be Zeus (the father of the gods)), whereas his mother was mortal (Semele). And by his death and resurrection, Dionysus was responsible for liberating his believers and thereby providing the faithful with eternal salvation, in complete harmony with being liberated from the Torah by way of faith in Paul’s Gospel.
Also intriguing, Paul’s beloved Charis, the Roman Gratia, were the progeny of Dionysus and Aphrodite according to some Greek myths (although more commonly of Zeus and Eurynome). Paul was likely inspired in this regard by the reverence he experienced in Lystra, Galatia in 48 CE, where he and Barnabas were worshiped as Zeus (king of the gods) and Hermes (messenger of the gods).
You do not need me to tell you that Paul deceived believers when he claimed to have represented the mythical Iesou Christou. But that does not seem possible since Gospel Jesus told his disciples to be wary of the likes of Paul. His Olivet Discourse (which may have been spoken by Dowd and then wrongly attributed to the imposter) began with:
“And Iesous (ΙΣ), having responded judgmentally (apokrinomai – having answered using discernment to separate fact from fiction; a compound of apo – from, and krino – separation, thereby being discriminating), said to 221(eupen – spoke to) them (autos – speaking of his Disciples), ‘It’s important that you are observant and that you pay attention, presently being aware and perceptive (blepete – choose to look closely and watch out, consider carefully and be discerning, think so that you understand (present active imperative)), lest (ue) someone (tis) will try to cause you to wander away from the truth (planeon umas – he will intentionally deceive and will probably try to delude you, attempting to lead you astray (aorist active subjunctive)). (Matthew 24:4)
The Olivet Discourse is exclusive to Matthew, as was the Sermon on the Mount, which would be inexplicable for the last of the Gospels, and a hearsay text that wasn’t compiled until sixty years after the fact, if it were not for the ‘Ebownym who likely knew and wrote about the Messiah Dowd. And should this be from the Son of God, he told those listening “to pay attention and to be careful, lest someone will cause you to wander away from the truth, deceiving and deluding you.” Since this warning was stated specifically to and for those accompanying him, might this someone be Paul, and the occasion be the Yaruwshalaim Summit? And if not him, who? If not then, when?
Recognizing that Dowd communicated in Hebrew, and the ‘Ebownym recorded him speaking in his native tongue, it is likely that this citation was plagiarized by an imposter. As such, it would have been incorporated into the text around 95 CE using a now-extinct Hebrew record. This material was then copied in Alexandria a century later in a religious scriptorium. There is considerable uncertainty regarding what the placeholder may have represented…
“For (gar – because) many (polys) will come (erchomai) in (en – [from Papyrus 70]) my (mou) name (onoma – reputation), saying (lego – claiming), ‘I (ego) represent (eimi – am, exist for, belong to, and I stand for) the (o) Christos (ΧΣ – a placeholder could have been used to convey Chestus or Christos in Greek or Mashyach in 222Hebrew). And so (kai) many (polys) they will mislead (planaomai – they deceive and delude, causing to go astray).’” (Matthew 24:5)
I would count the billions of Christians who have been led away from Yahowah and His Towrah, who have been deceived and deluded by Paul’s Gospel, as “many.” In fact, it would be impossible to identify another individual who has misled more people than Paul.
“Then (tote) if (ean) someone (tis) might say (eipon – may speak) to you (umeis), ‘Behold (idou – indeed, suddenly now, look, and pay special attention, emphasizing that), here in this place (hode), the Messiah / Christ (o ΧΣ – this placeholder could have been used to convey Chestus, Christos, or Mashyach),’ or (e), ‘In this case, over there (hode),’ you should not think that this is trustworthy or reliable (me pisteuo)” (Matthew 24:23)
Paul claimed to have seen his Christos on the road to Damascus, and then again in Arabia. And he is the only one to have made such a claim within the lifetimes of those in this audience. Therefore, the sandal still fits Paul and him alone.
“Because (gar) those pretending to be useful implements Doing the Work (pseudochrestui) and (kai) false prophets (pseudoprophetai) will arise and take a stand (egeiromai – arousing and stirring the comatose), and (kai) they will give (didomi – they will claim the authority to provide, offer or bestow) many great (megas – significant and surprising, important and astonishing) signs (semeion) and (kai) wonders (teras – miraculous and portentous events) in order to (hoste – therefore as a result to) momentarily deceive and mislead (planao – in a moment in time attempt to delude, temporarily wandering away from the truth so lead astray (aorist active)), if possible (ei dynatos – if able), even (kai) those who choose to be called out (tous eklektos – those who select 223and are selected because of the word, from ek, out of, and legos, the Word).’” (Matthew 24:24)
This is obviously predictive of when Paulos took his stand against God and rose up before those who would have known Dowd as the Messiah in Yaruwshalaim. Sha’uwl even tried to impress them by bragging about the “signs and wonders” he had performed using the exact same phrasing they had warned about. Therefore, should this narrative be accurate, they should have remembered this conversation and responded appropriately. And so should we. Paul continues to fail every test.
