Yada Yahowah

Twistianity

Volume Three

Devil’s Advocate

Plague of Death

Craig Winn

About the Author…

Twenty-two years ago, Craig Winn was an entrepreneur. The turbulent story of his last adventure is shared in his first book, In The Company. It is an entertaining read, providing an eyewitness account into the culture of a private and then public company.

After the Islamic suicide bombings of 9.11.01, Craig met with al Qaeda and wrote Tea with Terrorists to explain – Who they are, Why they kill, and What will stop them. His most widely read book, Prophet of Doom – Islam’s Terrorist Dogma in Muhammad’s Own Words has now been updated and substantially expanded, becoming God Damn Religion, after witnessing the sadistic savagery of Muslim terrorists on 10.07.23 in Israel. It reorders the Quran chronologically, setting it into the context of Muhammad’s life using the earliest Hadith, notably Al-Tabari’s Tarikh | History and Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah | Way of Allah’s Messenger. If you want to know why fundamentalist Muslims commit 90% of the world’s most heinous terrorist acts, and if you care about the wellbeing of God’s people, Snake, Satanic, Submission, Slaughter, and Sunnah are instrumental.

In his quest to resolve a puzzling prophetic anomaly, Craig began translating the text of the Dead Sea Scrolls. That endeavor led to the 23 volumes of Introduction to God, Yada Yahowah, Observations, Coming Home, Babel, and 5 books on Twistianity, formerly, Questioning Paul. They were renamed and rewritten to present the Passover Lamb’s true identity and to condemn the abomination known as Replacement Theology.

Throughout, Craig, or Yada as he is known to Yahowah, has been committed to providing amplified translations. They are not only more accurate and complete, they are readily verified. As a result, he has been afforded hundreds of insights into the words Yahowah inspired, many of which are unheralded and profound.

Beyond these 35 books, Craig Winn has been interviewed as an expert on religion, politics, economics, and terrorism on over 5,000 talk radio programs worldwide and has hosted 5,000 more, leaving a vast quantity of archived shows from Shattering Myths to his Yada Yah Towrah Study. He currently produces a live podcast every Friday evening, where he discusses insights gleaned from his translations. Links to the podcast and archives, as well as to the social media sites expounding upon Yada Yahowah are provided at YadaYah.com.

Mr. Winn is not a scholar or theologian, nor is he associated with any religious or political institution. He does not accept donations or receive financial backing from anyone. Everything he has written is shared freely online. All 30 of his published books are offered without royalty.

Over the past twenty years, Craig Winn has devoted his life to exploring Yahowah’s testimony. He enjoys God’s company and is enriched by the experience. If you have an open mind, and a genuine desire to learn, you will find his translations and explanations enlightening.

Craig encourages readers to share his translations and resulting insights with others, albeit with two caveats: 1) You may not use them to promote any religious, political, or conspiratorial agenda. And 2) You may not use them to incite or engage in any violent act. When it comes to exposing and condemning errant and counterproductive ideas, wield words wisely. Also, it is always appropriate to acknowledge the source when citing copyrighted material.

You may contact Craig at YadaYah.com. He enjoys constructive criticism and will engage with readers. But be forewarned: he is immune to religious idiocy and will not respond to threats or taunts. The YadaYah.com site provides links to many helpful resources, as well as to friends and forums.

Twistianity

Devil’s Advocate

…Plague of Death

1

Towrah | Teaching

Guided or Enslaved?…

Having ventured to this point in Christendom’s foundational treatise, its first written record, we have come to the place in Galatians where the author, a wannabe Apostle at war with the world, told his emerging church that they could and should discard the Torah of the god he claimed was inspiring him. After burnishing his ego, burning the competition, and repudiating his audience, Paul opined a clever scheme to bypass the Word of God and replace it with a plot of his own – faith in his Euangelion Charis | Gospel of Grace. This preposterous proposition was, however, incredulous because there weren’t any Gospels at this time, and there wouldn’t be for another three to five decades.

Christians were caught unaware, not only because religious faith sequesters reason, but also because the Roman Catholic Church reshuffled the deck, reordering the cards such that story time begins with the hearsay accounts wrongly attributed to authors writing long after the ink on Paul’s fourteen epistles had dried. In other words, the Gospels were written three to five decades after Galatians was scribed. Then, making Paul’s claim even more dubious, there wasn’t a single accurate citation from his replacement deity, the murdered man-god Iesoun Christon | Jesus Christ anywhere to be found within the Pauline epistles – not a peep. Therefore, the faith of every Christian hangs upon a theory proposed by an irrational and inarticulate man who openly admitted that he was murderous, a sexual deviant, and demon-possessed.

The Euangelion Charis | Gospel of Grace was entirely Paul’s brainchild. And while novel in its inception, it was also unsubstantiated and irrational. Paul’s scheme was based upon a twisted portrayal of ‘Abraham and his participation in the Covenant which bypassed the Towrah. But what makes this so perplexing is that ‘Abraham and his relationship with Yahowah would be unknown if not chronicled in the Towrah Paul was attempting to write out of his story.

It is ridiculous to believe that the one and only place that chronicles the development of the Covenant is irrelevant to it. This is equivalent to saying that believers can do away with the New Testament and still relate to Jesus Christ when he is completely unknown apart from it.

Paul’s deep dive into the rabbit hole of oblivion was even more concerning because he made it impossible for Christians to benefit from the Covenant. Without knowing where ‘Abraham began his journey, what Yahowah said to him, and how he responded, there is no way to understand what God is offering or expects in return. The five conditions and five benefits of the Covenant are conveyed in a dozen chapters of Bare’syth / Genesis – all of which were dismissed by Paul. Without this record, there is nothing left, nothing to know, respond to, or accept.

Paul perpetrated this fraud because he had a different agenda. His intent was to negate the Towrah, to demean Yahowah and His Covenant, to besmirch the people through whom it was offered and conveyed, and then replace them and it with Gentiles and a New Testament. But there is no rational basis for any of this.

The Galatian theory is far more egregious than just championing a fundamental disagreement with God because the Beryth is the only reason man and the universe exist and the Towrah is the only place it is presented for our consideration. Therefore, with this jaundiced proposition, Sha’uwl was attempting to rip out God’s heart and stomp on it for the benefit of his Lord and Master.

So now, before we resume our consideration of Paul’s irrational assault on Yahowah’s Towrah, since most readers may be somewhat unfamiliar with Yahowah’s Teaching, a review of God’s perspective on His Towrah is in order. Please consider the following citations regarding the Towrah, the terms and conditions of its Covenant, and the overall relevance of the words and teaching of our God...

“‘I am (‘any) Yahowah ( – a transliteration of YaHoWaH as instructed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence). This is My name (huw’ shem ‘any).

And (wa) My honorable distinction and respect (kabowd ‘any – My attribution of status, My conspicuous reputation and presence, and My manifestation of power, especially My glorious reward) I will not give (lo’ nathan – I will not ever offer or allow, bestowing) to another (la ‘acher – one who appears later or lingers around) or (wa) My renown and reputation (tahilah ‘any – the adoration I have earned and admiration I deserve) to religious constructs (la ha pasyl – idolatrous notions and objects of worship believed to represent gods).’” (Yasha’yah / Yah Liberates / Isaiah 42:8)

This known, Yasha’yah said the following on behalf of Yahowah, not Jesus …

“Yahowah (Yahowah – the proper pronunciation of YaHoWaH, our ‘elowah – God as directed in His ToWRaH – teaching regarding His HaYaH – existence and our ShaLoWM – restoration) was willing, even desirous (chaphets – He was inclined and pleased), for the sake of (la ma’an) His sense of honesty and fairness, as well as His commitment to doing what is right (tsedeq huw’ – His determination to be correct and acquitting, vindicating and just), to extend His nurturing and empowering, enriching and enabling (gadal – to offer His growth-facilitating and magnifying), Towrah | Teaching and Instruction, Guidance and Direction (Towrah) and to openly display its worth, while proving its glorious intent (wa ‘adar – to demonstrate its high and noble calling and honorable outcome).” (Yasha’yah / Yah Liberates and Saves / Isaiah 42:21)

Our Messiah and Savior wrote the Mashal / Proverbs. In the 4th, he stated…

“Choose to listen (shama’ – hear this message) children (ben – sons) to the correct instruction (muwsar – to the accurate teaching, the correction and warning) of the Father (‘ab). ‘Of your own volition, pay attention, accept as true, and then respond (qashab – listen, process, consider, and consent to this information and reply appropriately), coming to know and acknowledge (yada’ – finding, becoming aware of and familiar with, respecting and revealing) the insights which lead to understanding by making the connections while being discerning (bynah – the means to comprehend through observation and consideration so as to be intelligent and distinguish between right and wrong, fact and fiction). (Mashal / Proverbs 4:1)

This is because (ky – this is important, trustworthy, and reliable), such teaching and learning (laqach – receiving instruction and possessing it to the point of comprehension through persuasive and applicable words) are good, beneficial, and helpful (towb – are proper, prosperous, pleasing, enjoyable, and valuable). For this reason I have given you (la nathan ‘atah – therefore, for this purpose, I have actually provided and bestowed you with the completed gift of) My Towrah (Towrah ‘any – from tow – My signed, written, and enduring, towrah – way of treating people, tuwr – providing the means to explore, seek, find, and choose, yarah – the source from which My instruction, teaching, guidance, and direction flow, which tuwb – offers answers that facilitate restoration and return, a response that is towb – good, pleasing, joyful, beneficial, favorable, and right, and that which enables a loving means to become acceptable and to endure, tahowr – purifying and cleansing towr – so as to provide an opportunity to change your thinking, attitude, and direction).