Should this have been the Messiah Dowd addressing contemporaries, he was even more specific regarding Paul, tailoring his prophetic prediction to reflect the wannabe Apostle’s boast that he would meet with him in Arabia...
“Pay close attention (idou – indeed look, being especially observant, encouraging the listener to focus upon this subject), I’ve told you this beforehand, forewarning you (proeipon umin – I have spoken to you about this previously, predicting in advance that it will actively and actually occur in your future (perfect active indicative)). (24:25) Then when, therefore (ean oun – indeed when the condition is met and surely), someone says to you (eiposin umin), ‘Look, suddenly (idou – calling everyone’s attention to emphasize a narrative), in the wilderness (en te eremo – in a deserted, remote, and uninhabited place in the desert) it is currently present (estin – it is presently, actively, and actually (present tense, active voice, indicative mood in the third person, singular and thus “it exists,” and not “I exist”)),’ you should not leave (me exerchomai – you ought not go forth). Indeed, you (idou – emphasizing this to you) in the (en tois) inner room (tameion – the reserved and secure chamber of a household and storehouse where [the Spirit] will be distributed) should not consider this to be truthful (me pisteuo – you should not think that this is reliable).” 224(Matthew 24:25-26)
Juxtapose this with Paul’s claim to have encountered Iesou Christo on the road to Damascus, and then to meeting with him in Arabia, and we discover, once again, Paul is not only a perfect fit for this warning, he is the only candidate who made these claims within the lifetimes of this audience. So, either Dowd, now represented by Gospel Jesus, erred in this prophecy, or he was warning us not to trust Sha’uwl’s claims.
You do not need me to tell you that Paul and his traveling companions were the only men who claimed to be “Apostles” in Ephesus during the short time span covered in Revelation…
“I am aware of and recognize (oida) your (sou) works and undertakings (ergon – the things you have responded to and have engaged in), the difficult and exhausting encounters (kai ton kopos – the bothersome troubling burdens encountered), and your (sou) unswerving and enduring perseverance (kai ten hypomone – continual steadfastness and unwavering dependability, fortitude under circumstances where others would succumb) and that (kai oti) you cannot possibly accept, tolerate, support, nor endure (ou dynamai bastazo – you haven’t the will, desire, ability, or state of mind to take up with, walk along side of, lift up, or carry forward, advance, sustain, or promote) that which is incorrect, immoral, injurious, pernicious, destructive, or baneful (kakos – errant, wicked, wrong, evil, harmful, noisome, morally corrupt, diseased, culpable, mischievous, demonic, or hurtful having an ill effect, a bad nature which is not as it ought to be, and a mode of thinking, feeling, or acting which is invalid).
And you have observed, examined, and objectively tested (kai peirazo – you have scrutinized, coming to learn the nature and character of others through inquiry, judging 225them and catching the mistakes of) those who claim and maintain (tous phasko – those who say, affirm, profess, declare, promise, or preach) of themselves (eautous) that they are (eimi) Apostles (apostolos – special messengers who are prepared and sent forth) but are not (kai ouk eisin). And (kai) you have found them (heurisko autos – you have examined and scrutinized them, you have come to understand, discovering and learning through closely observing them, that they are) false, deceitful, and deliberate liars (pseudes – are pretending to be something they are not, they are erroneous deceivers).” (Revelation 2:2)
Frankly, this assessment, and those that follow, are so specific it’s a wonder Paul’s reputation survived them. Especially relevant in this regard is that Ephesus was the only city listed among the seven described in the Revelation letters where Paul and his pals were known to have preached. And it is the only one with a warning against false Apostles. Surely this is not a coincidence.
Further, this indictment was scribed in the present tense and within years of the time Sha’uwl wrote his letter to the Ephesians. Considering the fact that Paul and his traveling companions were the only men who claimed to be Apostles in Ephesus during this short span of time, Sha’uwl was being condemned as an “errant, demonic, deceitful, charlatan.” And it only gets worse from there because John would go on to speak of Paul and Pals as the “Synagogue of Satan.” He said that they were Jezebelian in their advancement of the religion of Ba’al.
We are without excuse. Christians cannot claim that they were not warned about this devil.
But there is even more to this prediction than just a scathing indictment against Paul in the form of praise for not acquiescing to his false teachings. The voice of Revelation would go on to suggest that, while the 226Ephesians rejected the “self-proclaimed Apostle,” they ingested some of his poison:
“Nevertheless, I hold (echo – regard, count, and consider) this against (kata – in opposition to, as something that is depressing about, a downer concerning) you, that you have forsaken (aphiemi – laid aside and sent away, departed from and left, dismissed, divorced, neglected, abandoned, and rejected) your first (protos – foremost, most important, influential, honorable, and desirable) love (agape – familial devotion, benevolence, object of affection, and moral and caring friendship).
Remember (mnemoneuo – be mindful of, think about, make mention of and respond to) therefore the source from whence (pothen – the place, origin, and condition from where and why) you have descended from a higher place to a lower one (ekpipto – fallen and dropped away, become thrust down and lowered, gone from standing upright to prostrate, bowing down and falling under judgment, overcome by the attack of demonic spirits who bring grief, terror, and death).
Change your perspective and attitude and think differently (metanoeo – reconsider and change your mindset) and bring forth the most desirable investments of your time, works and deeds, or else I will suddenly remove your lampstand from its place unless you reconsider, changing your thinking and your attitude (metanoeo).” (Revelation 2:4-5)
The proof that Paul and his associates preached in Ephesus, that they presented a contrarian view, and thus singled themselves out as being the deceitful liars who were falsely claiming to be apostles, is recorded by Luke. And while we considered this evidence previously, when it comes to knowing the truth, a little reinforcement is always a good idea – especially when myths are prevalent, and the consequences are this significant.
227Corrected and amplified modestly from the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear’s presentation, here is the testimony which demonstrates conclusively that Paul and his disciples represented the false apostles of whom Revelation spoke:
“But it became opportune for Apollos to be in Corinth, so Paulos, having gone through the uppermost parts, came down to Ephesus so as to find some disciples. (Acts 19:1)
But he said against and regarding them, ‘If conditionally, the holy spirit you received having trusted the ones but not him, then not the holy spirit there is we heard.’ (Acts 19:2)
He said, ‘But into what then were you immersed?’ And they said, ‘Into Yahowchanan’s immersion.’ (Acts 19:3) But Paulos said, ‘Yahowchanan immersed an immersion to change the minds of the people, saying to those coming after him that they might believe this is in the Iesous.’ (Acts 19:4)
So having heard, they were immersed into the name of the Lord Iesou. (Acts 19:5) And having set on them the hands of Paulou, it came, the spirit of the holy on them. They were speaking but in tongues and were uttering prophecies. All men were as the twelve.” (Acts 19:6-7)
While it is impossible based upon the writing quality to know for certain what actually happened, it appears that Paul was threatened by the information he received from Apollos in Corinth. He knew that his message was vastly different than everyone else’s and he was convinced that one or more of them was treading upon his turf by speaking to these Gentiles. So, he headed south, arriving in Ephesus to find the disciples who had challenged him. When he arrived, rather than meeting with Shim’own / Peter or Yahowchanan / John, Sha’uwl sought to undermine them, 228suggesting that the Spirit they received as a result of responding to Yahowchanan was not the right Spirit – substituting one of his own.
Then this dialogue gets a bit murky because Paul’s next sentence has two hypothetical conditions, three buts, and a negation in the original Greek text. Navigating through them, it appears that Paul was troubled by the idea that the Ephesians had been immersed in Yahowchanan’s message. Paul immediately claimed that Yahowchanan had instituted unauthorized changes. He then questioned the nature of the Spirit they had received. After listening to Paul’s contrarian view, a dozen Ephesians were baptized by Paul, with Paul laying his hands on them. This then imbued these men with an entirely different spirit, one which caused them to blather on in tongues, believing that they were inspired prophets. But whatever they were saying, the twelve were now Sha’uwl’s disciples, just as Gospel Jesus had chosen twelve.
It is telling, however, that Gospel Jesus never immersed or baptized anyone, so there is no need for it and no established way to do it. Therefore, it was absurd to suggest that Yahowchanan’s technique was wrong and Sha’uwl’s was right. Further, baptism is not the means Yahowah or Covenant depicts for participation in God’s Family. There is no mention of it anywhere in the Towrah.
Unfortunately, Paul was just warming up. His hypocrisy was in full bloom as he presented his Euangelion as the alternative to observing Yahowah’s Towrah, which he mislabeled as an onerous set of laws. And while there is no Hebrew word for “obey,” and while Torah does not mean “law,” Sha’uwl routinely demanded that his audience obey him...