You should not forsake, neglect, or reject it (‘al ‘azab – without it you will be forsaken, neglected, rejected, abandoned, separated, and left behind).’ (Mashal / Proverb 4:2)

Indeed (ky – this is important, reliable, and true), I am (hayah – I was, I am, and I will be) a son (ben – a child) approaching (la – with and for) my Father (‘ab ‘any), a uniquely sensitive and compassionate child whose words evoke mercy (rak wa yachyd – a very special and compassionate, tender-hearted and coddled son living the good life) in the presence of my Mother (la ‘em ‘any). (Mashal / Proverb 4:3)

And He has continually taught and guided me (wa yarah ‘any – He has been and will continue to be the source of My instruction, support, and direction, showing me the way). And He said to Me (‘amar la ‘any – He told Me), ‘Choose to grasp hold of (tamak – seize upon, receive and accept) My Words (dabar ‘any – My message) upon Your heart to enhance your judgment (leb ‘atah – as a means to make good decisions and influence your inclinations). Choose to closely examine and carefully consider (shamar – of your own freewill observe, focus upon, thoughtfully contemplate, and thoroughly evaluate) the instructive terms and conditions of My relationship agreement (mitswah ‘any – the directions and instructions regarding My covenant contract) and live (wa chayah – be restored to life, embracing the source of continuous and sustained growth, which is healthy, beneficial, and abundant, accepting the promise of renewal and restoration).’” (Mashal / Word Pictures / Proverb 4:4)

Dowd | David is both the author of this Mashal and the Son, making him the Son of God, so we can rely upon his advice. He attained this honor by listening to his Father and doing as God instructed. By gleaning insights from Yahowah’s Towrah, Dowd came to understand the terms and conditions of the Covenant and embodied them.

If this approach was good enough for Dowd, it is good enough for you and me. After all, he is Yahowah’s Beloved, our Messiah and King.

God’s Shepherd would also write…

“For indeed (ky), the instructive conditions of the relationship (mitswah – the terms of the covenant) are a lamp (ner) and (wa) the Towrah (Towrah – the written and enduring source of instruction, teaching, guidance, and direction) is a Light, illuminating (‘owr) the Way (derek – the Path) of Life (chay – the source of continuous and sustained existence, abundant growth, of revival, renewal, and restoration, the promise of the most favorable of circumstances, prosperity, and blessings).” (Mashal / Word Pictures / Proverb 6:23)

Our Savior’s Father offered this advice to His Firstborn…

“My son (beny – My child), choose to observe (shamar – elect to focus upon, carefully examine, diligently consider, and thoughtfully evaluate, agree to pay close attention to and genuinely care about (qal imperative indicating that an actual relationship will be established between Father and son should the child choose of their own volition to pay attention to this exhortation to revere and regard)) My Words (‘emer – My answers, explanations, and promises). And (wa) My Terms and Conditions (mitswah – My authorized directions and binding instructions regarding My covenant contract), you should habitually treasure and store (tsaphan – you should value and keep (qal imperfect affirming the relationship between us and Yah’s terms and conditions ought to be genuine because by properly valuing them, their influence will be ongoing, producing everlasting results)) with you (‘eth).

Choose to keep focused upon, closely examining and carefully considering (shamar – elect to actually observe, pay close attention to, and genuinely care about (qal imperative)) My instructive conditions (mitswah ‘any – My authorized terms and binding directions regarding the relationship agreement) and (wa) live (chayah – be restored and renewed, be nourished and grow (qal imperative – affirming that our decision to observe the terms is equivalent to choosing to be restored to life and living forever)).

My Towrah | Teaching (Towrah ‘any – My Towrah Instruction, Guidance, and Direction: from tow – My signed, written, and enduring, towrah – way of treating people, tuwr – providing the means to explore, seek, find, and choose, yarah – the source from which My instruction, teaching, guidance, and direction flow, which tuwb – provides answers which facilitate restoration and return by replying to that which is towb – good, pleasing, joyful, beneficial, favorable, and right, and that which enables loving acceptance tahowr – purifying and cleansing, towr – so as to provide an opportunity to change one’s thinking, attitude, and direction) should be as (ka – should be considered as and akin to) the pupil, the center, and the focus (‘iyshown – the extant essence and individual nature) of your eyes for understanding (‘ayin – your sight and perceptions, your perspective and thoughts).” (Mashal / Word Pictures / Proverbs 7:1-2)

The Messiah proclaimed something which impugns Paul’s tactics…

“The wicked (rasa’ – the guilty and condemned who deserved to be punished, those in violation of the standard) arrogantly boast and make fools of themselves (chalal – they are flashy, and while pretending to be bright and enlightened they display an improper attitude of haughtiness, glorifying themselves, praising themselves they mock and slander) by abandoning and rejecting (‘azab – by forsaking and separating from, by neglecting and disassociating from, by departing from and ignoring) the Towrah (Towrah – the signed, written, and enduring means to search for, find, and choose the instruction, teaching, guidance, and direction which provides answers which facilitate our restoration and return that are good, pleasing, joyful, beneficial, favorable, and right, purifying and cleansing, providing the opportunity and means to change our thinking, attitude, and direction to the way which is more fortuitous and beneficial).

And (wa) those who observe, focusing upon (shamar – those who closely examine and carefully consider) the Towrah (Towrah – Instruction, Teaching, Guidance, and Direction), they take the initiative to oppose and resist them (garah ba – they are overtly hostile to them and they provoke them, they actively engage against them and irritate them by not conforming to their pressure or power).

Evil (ra’ – wicked and violent, mischievous and malignant, wrong-minded and corrupt) individuals (‘ysh – men) do not (lo’) understand (byn – make the connections to comprehend, consider, perceive, instruct, or thoughtfully implement) the means to exercise good judgment (mishpat – the proper way to resolve disputes, to be discriminating, to be fair, to obtain justice, and to make sound decisions).

But (wa) those who diligently seek (baqas – those whose search and investigation allows them to procure the information necessary to learn about) Yahowah ( – the pronunciation of YaHoWaH as guided by His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence) consider and understand (byn – apprehend, perceive, and realize) everything (kol).” (Mashal / Word Pictures / Proverb 28:4-5)

The Son of God announced something else which scuttles Christianity…

“The one who turns away his ear from hearing (suwr ‘ozen min shama’ – the one who avoids listening to) the Towrah (Towrah – the source of instruction and direction, guidance and teaching), his prayers and requests (taphilah – his pleas and petitions for intervention) as a result (gam) will be considered detestable (tow’ebah – will be seen as a disgusting abomination).

The one who misleads (sagah – the one who deceives and leads astray) the upright (yashar – the straightforward) in the way (ba derek) of error (ra’ – in that which is harmful, malignant, and adversarial, severing the relationship), into the pit (ba shachuwth – the place where one is brought down, prostrating themselves in worship before false gods and reduced to despair) he will fall and be cast down (huw’ naphal – he will descend from a higher position to a lower one, wasting away).

However, the innocent (tamym – those who have been perfected, who are genuine and unblemished) will enjoy a good, generous, and beneficial inheritance (towb nachal – will inherit and acquire that which is agreeable, moral, joyous, and valuable).” (Mashal / Word Pictures / Proverb 28:9-10)

Yahowah’s Beloved exclaimed…

“Without revelation (ba lo’ chazown – with no communication from God, without prophecy; from chazah – without seeing and perceiving, without understanding) people (‘am) take charge and run wild (para’ – they are ignorant and they take their own initiative, behaving like an unrestrained mob). But (wa) he is happy and blessed by walking upright on the correct path (‘esher / ‘ashur – he finds good fortune and experiences great joy along the restrictive but valid, straight way to stand safe and secure), whoever observes and focuses upon (shamar – who closely examines and carefully considers) the Towrah (Towrah – source of Teaching, Instruction, Direction, and Guidance).” (Mashal / Word Pictures / Proverb 29:18)

The one who is returning with Yahowah as King of Kings revealed in his first Song that it would be best to disavow the likes of Paul…

“Blessed and happy is (‘asry – by walking the straight path the enjoyment of a favorable outcome awaits) the individual (ha ‘iysh) who (‘asher) does not walk (lo’ halak) in (ba) the plans and schemes (‘esah – the strategy, advice, and counsel) of the wicked who pervert and corrupt the standard (rasa’ – of those who are misleading and unrighteous). And in (wa ba) the way (derek – path) of those who are misleading (chata’ – of the offensive who have missed the way), he does not stand (lo’ ‘amad – he does not appear and is not even present).

In the assembly (wa ba mowshab – in the dwelling places and settlements, the communities and households) of those who arrogantly mock (lys – of those who boast and interpret while showing no respect), he does not stay (lo’ yasab – dwell, live, settle down, sit, or remain).

To the contrary (‘im), instead (ky), in (ba) the Towrah of Yahowah ( ) – the Teaching, Instruction, Guidance, and Direction of Yahowah), he finds enjoyment and pleasure (chephets – he prefers, refers, and desires).

And regarding (wa ba) the Towrah (Towrah – teaching, instruction, guidance, and direction), he speaks thoughtfully and purposefully (hagah – he reviews the material, meditates upon the information, considers its implications, and then makes the decision to roar, declaring these conclusions forcefully, emotionally, and powerfully (qal imperfect – telling us that these informed declarations on behalf of Yah’s Instructions are genuine and ongoing)) during the day (yowmam – in the heat of the day) and at night (wa laylah – in the darkness and shadows).” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 1:1-2)

Since those are the first recorded words of the Firstborn of God, our Shepherd and Messiah, our Savior and King, it would be wise to toss the entirety of Paul’s new testament in the trash and focus entirely on the word of God as presented in the Towrah, Naby’, wa Mizmowr.

The man Yahowah hailed as tsadaq | right, wrote…

“Yahowah’s ( – a transliteration of YaHoWaH as instructed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence) Towrah (Towrah – Source of Teaching and Instruction and the Place from which Direction and Guidance Flow) is wholly complete and entirely perfect (tamym – without defect, lacking nothing, totally correct, genuine, right, helpful, healing, beneficial, and true), returning, restoring, and transforming (shuwb – turning around, bringing back, changing, and renewing) the soul (nepesh – our consciousness).

Yahowah’s (Yahowah – written as directed by His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence) eternal testimony (‘eduwth – enduring witness) is trustworthy and reliable (‘aman – is instructive, informative, verifiable, confirming, and supportive), making understanding and obtaining wisdom (chakam – making education, learning, and enlightenment to the point of comprehension) easy for those who are receptive (pethy – simple for the open-minded).

Yahowah’s (Yahowah – a transliteration of , our ‘elowah – God as directed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence) directions (piquwdym – instructions and prescriptions, precepts and guidance; from paqad – that which we should pay especially close attention to, care about, look at, and examine so that we respond appropriately) are right (yashar – are straight (and thus neither crooked nor circuitous) and upright (and thus are disassociated from bowing down), they are approved, esteemed, correct, proper, and pleasing), causing the heart to rejoice (leb samah – facilitating an attitude of elation).

Yahowah’s (YaHoWaH – an accurate presentation of the name of ‘elowah – God as guided by His towrah – instructions regarding His hayah – existence) terms and conditions (mitswah – authorized instructions regarding the requirements of His covenant contract) are enlightening and purifying (bar – paving the way to inheritance, to clarification, and to comprehension), shining a light toward understanding (‘owr ‘ayn – illuminating the proper perspective, shedding a brilliant light on the path to enlightenment).

Revering and respecting (yir’ah) Yahowah (Yahowah – the proper pronunciation of YaHoWaH, our ‘elowah – God as directed in His ToWRaH – teaching regarding His HaYaH existence and our ShaLoWM – restoration) is cleansing and restoring (tahowr – purifying and perfecting), sustaining and establishing (‘amad – causing one to be established, standing upright) forever (‘ad).

The just means to resolve disputes of (mishpat – the means used to achieve justice and exercise good judgment of) Yahowah ( – the pronunciation of YaHoWaH as guided by His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence) are trustworthy and reliable (‘emeth – are enduring, dependable, honest, and true).

They are wholly (yahdaw – all together and completely) vindicating (tsadaq – justifying, causing the recipient to be righteous and innocent).” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:7-9)

While this pronouncement is a fait accompli for Paul’s pathetic proposition, there is more. This is from the last of the prophets…

“Remember (zakar – choose to recall and proclaim (qal imperative)) the Towrah | Teaching and Guidance (Towrah – the Instructions and Directions) of Moseh (Mosheh – One who Draws Out), My servant (‘ebed ‘any – coworker and associate), who revealed the benefits of the relationship (‘asher).

I instructed and directed him (tsawah ‘eth huw’ – I appointed him and placed him in charge, commissioning him) in Choreb (ba Choreb – upon the knife’s edge for cutting and separating, with the sharp engraving tool for writing) with the clearly communicated written prescriptions on how to live and be allocated a share of the relationship (choq) and the means to execute good judgment, especially regarding the resolution of disputes (wa mishpat) on behalf of all (‘al kol) Yisra’el (Yisra’el – individuals who engage and endure with God).” (Mal’aky / My Messenger / Malachi 4:4)

Yahowah is making a list and checking it twice to see who is Towrah-observant…

“And (wa – then) Yahowah (YaHoWaH) said (‘amar – He expressed Himself) to (‘el) Moseh (Mosheh – One Who Draws Out), ‘Look at Me (hineh ‘any – pay attention to Me and behold), I will send down (matar – I will provide so as to rain down (hifil participle – God will cause the nourishment to descend in a demonstrable way)), to you (la ‘atem – for you) nourishment (lechem – food, and particularly bread; from lacham – to prevail and overcome by consuming) from the heavens (min ha shamaym – out of the spiritual realm).

And the people (wa ha ‘am – kin, related individuals, and family) should go out (yatsa’ – should extend themselves, coming out (qal perfect – should actually be brought out at this time)) and gather up (wa laqat – and glean by picking up and collecting, bringing together the harvest of (qal perfect)) the word (dabar – the message and account, the declaration and statement) of the day (yowm) at this time (ba yowm huw’ – in this moment) such that (la ma’an – so that and for the express purpose and intent that) I may test their ongoing motivation to determine if they choose (nasah huw’ ha – I can ascertain and determine the true nature of their desires and inclinations over time to assess whether they want (piel imperfect energic nun jussive – God is continually and emphatically testing our decision-making as we make choices which indicate our intent)) to walk (halak – to travel, going through life (qal imperfect – actually and consistently going about)) in My Towrah | Teaching and Guidance (ba Towrah ‘any – with My Directions and Instructions; from yarah – to provide a source from which guidance, directions, teaching, and instructions flow) or not (‘im lo’ – or to the contrary, without).” (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 16:4)

Also from the Towrah, this was directed at Moseh…

“So now then (‘atah), listen to (shama’ – hear (qal imperative – actually choose to pay attention)) that which is associated with my voice (ba qowl ‘any). I have determined a plan for you (ya’ats ‘atah – I have decided upon a course of action for you and I am providing this advice (qal imperfect)) such that (wa) God (‘elohym) will choose to continue to be with you (hayah ‘im ‘atah – in a continued association with, near, and alongside you (qal imperfect jussive – will want to actually and continually exist with you)).

You can consistently be yourself in your approach to the people (hayah ‘atah la ‘am – you can be you toward the family (qal imperative)) before (muwl – in front of) the Almighty (ha ‘elohym). Then you can come and go bringing (wa bow’ – so you can be included in bearing (hifil perfect)) the messages and accounts (ha dabarym – the words) of the Almighty (‘el ‘elohym) with you (‘atah ‘eth). (Shemowth 18:19)

And you can warn them about ensuing consequences (zahar ‘eth hem – you can caution and admonish them, teaching and influencing them at that moment (hifil perfect)) with the clearly communicated and engraved prescriptions of what one should do in life to be cut into the relationship (‘eth ha choq – through the inscribed means to be prepared to be offered a share of what has been apportioned) along with (wa ‘eth) the Towrah | Teaching and Guidance (ha Towrah – the Instruction and Directions) so that they know and understand (wa yada’ – and they will appreciate and acknowledge, be aware of and comprehend (hifil perfect)) the way forward for them (la hem ‘eth ha derek – the path for them with regard to the direction) to walk (halak – to travel through life (qal imperfect)) within it (ba hy’).

And they will choose to act upon and engage in (wa ‘asah – then they will be highly energetic and do (qal imperfect paragogic nun jussive)) that which, for the benefit of the relationship (‘asher), they should expend their energy and work upon (‘eth ha ma’aseh – they should accomplish and occupy themselves).” (Shemowth/ Names / Exodus 18:20)

The following excerpt is from the conclusion of the concluding book of the Towrah. Here we find affirmation that the Word and the Towrah are synonymous and that both can be found in proximity to the Ark of the Covenant.

“And (wa) it came to exist (hayah – it came to pass (qal imperfect)) just as (ka – consistent with when) Moseh (Mosheh – the One who Draws Out) completely finished (kalah – concluded (piel infinitive)) writing (la kathab – inscribing using a written alphabet to more permanently communicate, engraving and inscribing (qal infinitive)) the words (‘eth dabarym – the statements and accounts) of this Towrah (ha Towrah ha zo’th – of the one and only Towrah Instruction and Teaching, Guidance and Direction) upon a written scroll (‘al sepher) such that the eternal and restoring witness was perfect and complete (‘ad tamam hem), (Dabarym / Words 31:24) then (wa) Moseh (Mosheh) instructed (tsawah – directed and appointed) the Lowy (‘eth ha Lowym – those who join together and unite, transliterated: Levites; from lawah – to unite and abide) who lifted up and carried (nasa’ – who raised and bore) Yahowah’s (Yahowah – the proper pronunciation of YaHoWaH, our ‘elowah – God as directed in His ToWRaH – teaching regarding His HaYaH – existence and our ShaLoWM – restoration) Ark (‘arown – chest of enlightenment, choice, and gathering together) of the Covenant (Beryth – of the Family-Oriented Relationship Agreement), by saying (la ‘amar – by asking and announcing), (Dabarym / Words 31:25)

‘Accept and grasp hold of (laqach – obtain and receive (qal infinitive)) the written scroll (‘eth sepher – the written letter and inscribed document designed to recount, relate, rehearse, and declare) of this, the Towrah (ha Towrah ha zeh – of this Teaching and Guidance), and place it (wa sym ‘eth huw’ – and put it) alongside (min sad – near and beside) Yahowah’s ( – a transliteration of YaHoWaH as instructed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), your God’s (‘elohym ‘atem), Ark (‘arown – chest of enlightenment, choice, and gathering together) of the Covenant (Beryth – of the Family-Oriented Relationship Agreement).

And it will always exist (wa hayah – it was, is, and actually will be (qal perfect)) there (sham) with you (ba ‘atah) as an eternal witness of the restoring testimony (‘ed / ‘ad – as enduring evidence).’” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 31:26)

By listening to Yahowah, Moseh was equipped to convey what we need to know to live forever in the Promised Land. And while that is sufficient to justify our sojourn back in time to Choreb, by gathering around Yah’s liberator, Moseh, with hands cupping our ears so that we do not miss a word, there is something more to what he had to say than anyone was aware of at the time. Speaking to the Children of Yisra’el circa 1447 BCE during the Yatsa’ | Withdrawal from the troubling oppression of religious and political control and influence, the great prophet was addressing us – you and me – here and now…

“So now at this time (wa ‘atah – here, now, and henceforth, straightaway without delay), Yisra’el | Individuals Striving to Engage and Endure with God (Yisra’el), choose to listen (shama’ – of your own volition, decide to hear, receive the message, and seek to comprehend (qal imperative – desire to literally and genuinely listen as an expression of volition in the second person)) to the clearly communicated and inscribed prescriptions for living (‘el ha choq – to the thoughtful requirements which have been appointed and engraved to cut you into the relationship, to that which has been etched into stone and delineated to allocate a share of what has been allotted for those with the resolve to act upon what has been prescribed; from chaqaq – to cut out, inscribe, engrave, mark out, and portray something whereby the proper response is required to receive a share of the allotment), and to the means to execute good judgment to correctly resolve disputes (wa ‘el ha mishpat – to the means to make the right decision about what is good and bad, right and wrong, and so that you can correctly assess what is true and false, deciding upon that which is beneficial and avoiding that which is counterproductive; from my – to contemplate the implications of shaphat – making good decisions by being judgmental, discerning, and discriminating) which, to provide the correct path to the relationship (‘asher), I am teaching and instructing you (‘anoky lamad ‘eth ‘atem – I have learned to the extent that I can impart the information and provide valuable training for you so that you can respond intelligently (piel participle – so that you can vividly demonstrate that you are learned)) for the express purpose that you will be able to act upon them and engage based upon them (la ‘asah la ma’an – so that you can do them, profiting from them and capitalizing upon the effort you make regarding them) to live (chayah – to be restored, revived, and thrive, living forever and flourishing (qal imperfect jussive)).