“But having gone into the synagogue he was preaching fearlessly for three months, disputing (dialegomai – arguing and contending) and persuading 229(peitho – to coax followers to become disciples and to seduce them to obey) about the kingdom of the god. (Acts 19:8)
But some were being stubborn (sklerynomai – were being hardheaded and obstinate, even offensive and intolerable, refusing to listen) and they were disobedient (apeitheo – they were disobeying, refusing to believe, rejecting faith, being noncompliant, rebellious, and insubordinate), speaking abusively of and maligning (kakologeo – cursing and badmouthing, insulting and denouncing) the way before the crowd.
Having revolted against, forsaken, and alienated them (aphistamai – abandoned, avoiding association with them), he appointed and marked off boundaries, separating (aphorize – he set aside and excluded in an attempt to get rid of) the Disciples (tous mathetes – those who had been taught) through daily disputes (dialegomai – arguments and speeches presenting a different message) in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. (Acts 19:9)
And this took place for two years so that everyone residing in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Judeans and Greeks.” (Acts 19:10) (We are continuing to rely on the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds English Interlinear to recount Paul’s testimony, while augmenting and clarifying it using the most highly regarded lexicons.)
If you recall, Revelation specifically stated that there were some in Ephesus who did not believe the false apostle, a reality which has been resoundingly born out in Paul’s own words. And while the Ephesians were commended for rejecting the liar and his lies, Sha’uwl saw them differently. The very people one commended, the other condemned, calling them “sklerynomai – stubborn, hardheaded, and obstinate, even offensive and intolerable for refusing to listen.” Based upon skleros, Paul viewed those he could not beguile as “hard, harsh, and rough men who were stern, 230intolerant, offensive, and violent.” That’s almost funny considering the source.
Sha’uwl went on say that his rivals were apeitheo, which means that he saw the disciples as being “insubordinate” because they “disobeyed him and rejected his faith.” If that does not get your attention, considering whom he was rebelling against, you may want to check your pulse. One of the most egotistical and presumptuous men to ever purport to speak for God called his rivals, the men Gospel Jesus had chosen, “apeitheo – disobedient,” and that was because they “apeitheo – refused to believe” him when his message differed from the one God had conveyed to them in word and deed.
Paul was laying down the law, his law, to which everyone had to obey or suffer the consequences. There was a new Lord in town.
Contentious to the bitter end, Paul once again bragged of “dialegomai – arguing against and disputing” the disciples because their “thinking was markedly different.” But this time, Paul had given up preaching in synagogues – in the place where there would have been men who actually knew something of the Towrah. Sha’uwl turned instead to the “Tyrannos Schole,” where Tyrannos denotes “the Lord is a Tyrant.” There should be no mistaking that Paul’s Lord was indeed a despot seeking supremacy. And Paul was lecturing on his behalf.
Although I have shared it repeatedly, it is a little-known fact that if Paul’s preaching is reflected in his letters, he never accurately conveyed anything Gospel Jesus said. In just one of his thirteen letters, he made a brief passing attempt, citing a few words spoken about the connection between the fulfillment of Passover and the Covenant, albeit taking his testimony completely out of context while misquoting him to infer that this covenant would be new and different. So rest assured, when Sha’uwl 231claims that everyone in Asia heard him “preach the word of the Lord,” he was preaching Satan’s mantra. Reinforcing this reality, Yahowah consistently refers to the Adversary as “ba’al – lord” because Satan craves supremacy, mastery, control, obedience, subordination, enslavement, and ownership.” Sha’uwl’s predilection for these very same things is revealing.
Albeit in Hebrew, not Greek, and in the Towrah, not New Testament, Yahowah tells us that “dunamis – ability, inherent power, miracles, signs, and wonders” typify braggadocious false prophets. But since Christians do not listen to him in deference to Paul, they typically associate such things with their god. And yet here, Paul is saying that God had nothing to do with them. His supernatural power and his extraordinary mastery and skill were the work of his hands, conceived, fashioned, and brought forth without God’s assistance.
“The ability to perform miraculous miracles and powerful supernatural wonders (dynamis), and not having obtained in association with the god (te ou tas tygchano o theos – having disclaimed an experience with, having disavowed happening upon or meeting with, even having relationship with God), were performed through the hands of (dia ton cheiron – by way of the person, authority, control, and power of) Paulou.” (Acts 19:11)
I realize that this sounds too incriminating to be true, not unlike Paul admitting to being both insane and demon-possessed. I encourage skeptics to verify the meaning of te (likewise and corresponding to, serving as the marker of a relationship), ou (constituting a negation and denial), tas (the definite article in the accusative form), and especially tygchano for yourself. It was negated in this statement by “ou – not in any way” and precedes “tas theos – of God.” Therefore, in this context, it denotes “having disclaimed an experience with God, having disavowed happening upon or meeting with God, and of not having a relationship with 232God.”