And then (wa – as a result), you can return and enter, being included within (bow’ – you can at this moment come to and abide within (qal perfect)), even inherit (wa yarash – and come to possess as an heir), that which is associated with the Land (‘ets ha ‘erets) which, as a benefit of the relationship (‘asher), Yahowah ( – the pronunciation of YaHoWaH), the God of your fathers (‘elohym ‘ab ‘atem), is giving to you (nathan la ‘atem – is offering to you and bestowing for you).” (Dabarym 4:1)

That is Yahowah’s message, and it is all that matters in this regard. The religious cannot augment it, alter it, or abate it – no matter how shrill their voices are otherwise. The New Testament is as errant as the Talmud…

“You should not ever add to (lo’ yasaph ‘al – you should not increase by joining something else unto) the Word (ha dabar – the statements and message) which, to reveal the benefits of the relationship (‘asher – which, to show the correct way to walk to get the most out of life), I am instructing you (‘anky tsawah ‘eth ‘atem – I have told you about by providing directions to you, having appointed and constituted as signs for you by establishing and prescribing the binding terms and instructive conditions of the authorized agreement, thereby enjoining and defining the decreed contract). Further, you should never subtract (wa lo’ gara’ – also never reduce, decrease, remove, withhold, or diminish) from it (min huw’).

This is so that you can closely examine and carefully consider (la shamar – approaching by observing and contemplating) the instructive conditions of the authorized agreement (‘eth mitswah – the directions to the appointed pact which was constituted with the prescribed terms of the mutually binding covenant, thereby enjoining and defining the contract presented upon this signed arrangement; from my – to consider the who, what, why of tsawah – the instructions and directions of the terms and conditions of the agreement which has been established) of Yahowah (Yahowah – God’s name transliterated as guided by His towrah – instructions on His hayah – existence), your God (‘elohym ‘atem), which leads along the proper path to get the most out of life that (‘asher – which reveal the benefits of the relationship that) I have told you about by providing directions to you, having appointed and constituted these signs for you, by establishing the prescribed terms and instructive conditions of the authorized agreement (‘anky tsawah ‘eth ‘atem – I am instructing you, thereby enjoining and defining the decreed contract).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 4:2)

Through His prophet, Moseh, Yahowah has given us everything we need to know to live forever. His Word is sufficient to instruct and direct us – then, now, and forevermore. We are advised to observe it – but never change or annul it as Paul has done – but so have the rabbis.

By way of example, of the roughly 33,000 words spoken in Modern Hebrew, fewer than 8,000 were derived from the Towrah, while over 20,000 came from the Talmud – clearly demonstrating the people’s preference. Most of the remaining 5,000 are from English due to it being the most common language spoken by Jews and the leader in technological advances, for which there were no Hebrew terms available. As a result, Modern Hebrew is so sullied by the religious pretense of the Talmud that it is no longer the most appropriate language to convey Yahowah’s intent throughout the Towrah.

What they have also missed is that their HaShem, the competitive Jesus Christ, and Lord God represent the same myth Yahowah has dealt with previously…

“Your eyes have seen (‘ayn ‘atem ha ra’ah – you have witnessed and are able to perceive (qal participle)) that which, for the benefit of the relationship (‘eth ‘asher), Yahowah (YaHoWaH) did (‘asah – accomplished and caused, performed and accomplished (qal perfect)) with Ba’al Pa’owr | the Lord of Enlightenment and the Popular Way (ba Ba’al Pa’owr – with the false god of the Moabites, Phoenicians, Canaanites, and Babylonians who is open to everyone and appears as light; from ba’al – lord and master, one who owns, possesses, and controls, pa’ar – the wide open and broad way of those who talk too much and for those who yawn, and ‘owr – light).

Indeed (ky – emphasizing this point), all of the men (kol ha ‘iysh – every individual) who followed after (‘asher halak ‘achar – who formed a relationship with and conducted their life in accordance with another) Ba’al Pa’owr | the Lord of Light and the Open Way (Ba’al Pa’owr – the false god of the Moabites, Phoenicians, Canaanites, and Babylonians; from ba’al – lord and master, one who owns, possesses, and controls, pa’ar – wide open and broad way of those who talk too much and for those who yawn, and ‘owr – light), Yahowah, your God (YaHoWaH ‘elohym ‘atem), exterminated (shamad huw’ – destroyed and annihilated him (hifil perfect)) from among you (min qereb ‘atem).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 4:3)

Often missed in this declaration is the meaning of Ba’al Pa’owr: the Lord of Enlightenment who Controls the Broad and Open Way. The ba’al | lord is not God, but is, instead, Satan. He wants to “ba’al – control, possess, own, and lord over” humankind while Yahowah wants to liberate and guide His people.

Ba’al | the Lord’s path, while away from Yahowah, is nevertheless perceived to be “‘owr – enlightening.” The religious, who preside over the “pa’owr – popular, broad, and open ways,” a.k.a., religion, even present the Adversary as “Light.” It is how Sha’uwl | Paul, the founder of the Christian religion, reported seeing him on the road to Damascus. Whether it is the popularity of the perceived enlightenment of the Progressives, Socialists, and Communists or the even greater popularity of the many inviting ways of the religious, they are all paths to extinction.

The way to Yahowah is just the opposite. It is restrictive, not broad, and it remains unpopular – with as few as one in a million finding it. Rather than being commonly known and widely traveled, it is set apart and distinct from the ways of man. And for all but the most recent 20 years out of the past 2,500, not a single, solitary soul walked along the path of the Miqra’ey | Invitations to be Called Out and Meet to the Beryth | Family Covenant of Yahowah.

As a result of man constantly moving away from God through religion and politics, all of those who chose to put their faith in the Lord have had their souls extinguished. You may want to keep that in mind if your religion pays homage to the Lord, ‘Adony, HaShem, G-d, Allah, or Jesus Christ. Turns out, God is not all-loving, accepting, or tolerant.

Instead, Yahowah’s approach is compassionate and loving. It is not unlike segregating those infected with a deadly plague from the rest of the community or isolating and incarcerating rapists, pedophiles, terrorists, and thieves. Those who were sent away were going to succumb to the disease anyway, but at least this way, there would be no cross-contamination or undue injury.

“And (wa) you (‘atem), the ones who stayed in touch, remaining close and steadfast (dabeq – who sought to be part of the relationship, staying together while engaging to continue in association) with (ba) Yahowah (YaHoWaH – an accurate presentation of the name of ‘elowah – God as guided by His towrah – instructions regarding His hayah – existence), your God (‘elohym ‘atem), you are all alive today (chayym kol ‘atem ha yowm – every one of you will be restored, continuing to exist, living at this time).” (Dabarym / Deuteronomy 4:4)

This is wonderful advice…

“You should choose to look and literally see (ra’ah – of your own volition, be observant and perceptive, and of your own freewill actually consider what you have literally been shown (qal imperative)).

I have learned and now teach (lamad – I gained the information that I am imparting, accepting what I am conveying, a student who became an instructor (piel perfect – in this moment in time I am teaching the one willing to listen)) you (‘eth ‘atem) the clearly communicated and inscribed prescriptions for living (choq – the thoughtful requirements which have been appointed and engraved to cut you into the relationship, that which has been etched into stone and delineated to allocate a share of what has been allotted for those with the resolve to act upon that which has been prescribed; from chaqaq – to cut out, inscribe, engrave, mark out, and portray something whereby the proper response is required to receive a share of the allotment), along with the means to execute good judgment and correctly resolve disputes (wa mishpat – the way to make the right decision about what is good and bad, right and wrong so that you can correctly assess what is true and false, deciding upon that which is beneficial while avoiding that which is counterproductive; from my – to contemplate the implications of shaphat – making good decisions by being judgmental, discerning, and discriminating) for the express benefit and in a consistent manner as (ka ‘asher – in the same way to reveal the path to walk to get the most out of life) Yahowah (Yahowah – the proper pronunciation of YaHoWaH, our ‘elowah – God as directed in His ToWRaH – teaching regarding His HaYaH – existence and our ShaLoWM – restoration), my God (‘elohym ‘any), instructed me (tsawah ‘any – taught me by providing directions, having appointed and constituted as signs to establish the binding terms and instructive conditions of the authorized agreement, thereby enjoining and defining the decreed contract (piel perfect)) so that you will be able act accordingly and engage appropriately (la ‘asah ken – you could do thusly, thereby capitalizing and profiting) in the approach (ba qarab – when you are present within) to the realm (ha ‘erets – the Land, serving as a metaphor for God’s Home) which, as a benefit of the relationship (‘asher), you will be returning to and entering (‘atem bow’ – you will be coming to, arriving at, and included within (qal participle)) there along with the name (sham / shem – here and now with this reputation and renown) to inherit it (la yarash hy’ – to gain possession as an heir based upon an ancestral agreement).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 4:5)

We should all carefully examine and thoughtfully consider what Moseh wrote while inspired by Yahowah. It is yet another reminder that the Towrah was written, not oral, and that it improves and prolongs our lives. Yahowah is inviting us Home, summoning us to return. He wants us to inherit the universe.

It is as if we were there, standing before Moseh, listening to the most important speech ever articulated to humankind…

“So then (wa), you can be observant (shamar – you can closely examine and carefully consider, being focused, vigilant, and circumspect (qal perfect)) and engage (wa ‘asah – and act accordingly, expending the energy and effort to capitalize (qal perfect)), because indeed (ky – then), this will provide you with the capacity and expertise to comprehend (hy’ chakmah ‘atem – this will afford you with the skill and technical ability to process the information sensibly and the acumen to do so wisely, being properly instructed and therefore prepared to teach), thereby preparing you to understand (wa binah ‘atem – to make the connections between the things you observe, come to know, and learn to appreciate and recognize the truth through the faculty of intelligent design and being discriminating, discerning, perceptive, judgmental, and insightful; from byn – to be discerning and perceptive, sufficiently intelligent to distinguish between things, making the proper connections to determine the merit of what is being evaluated, leading to understanding) in the eyes of the people (ba ‘ayn ha ‘am – from the perspective of the family) who (‘asher – who, to benefit from this relationship and to walk along the path to get the most out of life) listen to (shama’ – consistently hear (qal imperfect)) all of these clearly communicated and inscribed prescriptions for living (kol ha choq ha ‘el leh – each thoughtful requirement which has been appointed and engraved to cut you into the relationship, and all of that which has been etched into stone and delineated to allocate a share of what has been allotted for those with the resolve to act upon that which has been prescribed; from chaqaq – to cut out, inscribe, engrave, mark out, and portray something whereby the proper response is required to receive a share of the allotment).”

This is just beginning to occur as foretold 3,500 years ago…

“Then (wa), they will confess (‘amar – they will say, acknowledging at that moment (qal perfect)), ‘Unlike any other (raq – uniquely, distinctly, exceptionally, and exclusively), this family (‘am – these people and this community) is knowledgeable and wise (chakam – have shown the capacity to comprehend and possess the skill and acumen to learn when properly instructed), and what’s more (wa), this gentile (ha gowy – this individual from a different ethnicity and place or nation) has demonstrated the ability to make the connections necessary to understand so as to convey meaning (byn – he has come to realize and comprehend the information by being diligent and perceptive, deducing insights after receiving and processing the information judgmentally so as to share it and teach it (nifal participle masculine singular absolute – this one man, the gowy, actively and demonstrably comes to understand so that he can impart understanding)) to many, doing so loudly and intensely through amplification (ha gadowl – contributing something valuable and important with a great many words on behalf of numerous people; from gadal – to grow and do great things, being magnified and amplified) for them (ha zeh).’” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 4:6)

It is always the best approach: shamar | observe and then ‘asah | engage. It is akin to “look before you leap.” There are many conflicting claims of divine inspiration, from the New Testament to the Talmud, even the Quran, but only one is consistently correct: Yahowah’s Towrah | Teaching and Naby’ | Prophets.

Moseh explained that a time would come when Yisra’elites ‘amar | will acknowledge and confess that the Covenant Family is raq | unlike any other, distinct, special, and uniquely chakam | knowledgeable and wise. And to some extent, perhaps in large measure, this is the result of the gowy | gentile who pointed the way Home, back to the Family and into the Covenant, by byn | imparting the information and sharing the insights derived by making the connections needed to understand what Yahowah is offering and expects in return.

In this regard, gowy can represent either a “single individual from a different race and place, distinct from Yisra’el,” such as the Nakar | Observant and Responsive Foreigner, or it can be translated as “nation.” The problem with rendering it as a country is that, as a nation, Yisra’el has been anything but diligent in its desire to understand Yahowah’s testimony. Yisra’elites have collectively run from it. Further, gowy, especially in the plural as gowym, is used throughout the Towrah and Naby’ as the antithesis of what Yahowah intended for Yisra’el. Moreover, prior to this gowy composing Yada Yahowah, there had not been a single Yahuwd, much less a nation of them, who had come to yada’ Yah.

The declaration being shared with us is best understood when we realize that byn was scribed in the nifal stem and participle form, as well as in the masculine singular absolute. This indicates that a lone gowy has actively and demonstrably personified what it means to understand. In his quest to yada’ | know, he would impart understanding to those seeking to Yada Yahowah. And while he may remain uncomfortable being acknowledged, there is little doubt that he has been gadowl | vociferous and intense and that his preferred method of instruction is through gadowl | amplification, magnifying the meaning of each word by expressing its full connotations through many.

Recognizing that gowy gadowl is typically translated as “great nation,” there are challenges with this rendering. First, Hebrew has twenty-five words for “great,” many of which are better suited to describe the Children of Yisra’el. Gadowl is most accurately rendered: “loud, intense, amplified, magnified, vociferous, valuable, dignified, significant, important, distinguished, verbose, and numerous.” It is derived from gadal which speaks of “growing, being magnified, and amplified so as to achieve something meritorious.”

Those gathered before Moseh on this day were not great in magnitude, power, influence, age, importance, voice, dignity, wealth, or possessions, neither economically, politically, religiously, or militarily – especially when compared to the nations surrounding them. At this point, they were homeless refugees.

Second, Yisra’el was never a great nation. They were a collection of tribes prior to entering Mitsraym. They came out as evacuees. After 40 years of stumbling in the wilderness, these migrants would not become a nation until they were unified under Dowd | David. But it wouldn’t last since the Kingdom split apart after Solomon, his son, and was never reunited. And even during that brief time, there were internal insurrections – one led by Dowd’s own son, ‘Absalom.

What was left of Yisra’el would be destroyed by the Assyrians – with the people hauled away and into slavery. Yahuwdah would be conquered by the Egyptians and destroyed by the Babylonians. It was subsequently controlled by the Greeks, until suffering three successive waves of Roman invasions. The last under Hadrian was catastrophic. The languishing land would be claimed by the Byzantines and then the Muslims. Even today, now reestablished, the tiny nation is defiled by religion – its own which is debilitating, and Islam which is deadly. Struggling to define itself between opposing secular and sectarian influences, Israel has been bereft of a constitution since 1948. And in the midst of being pummeled by Muslims, the United Nations, and Progressives, Israel will not be a gadowl ‘am | highly valued people until after King Dowd’s return – which is what this gowy is heralding.

In Yirmayah 31, Yahowah speaks of reuniting Yisra’el and Yahuwdah and then restoring His relationship with His people based upon the integration of the Towrah in their lives. The Father, accompanied by His Son who is the ultimate Gibowr | Capable and Courageous Man will make them gadowl in the extreme. And getting from where they are, wallowing in religious rebellion, to where God can reconcile His relationship with them, is the point of this prophecy.

“For (ky – indeed by contrast, emphasizing this point), when has there been (my – ask yourself who, when, how, what, or why has there been) a gowy | gentile (gowy – a man of a different ethnicity from a different place or a nation) this significant, or at least this vociferous and intense, using amplification (gadowl – this devoted to contributing something valuable through magnification while encouraging growth through amplification, achieving something important on behalf of many people using a great many words) for the benefit of the relationship (‘asher – to show the proper path to walk to get the greatest joy out of life), such that he has (la huw’) God (‘elohym) approaching him while forming a close relationship and imminent connection at this distant point in time (qarowb ‘el huw’ – forthcoming regarding him, near him, and closely affiliated, allied, and associated with him) consistent with how (ka – similar to and like) Yahowah (Yahowah – as directed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), our God (‘elohym ‘anachnuw), is with us whenever we call upon Him (ba kol qara’ ‘anachnuw ‘el huw’ – is with us anytime we invite and summon Him, calling out to Him)?” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 4:7)

It is the question I have asked time and again. Has there ever been someone, is there anyone, another gowy, whom Yahowah has approached in this manner? Is there another Gentile this vocal about and devoted to the Towrah Yahowah conveyed through Moseh? Has anyone else composed translations based on amplification? Has there been anyone as affected by ‘asher | the revelation of the benefits of the relationship as this gowy? Is there another Gentile that Yahowah has so demonstratively and prophetically qarowb | approached for this purpose and at this time who has been this passionate and vocal, even profuse in his writing?

The possibility of sweeping this away by rendering gowy as “nation” is torn asunder by the conclusion of the statement. There, a comparison is being made revealing the potential similarity between the way Yahowah approached this individual, forming a relationship with him, and the manner He will respond to His people when they finally call out to Him, inviting and welcoming God back into their lives. Even qara’ is telling, because it suggests that this reunification will occur during a Miqra’ – indeed during Kipurym | Reconciliations. In this way, Yahowah is consistent.

Speaking of this individual and the nation that emerges as a result, Moseh continued to elaborate using the previous introduction…

“So (wa – what’s more), when has there been (my – ask yourself who, what, where, or why has there been) a gowy | gentile (gowy – a man of a different ethnicity from a different place or a nation) this vocal and intensely devoted to using amplification (gadowl – this committed to contributing something valuable through magnification while encouraging growth, achieving something important on behalf of many people using a great many words) for the benefit of the relationship (‘asher – to show the proper path to walk to get the greatest joy out of life) such that he (la huw’) clearly communicates the inscribed prescriptions for living (choq – thoughtfully conveying the requirements which have been appointed and engraved to cut us into the relationship, which have been etched into stone and delineated to allocate a share of what has been allotted to those with the resolve to act upon that which has been prescribed; from chaqaq – to cut out, inscribe, engrave, mark out, and portray something whereby the proper response is required to receive a share of the allotment) along with the way to execute good judgment regarding the means to correctly resolve disputes (wa mishpat – in addition to the way to make the right decision about what is good and bad, right and wrong so that you can correctly assess what is true and false, deciding upon that which is beneficial while avoiding that which is counterproductive; from my – to contemplate the implications of shaphat – making good decisions by being judgmental, discerning, and discriminating), consistently and correctly conveying everything that is part of (tsadyq ka kol – accurately, constantly, and verifiably standing up for all of this to promote vindication through) this Towrah (ha Towrah ha zo’th – this singular and unique Source of Teaching and Guidance, Instructions and Directions) which, to identify the right way to the benefits of the relationship (‘asher), I have provided, giving it to you in your presence (‘anoky nathan la paneh ‘atem – I have bestowed before you (qal participle)) this day (ha yowm – at this time)?” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 4:8)

It is sad, but true; Yahowah had to search beyond Yisra’el to find someone sufficiently gadowl | vocal about and devoted to the ‘asher | relationship He intended, to gadowl | amplify and magnify His choq | inscribed prescriptions for living, and especially His mishpat | means to exercise good judgment, especially regarding the means to resolve disputes so that His people might be right. He was afforded no choice in this matter because Yisra’el has made a religion out of incorrectly presenting Yahowah’s Towrah – to the extent that the religious have substituted and superimposed their own agenda, referring to their Talmud as the Torah. Then comes Paul, the worst of them, and he went about annulling the Towrah for his Gospel of Grace.

“Without exception (raq – exclusively without reservation), you should choose to be observant (shamar la ‘atah – you should pay attention, closely examine and carefully consider everything (nifal imperative – of your own volition, benefit by being observant)).

Pay especially close attention to (shamar – very carefully consider (qal imperative – choose to genuinely focus upon)) your soul (nepesh ‘atah – your individual consciousness, your capacity to be observant and responsive), being exceedingly diligent (me’od – to the greatest extent possible, being especially contemplative), lest you forget (pen shakah – or you may overlook, ignore, and no longer be mindful of, ceasing to care about) the words (‘eth ha dabarym – the written statements and spoken testimony) which, for the benefit of the relationship (‘asher – to show the correct way to get the most out of life), you have seen with your eyes (ra’ah ‘ayn ‘atah – you have been shown and witnessed, having had it revealed in plain sight).