And while that is incriminating, by turning to tygchano’s secondary connotation, we find Paul admitting to “not hitting the mark regarding extraordinary and unexpected performances which require uncommon skill.” Therefore, it appears that the very attitude that got Satan expelled from heaven was now afflicting Paulos.
And his legend grew with these fanciful claims...
“Also, upon the weak was to be carried away from the skin of him, handkerchiefs or aprons and to be settled upon them the illnesses and annoying spirits (pneumata ta poneros – worthless, morally corrupt, seriously faulty, toilsome, and wicked spirits) to depart out and leave.” (Acts 19:12)
Paul is claiming that napkins or aprons were placed upon his skin and then carried to those who were sick, and that, as a result, annoying spirits were exorcised from the diseased. This is creepy in the extreme, not unlike today’s charlatans who fleece their flock by pretending to heal the sick during religious spectacles. It is another case of Paul claiming to be divine. But this time, he was also incriminating himself by suggesting that “evil spirits” cause “disease” and must be “exorcised” to heal the “sick.”
The “spirits to depart out” were called “poneros – annoying, burdensome, harassing, troublesome, wicked, corrupt, worthless, faulty, and criminal.” It is the same revolting word Paul associated with “the old system,” which he later identified as the Torah. And here, the Spirit associated with Yahowchanan / John was the one rejected by Sha’uwl / Paul and replaced by another of his choosing during the baptism. Therefore, I suspect that the reason Paul saw the Set-Apart Spirit as “annoying” is that She was opposed to everything he said and did.
When Paul’s own testimony is considered as a legacy 233of Revelation’s denunciation of the apostles of Ephesus, it is Paul alone who is convicted of that charge. His confession was also scribed in his first letter to Timothy.
“Paulos, Apostle of Christou Iesou by mandate, command, and direct order of God, deliverer of us, and Christou Iesou, the hope of us, (1 Timothy 1:1) to Timothy, genuine, lawful, and legitimate child in faith, grace, mercy, peace from god, father, and Christou Iesou, the Lord of us. (1 Timothy 1:2)
In as much as I pleaded with you to remain longer and continue on in Ephesus while I was proceeding to Macedonia in order that you might command certain individuals not to teach a different doctrine...” (1 Timothy 1:3)
As clearly as words allow, Paulos was confessing to the crime committed in Ephesus. Sha’uwl admitted that Ephesus was the primary battleground in his war against more appropriate teaching as it had been conveyed through Yahowchanan / John – their first love. Having fought for years against both, Paul would deploy every resource to keep God’s emissaries at bay.
Seeking to undermine the Towrah with its long genealogies (wherein the beneficiaries of the Covenant are documented), Paul wrote: “...nor give oneself over to myths and fables or endless genealogies with unlimited family lineages, or whatever worthless speculation and aimless arguments they maintain and cling to instead of, alternatively, the administration and oversight of god in the faith or belief system.” (1 Timothy 1:4)
“They were disabled through avoidance, straying and turning away by meaningless conversations, idle and empty talk, senseless and vain words. (1 Timothy 1:6)
Deciding and desirous of being teachers of the 234Towrah, not ever providing or understanding, considering, or comprehending it, neither in what they say nor what they are concerned about and state with such confidence, insisting upon, maintaining, and proclaiming so assuredly. (1 Timothy 1:7)
But we have come to be somewhat aware that the good use of the Towrah is if conditionally someone might deal with it correctly in accordance to the rules. (1 Timothy 1:8)
Having realized this, the Towrah is not in place for the righteous or saved, but for the Towrahless, for the disobedient who are not subject to religious beliefs, for unholy sinners and disobedient outcasts who are mistaken, for those who are accessible and open-minded who kill their own fathers, and for murderers of their own mothers, those slaughtering mankind, (1 Timothy 1:9) for the sexually immoral and perverted, for homosexual pedophiles and sodomites, for slave traders and kidnappers, for liars and perjurers who provide false witness, and also if some other, different, or alternative thing be opposed to the accurate and sound doctrine (1 Timothy 1:10) in accord with the beneficial message of the brilliant and glorious, the blessed and fortunate god which was entrusted to me, myself.” (1 Timothy 1:11)
With this confession, Revelation’s warning regarding the false apostles operating in Ephesus becomes nearly as incriminating as Yahowah’s prophetic revelation in Chabaquwq | Habakkuk.