Otherwise (wa pen), they will not be part of your considerations or inclinations (suwr min lebab ‘atah – they will be removed from your heart and rejected from your thinking (qal imperfect)). All of the days of your life (kol yowmym chay ‘atah – for the entire duration you are alive), you shall make them known (yada’ hem – you shall acknowledge, respect, and reveal them, acknowledging them to encourage understanding (hifil perfect)) to your children (la ben ‘atah) and to your children’s children (wa la ben ben ‘atah).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 4:9)

And now, you are being reminded of them and hearing them again – for the first time in 3,500 years…

“The day you were present, standing (yowm ‘asher ‘amad – the time you were upright on your feet) before (la paneh – in the presence of and facing) Yahowah, your God (Yahowah ‘elohym ‘atah), in Choreb (ba Choreb), Yahowah said to me (ba ‘amar Yahowah ‘el ‘any), ‘Summon and assemble (qahal – gather by calling together (hifil imperative)) unto Me (la ‘any – to approach Me) the family (la ‘am – the people) so that they can hear (wa shama’ hem – so that they may listen to (hifil imperfect)) My words (‘eth dabar ‘any – to My message) which, for the benefit of the relationship (‘asher – to show the way to get the most out of life), they may learn (lamad – they will be taught and subsequently teach (qal imperfect paragogic nun)) to respect Me (yare’ ‘eth ‘any – to admire and value that which is associated with Me) all of the days (kol ha yowmym) which, as a result of enjoying the relationship (‘asher), they shall live (hem chayym – they are alive) on the earth (‘al ha ‘adamah – upon the ground and soil, and within the material realm), and so that they will continually teach (wa lamad – they will consistently share this information with and educate (piel imperfect – their offspring will learn from them with unfolding benefits over time)) their children (‘eth beny hem).’” (Dabarym Words / Deuteronomy 4:10)

As I have mentioned, the Covenant is the heart and soul of the Towrah…

“Announcing it in your presence, He told you all about and explained (wa nagad la ‘atem ‘eth – He conspicuously informed and openly reported to all of you regarding (hifil imperfect)) His Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth huw’ – His mutually beneficial partnership agreement based upon building a beyth | family and home).

Which, to show the correct way to receive the benefits of the relationship and to get the most out of life (‘asher), He instructed and directed, appointing and constituting the prescribed terms and instructive conditions (tsawah – He told you about, providing directions and establishing signs, thereby defining the decreed agreement), the Ten Statements and Enriching Words (‘asereth ha dabarym – the Empowering Message) for you to engage in and act upon (‘eth ‘atem la ‘asah – for you to capitalize upon and benefit from by expending the energy to accomplish (qal infinitive)). And He wrote them (wa kathab hem – so He inscribed and engraved them in writing, recording them) on two tablets (‘al shanaym luwach – upon two panels with a permanent inscription) of stone (‘eben). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 4:13)

And (wa) Yahowah ( – the pronunciation of YaHoWaH) instructed and guided (tsawah – directed and prescribed the terms and conditions, providing directions to define the agreement for) me at this time (‘eth ‘any ba ha ‘eth – me in this context, place, and moment) so that She (ha hy’ – speaking of the Set-Apart Spirit, our Spiritual Mother and Heavenly Counselor) would teach (la lamad – would provide the required information to instruct and guide) you (‘eth ‘atem) regarding the clearly communicated prescriptions which cut you into the relationship (choq – the engraved thoughts and inscribed recommendations) and the means used to achieve justice and resolve disputes (wa mishpat – along with the basis to exercise good judgment and make sound, rational, decisions) so that you can act upon them and profit from them (la ‘asah ‘atem ‘eth hem – so that you can engage and capitalize from the effort you put into them (qal infinitive)).” (Dabarym / Deuteronomy 4:14)

There was never a man-god, a baby god, or a dead god on a stick…

“Therefore, be especially focused, carefully considering (wa shamar ma’od) the nature of your soul (la nepesh ‘atem).

For this reason, you did not see (ky lo’ ra’ah) any physical form (kol tamuwnah) during the day (ba yowm) Yahowah spoke the word (YaHoWaH dabar) to you at Choreb (‘el ‘atem ba Choreb) from the midst of the fire (min tawek ha ‘esh). (Dabarym 4:15)

Otherwise, had it not been that way (pen), you may have misinterpreted it and subsequently been perverted and destroyed (shachath) by fashioning for yourselves (wa ‘asah la ‘atem) an object of worship (pesal) in some form or semblance (tamuwnah kol semel), patterned after (tabnyth) the memorable proclamations of a man, especially someone perceived to be a son (zakar) or one who has been pierced (naqebah – who becomes notable based upon being denounced and nailed).” (Dabarym 4:16)

“Otherwise (wa pen), you would consistently lift up your eyes (nasa’ ‘ayn ‘atah) to the heavens (ha shamaym), and when you saw (wa ra’ah) the sun, the moon, and the stars (ha shemesh wa ‘eth ha yarach wa ‘eth ha kowkab), as well as all of the vast array of implements of the spiritual realm (kol ha tsaba’ shamaym), then you would have been enticed and led astray (wa nadach) by making pronouncements for them and honoring them (chawah la hem), even serving and worshiping them (wa ‘abad hem) while (‘asher), Yahowah, your God (YaHoWaH ‘elohym ‘atah), apportioned them (chalaq ‘eth hem) to all people (la kol ha ‘am) under the heavens (tachath kol shamaym).” (Dabarym 4:19)

One would think that a deal this good would be hard to forget. Nonetheless, with their eyes and minds scrutinizing religious texts rather than the Towrah, Jews have forgotten all about the Covenant.

“Choose to be observant (shamar), lest you ignore, even forget (la ‘atem pen shakah) about the Covenant (‘eth Beryth) of Yahowah, your God (Yahowah ‘elohym ‘atem), which, to show the way to get the most out of life (‘asher), He cut, establishing with you (karat ‘im ‘atem), and fashion for yourself (wa ‘asah la ‘atem) a religious icon (pesel) in the form (tamuwnah) of anything which (kol ‘asher) Yahowah, your God (Yahowah ‘elohym ‘atem), has discussed with you (tsawah ‘atem). (Dabarym 4:23)

Imagine what it must be like to be God and to have offered such a favorable arrangement to people who arrogantly threw it back in His face. The Yisra’elites He had liberated and enriched would honor the men who would destroy their relationship. Such is the enigma of Judaism and Christianity.

“Indeed (ky), Yahowah, your God (Yahowah ‘elohym ‘atah), He is a jealous God with a desire for exclusivity in the relationship and gets angry when cheated upon (huw’ ‘el qana’), becoming a consuming fire (‘esh ‘akal). (Dabarym 4:24)

Therefore, when (ky) you conceive children (yalad ben), and your children have children (wa ben ben), and you become sedentary, set in your ways, and less perceptive (wa yashen) in the Land (ba ha ‘erets), and subject to perversions and corruptions (shachath) by acting on behalf of (‘asah) religious imagery in any form (pesel tamuwnah kol) by pursuing that which is inappropriate and wrong (wa ‘asah ha ra’) in the sight of Yahowah (ba ‘ayn Yahowah), your God (‘elohym ‘atah), so as to annoy and provoke Him (la ka’as huw’), (Dabarym 4:25) I will be called to testify against you (‘uwd ba ‘atem) that day (ha yowm) in concert with the spiritual and material realms (‘eth ha shamaym wa ‘eth ha ‘erets).

As a result (ky) of wandering away and quickly squandering the opportunity, you will cease to exist (‘abad ‘abad mahar)… You will not live very long (lo’ ‘arak yowm ‘al hy’) and will be overthrown and decimated (ky shamad shamad). (Dabarym 4:26)

Then (wa) Yahowah (Yahowah) will scatter you (puwts ‘eth ‘atem) among the peoples (ba ha ‘amym), and you will be left as a remnant (wa sha’ar) of individuals (moth) measured against the gentiles (misphar ba ha gowym), which is where (‘asher sham) Yahowah (YaHoWaH) will drive you (nahag ‘eth ‘atem). (Dabarym 4:27)

What’s more (wa), there (sham) you will serve, becoming indentured to, and even worship (‘abad) gods (‘elohym), the products (ma’aseh) of human influence (yad ‘adam), wood and stone (‘ets wa ‘eben), which are not observant or perceptive (‘asher lo’ ra’ah), nor can they listen (wa lo’ shama’), neither can they eat nor devour (wa lo’ ‘akal), as they are unable to accept or draw close because they are not spirit (wa lo’ ruwach / ryach).” (Dabarym 4:28)

Love should be jealous. No one in their right mind wants to share their husband or wife, even their parents and children, with those who would treat them inappropriately. Love wants to be loved in return.

Yahowah did not create humankind for us to conjure up and then worship a cadre of false gods. He wanted to enjoy a personal, familial, relationship with us. False gods are not part of that picture.

Righteous indignation is always appropriate when directed toward abusive behavior. God gets mad when we abuse the relationship and our children by squandering the opportunity He has so lovingly provided.

And it has been as Yahowah foretold: Yisra’elites have been scattered, leaving only a remnant – comparatively few souls when measured against the billions of gowym | gentiles. Fifteen million Jews, should there be that many, is two for every one thousand Gentiles.

The Jews in the Diaspora would be responsible for creating the false gods they would then have to serve to survive. Jews by the tens of millions then converted to Christianity and Islam to avoid torture and decapitation.

Like so many others, the Chosen People chose to pursue gods of man’s making. They have worshiped objects that can neither listen nor see them, approach or accept them.

Continuing to speak of the future, not the present, God indicated that the distant descendants of those listening to His booming voice emerging from the fire on this day would lose sight of Him. So, He lets us know that even in the midst of such ignorance and arrogance of our day, there is hope…

“And yet, even from there (wa min sham – then within that place and time, by paying attention to the name), should you inquire about and seek (baqash – should you extend the great effort required to accomplish the intent of your discovery, you will learn what you need to know through a thorough investigation while seeking to procure the information needed to hold everyone to account, and some responsible for what they have conspired to achieve while rebelling against the relationship (piel perfect – at that moment in time, the object, Yah, is put into action by the subject, the seeker)), Yahowah (Yahowah – written as directed by His towrah – teaching), your God (‘elohym ‘atah), you will find Him if you search (wa matsa’ ky’ darash huw’ – then you will discover enough through exploration to meet Him should you be consistent and enduring with your inquiry, caring sufficiently about developing a relationship with Him (qal imperfect energic nun)) with all your heart, your motivations in harmony with your thinking (ba kol lebab ‘atah – with your best judgment and total commitment, deploying comprehensive analysis while displaying complete resolve) and with all your soul – your innate ability to be observant and responsive (wa ba kol nepesh ‘atah – with the entirety of your inner nature, your personality and character, your attitude and aptitudes, your accomplishments and experiences).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 4:29)

God made it possible, not easy. If you want to know Him, you will find Him – so long as you are diligent and search in the right place. And the time is nigh, for we have entered the Time of Ya’aqob’s Tsar | Israel’s Troubles.

“When you find yourself (wa matsa’ ‘atah – when it comes upon you that (qal perfect)) besieged by adversaries, with distressful oppression and troubling confinement upon you (ba ha tsar la ‘atah – approaching the period of dire straits, of turmoil and tribulation, of harassment and anguish, of you being restricted and demeaned, of affliction and distress, and of you being restrained and impeded) during the last days (ba ‘acharyth ha yowmym – in the distant future when only a remnant remains to experience the final period of time), every one of these words in this particular message (kol ha dabarym ha ‘el leh – this entire account, every word of it), will enable you to return and be restored (wa shuwb – to turn around and come back (qal perfect)) by the eternal witness (‘ad – the restoring testimony) of Yahowah, your God (YaHoWaH ‘elohym ‘atah) and by listening to His voice (wa shama’ ba qowl huw’). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 4:30)

Indeed (ky), Almighty God (‘el) is compassionate and merciful (rachuwm – loving, affectionate, and kind). Yahowah ( – a transliteration of YaHoWaH as instructed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), your God (‘elohym ‘atah), will not abandon you (raphah ‘atah – will not allow you to become so powerless and feeble, so disheartened, that you falter to the point that you can no longer respond having lost hope (hifil imperfect jussive)), nor will He allow you to be destroyed (wa lo’ shachath ‘atah – nor will He allow you to be corrupted such that you become completely useless (hifil imperfect) note: ‘atah – you and your is singular, not plural, in each instance).

Moreover (wa), He will not ignore, overlook, or forget (lo’ shakach – He will remain mindful of, always remembering and caring about (qal imperfect)) the Covenant (‘eth Beryth – that which is associated with the Family-Oriented Relationship Agreement) with your fathers (‘ab ‘atah) which He promised to them for the benefit of the relationship (‘asher shaba’ la hem – which, to show the way to get the most out of life, He swore a binding oath to them).” (Dabarym / Deuteronomy 4:31)

This will occur in stages, with the first Covenant Members to enjoy Yahowah’s loving embrace being withdrawn on Shabuw’ah, the Shabat of May 22nd, 2026 as Israel is broken into pieces. Next, during a solar eclipse, on the Shabat of September 25th, 2033 / year 6000 Yah, a final gleaning of Yahuwdym will occur. Ten days later, on Yowm Kipurym | the Day of Reconciliations in the 120th Yowbel year, at sunset in Yaruwshalaim, 6:22 PM, October 2nd, 2033, Father and Son will return to a united Yisra’el.

Should you not be part of the Covenant at this time, should you foolishly decide to wait until the last minute, and should you be among the remnant who survive the ensuing onslaught, this is how much time you have left to reject religion and politics and resolve your relationship with the Almighty. But be aware, while Jews will fare better than the rest of humanity, two of every three will be killed between now and then. The switch from ‘atem | you all to ‘atah | just you was designed to get your undivided attention.

In a history littered with human abuses, nothing will match what the world is about to endure. Grotesque acts of terrorism and bloody wars will become more frequent, severe, widespread, and ghoulish. There will be debilitating pandemics and great depressions. And there will be all manner of natural disasters from volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, firestorms, floods, drought, and even an asteroid strike.

At the center of it all will be Israel because the religious, political, and conspiratorial will continue to blame Jews for everything. With billions of voices droning on incessantly, complaining about and promoting all manner of ridiculousness, and with devastating news burning up the airwaves, one declaration, bold and perhaps verbose, will stand apart by the relevance of the timing and importance of the message, by the sheer volume of words and the intensity of which they are delivered…

“So now (ky – for the purposes of evaluation), please, I implore you (na’), question and inquire about, the comparison to (sha’al – choose to ask, pondering the implications of (qal imperative)) that which came to exist before you (‘asher hayah la paneh ‘atah) during the first and former days (la yowmym ri’shown), from the day God created (la min ha yowm ‘asher bara’ ‘elohym) ‘Adam upon the earth (‘adam ‘al ha ‘erets) to being isolated from (wa la min qatsah) the spiritual realm (ha shamaym), including the extent of the eternal witness of Heaven (wa ‘ad qatsah ha shamaym), has anything occurred which can be compared to (ha hayah ka) the significance of the amplified words and important message (ha dabar ha gadowl – the great number and extent of the many statements or astonishing insights, even the intense nature of the declarations, or vociferous, even verbose, commentary) such as this (ha zeh)?

Will you choose (‘ow ha – given the option, will you want) to listen to (ha shama’ – to hear and take into account (nifal perfect – by listening you will actually benefit from what you will be hearing at this moment in time)) someone like this (kamow huw’ – the likes of him or Him)?” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 4:32)

This is the missing ingredient between the promise Yahowah made to reconcile His relationship and restore the Covenant with ‘Abraham, Yitschaq, and Ya’aqob and His fulfillment of it on Yowm Kipurym – now, in the summer of 2024, just 9 years removed from this assessment. In that there were no Yisra’elites, not a single Yahuwd, willing to listen to Yahowah or work with Him to deliver this message, without the gowy’s amplified translations and vociferous commentary, no one would have shown up to capitalize. With no one since Mal’aky | Malachi, the last of the Messengers 2,472 years ago, being available to Yahowah to call His people home, with rabbis calling them in the opposite direction, and with so many others poised to denigrate them and deny them, even kill them, what would have changed without these ha dabar ha gadowl to go from none to many?

Beginning with the 25th statement of the 4th chapter, Yahowah’s focus has been on future generations. Therefore, based upon the preceding statements in Dabarym, it is only natural to see this as an extension of God’s exposé on the last days. Also relevant, this ha dabar ha gadowl is based entirely upon conveying the words Yahowah revealed to the Children of Yisra’el through Moseh – such that one is a translation of the other.

From then to now, God communicates in the manner He sees fit…

“Did a people ever hear (ha shama’ ‘am) the voice of God (qowl ‘elohym) speaking words (dabar – communicating a message) from the midst of the fire (min tawek ha ‘esh) in the manner you have heard (ka ‘asher shama’ ‘atah) – and live (wa chayah)? (Dabarym 4:33) Or, to make a comparison (‘ow), has God ever attempted (ha nasah ‘elohym – has the Almighty ever tried, exerting Himself (nifal piel perfect)) to come to and select, even choose and obtain (la bow’ la laqach – to pursue and grasp hold of, then receive, accepting (qal infinitive)) for Himself (la huw’) a gowy (gowy – an individual man from a different race and place or a nation) from the midst (min qereb) of a nation of gentiles (gowy – a gentile people, of a confluence of races) by getting the correct response (ba masah – by assessing and proving through examination and systematically trying and testing), by agreeing to produce a sign and raise a banner (ba ‘owth – by displaying a standard and designating a signal while providing illustrative accounts, vivid illustrations, and clarifying examples which make the message more readily known and easier to evaluate), and by conspicuously presenting inspiring revelations of extraordinary past and future events (wa ba mowpheth – through insightful responses, exceptional conclusions, and relevant warnings, all posted as exposed signs replete with symbolic meaning; from yaphah – to be brilliant, attractive, and fair), even by continuously battling (wa ba milchamah – by being combative, sometimes defending and at others times attacking, always engaging; from my – to ponder the implications of lacham – engaging in the battle and fighting to survive) with a powerful hand and capable influence (wa ba yad chazaq – with a bold and courageous approach and fortified arm) with an outstretched Zarowa’ | one who sows the seeds which take root and grow for the harvest and who shepherds the flock (wa ba zarowa’ natah – by extending the capable arm, reaching out with one who prevails and is effective, showing the resolve to guide, to productively prepare for the harvest, to defend the offspring, serving as a shepherd among the sheep, fruitful in accomplishing the mission, especially when sowing the seeds of truth while denoting and advancing the purpose of the influence of the Sacrificial Lamb), along with the awesome nature of the astonishing insights and respectful commentary (wa ba mowra’ gadowl – the significance of the inspiration and important message, even tremendous reverence), consistent with all of what (ka kol ‘asher) Yahowah (YaHoWaH – an accurate presentation of the name of ‘elowah – God as guided by His towrah – instructions regarding His hayah – existence), your God (‘elohym ‘atah), did for you (‘asah la ‘atem) in the Crucibles of Religious and Political Oppression (ba Mitsraym – within the cauldrons of governmental, military, economic, and conspiratorial coercion and cruelty, where the people are confined, restricted, and persecuted; plural of matsowr – to be treated as a foe and besieged during a time of testing and tribulation; from tsuwr – to be bound and constrained by an adversary, besieged and assaulted during times of trouble) for your perspective (la ‘ayn ‘atah – to provide a witness for your eyes to see and your mind to understand)? (Dabarym 4:34)

This was shown to you (‘atah ra’ah – this witness was provided for you to consider it and be perceptive (hofal perfect – God has had to strongarm you at this time to see it this way)) so that you might know (la yada’ – for you to be aware, acknowledge, and understand (qal infinitive – literally and vividly comprehend)) that Yahowah ( – a transliteration of YaHoWaH as instructed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), Himself, is Almighty God (huw’ ha ‘elohym). There is no other (‘ayn ‘owd) apart from Him (min la bad huw’).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 4:35)

In all of recorded history, this is the one and only time that God spoke openly and audibly to a large assemblage of people. He approached them as blazing light – visibly conveying His spiritual nature.

As for what follows, I think Yahowah is using His favorite example – that of removing His people from religious and political tyranny – as the paradigm of what He intends to accomplish today through his chosen and enabled gowy. Since the full extent of religious and political oppression has never been greater, similar strategies will be deployed.

Just as Yahowah chose to approach ‘Abraham and then obtain his offspring for Himself, God found a gowy in the midst of a Gentile nation from whom He could get the response He desired. And that was to agree to work together – to go where the words would lead and then share them with all who would listen.

After assessing and systematically evaluating His words, this unnamed gowy agreed to produce the sign Yahowah would use to call His wayward children home. It would be replete with illustrative accounts, vivid illustrations, and clarifying examples – all written to make His message more readily known and more easily understood.

God’s inspiring revelations chronicling His most extraordinary past and future achievements would be conspicuously presented along with the exceptional conclusions and relevant warnings that can be drawn from them. The gowy would be used to shine a brilliant light upon Yahowah’s favorite symbols.

Together they would battle religious, political, and conspiratorial foes, defending God’s people while attacking those who would do them harm. Indeed, this gowy would be a Zarowa’, joining the other two – Moseh and Dowd – serving with an empowered hand and enabling influence to sow the seeds the prophets had offered to enable the harvests and family reunion. He would act as a caretaker in the absence of the rightful Shepherd.

Working together, the three Zarowa’ would perceive and share astonishing insights into the Word of God and combine them with respectful commentary, underscoring the message Yahowah needs His people to hear. Time is fleeting and they must leave a mitsraym of their own making – fleeing the religious, political, militant, and conspiratorial schemes of men.

God has done it all and said it all so that we might obtain the proper perspective – so that our view of Him is no longer occluded. You have been shown these words so that you might know that Yahowah alone is Almighty God.

I find the realization that Yahowah inspired Moseh to say these things on behalf of His people gut-wrenching. It reveals that in spite of doing so many wonderful things for Yisra’el that the people have come to ignore and reject Him. They revere religious liars and political fools over God and have replaced Yahowah’s testimony with their drivel.

Twenty-two years ago, a scant three decades from His return, there wasn’t a single Yahuwd in the Covenant. And while now there are hundreds, if not thousands. There will be a Shabuw’ah Harvest, a Taruw’ah Gleaning, and Kipurym Reunion, just as Yahowah has promised. But there is much to be accomplished and the workers are few. There is only one lone Voice calling out in the wilderness to prepare the way for Yahowah’s return. But we no longer have the luxury of time, so we cannot hesitate or equivocate. Yahowah has been too good to us to risk disappointing Him. So thankfully, He has offered every available resource to garner Yisra’el’s attention. From Moseh to Dowd and on to Yasha’yah, God has told His people where to look to find Him. So, I am nothing more than the guy jumping up and down, writing my fingers numb, screaming at the top of my voice: Listen to them and come home!

At this point in the conversation, we retain the option of discounting Moseh’s speech, and of limiting the implications of it to those who were listening to him 3,450 years ago. In which case it was squandered and the prophecy was left unfulfilled.

However, there would have been no reason under such circumstances to refer to Moseh as a “naby’ – prophet,” much less the greatest of them, if not addressing the future. And since we have heard Yahowah speak of the last days when He will restore His Covenant with His people, we know that God was speaking to us, here and now on the cusp of His return.

Therefore, the most sensible approach is to recognize that Yahowah likes to use tangible illustrations of His past performance to teach future generations that we can rely upon Him to do as He has done. When we come to appreciate why God removed His people from Mitsraym | the Crucibles of Religious and Political Oppression, we come to understand the lone prerequisite for admission into the Covenant – which is to walk away from these human control mechanisms.

In this regard, there are two Yatsa’ | Withdrawals, or “Exoduses,” with the former serving as a harbinger of the removal of God’s people from political, religious, and geographic Babylon today. From this perspective, his every word is as applicable to the distant descendants of those refugees as it is to those listening on this day. Moreover, since there would have been no benefit in recording these words on behalf of those who had heard them, they were written for us…

“From the heavens (min ha shamaym – out of the spiritual abode of God), He has prepared you to hear (shama’ ‘atah – He has enabled you to use your sense of hearing to listen to (hifil perfect – God has caused you to be able to listen at this moment to)) His voice (‘eth qowl huw’) so that He might correct and instruct you (la yasar ‘atah – so that He could teach and warn you, imparting information to you about future opportunities and dangers as well as their consequences (piel infinitive energic nun)).

And upon the earth (wa ‘al ha ‘erets – within the material realm), He made it possible for you to see (ra’ah ‘atah – He has enabled you to witness and perceive (hifil perfect)) the significance of the magnifying nature and overall importance of (ha gadowl – the magnitude and full extent of the many astonishing insights which can be drawn from, even the intensity of) that which is associated with His fiery light (‘eth ‘esh huw’ – His blazing fire and radiant energy) and of His words (wa dabar huw’ – in addition to His message and statements) which you can hear (shama’ – you can actually and genuinely listen to at this moment (qal perfect)) coming out of the midst of the fire (min tawek ha ‘esh – from the brilliant light and expression of radiant energy).” (Dabarym Words / Deuteronomy 4:36)

Listen to Yahowah’s voice by reading His words aloud, and He will correct you and teach you. Open your mind while doing so, and you will see just how brilliant He is. Also, never lose sight of how vastly superior Yahowah is to the gods men have made.

Yisra’el’s last opportunity to come home has been offered, not because of their merit, but because God made a promise long ago. And even though ‘Abraham was an exceedingly flawed fellow, neither intellectually gifted nor particularly moral, Yahowah loved him – which means that He has the ability and desire to overlook our flaws when we respond to Him.

“And beneath this (wa tachath – so underneath and underpinning this) is the realization that (ky) He loved (‘ahab – He cultivated a friendly and affectionate, family-oriented relationship (qal perfect)) your fathers (‘eth ‘aby ‘atah). And He has chosen to favor (wa bachar – He has selected and has preferred, desiring) their descendants (ba zera’ huw’ – within their seed and of their offspring) after them (‘achar huw’ – next, following them, without hesitation and remaining with them, right to the end).

So (wa), He extended Himself to withdraw you (yatsa’ ‘atah – He served you by removing you and bringing you out (hifil imperfect – God is the active and ongoing force behind your removal such that you are withdrawn and can remain free)) into His presence (ba paneh huw’ – with His appearance and within His company) from the religious and political oppressors (min mitsraym – away from the despots and tyrants within the cauldrons of military and economic subjugation, away from the authority figures in the place of coercive cruelty where slaves are confined and restricted by political persecution, considered foes, besieged, and assaulted as if shut up inside a concentration camp) with His magnifying power, astonishing insights, and distinguishing achievements (ba koach huw’ ha gadowl – His keen intellect and great ability, along with the extent and energy of His prowess).” (Dabarym 4:37)

Christianity is invalidated with statements like this one because God is continually acknowledging that He has not and never will replace Jews with Gentiles or Yisra’el with the Church. And without Replacement Foolology, all of Yahowah’s promises remain focused upon the Firstborn Son and Chosen People, leaving no possibility of replacing him or them without God, Himself, being invalidated.

To properly translate mitsraym | crucible, we must be aware that it is the plural (ym suffix) of “matsowr – to be delineated as a foe and besieged during a troublesome time of testing and tribulation.” Matsowr is a compound of my, the interrogative which encourages us to question the who, what, why, where, when, and how of something and “tsuwr – to be bound and confined by a troubling adversary, besieged, assaulted, shut up, and enclosed as if in a concentration camp by those showing great hostility.” This is where we find ourselves, today.

The human schemes capable of inflicting such abuse and aggravation, persecution, confinement, and oppression are religious and political. And that is why I routinely render Mitsraym as “the Crucibles of Religious and Political Oppression.” To render it as “Egypt” is senseless since that name is based upon a Greek misnomer, and the nation refers to itself as Mitsra.

Just as Yahowah extended Himself to withdraw the Children of Yisra’el out of Mitsraym, He will help you leave Babylon. In this regard, Babylon is from Babel, which means “to confound and confuse by commingling and intermixing.” Nothing is better at this than religion, which is why we should not be surprised that babel shares the same three-letter root as Bible and means “ba bel – with the Lord.”

Yahowah drew His people out of Mitsraym with a strong and forceful hand – which is to say that He did not give them any choice in the matter. Having been exiled and enslaved for 20 generations, they did not know enough about God to make an informed decision – something that Yahowah quickly rectified by providing His Towrah | Teaching. Today, however, Yisra’elites are without excuse. Yahowah’s Towrah | Guidance is readily available – albeit inaccurately translated and inappropriately presented. And that is why Yahowah has intervened by empowering a hand of a different sort – this one striking the keys of a keyboard. Further, this time, and for you, the offer to walk away is being presented entirely through words. The plagues will be of man’s doing, not God’s.

As a result, your journey away from religion and politics – today’s Babylon – to life within the Covenant, will come “ba koach huw’ ha gadowl – through the magnifying power and astonishing insights into His distinguishing achievements and intellect.” Therefore, the best advice is to yada’ Yahowah…

“Therefore (wa), at this moment in time, you should actually acknowledge because you genuinely know (yada’ – you should be familiar with, be aware of, literally care about, and unequivocally understand (qal perfect)) this day (ha yowm – today, right now) that you should return (wa shuwb – that you should come back and be restored (hifil perfect)), such that you are using your best judgment (‘el lebab ‘atah – motivated and inclined to respond appropriately, using your conscience to make the correct decision) in the recognition that, indeed (ky – because surely), Yahowah (Yahowah – as directed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence) is Almighty God (ha ‘elohym) in the spiritual realm of the heavens (ba ha shamaym) above and beyond and in additional dimensions (min ma’al) and upon the Earth (‘al ha ‘erets – over the material realm) in lesser dimensions (min tachath).

There is no other to bear witness, who can respond or restore (‘ayn ‘owd).” (Dabarym 4:39)

There is a tendency to read Hebrew with an English mindset. Those who do are likely to render leb and lebab as “heart” and then associate an emotional response. But at that time and among Hebrews, the heart was the seat of judgment, not emotions. The idea of taking something to leb was like saying “Think about it and respond rationally and morally, using your best judgment.” If someone were seeking an emotional response, they would have spoken of the liver.

For the past 23 years, my only goal in life has been to encourage all who will listen to yada’ Yahowah. These books have been published in honor of that objective.

Just as Yahowah has only one name, He alone is God. There is no other who can respond, restore, or bear witness. If you want proof, consider the Talmud, Quran, Christian New Testament, or Book of Mormon and compare such rubbish to what we are reading. And after holding your nose and doing so, ask yourself if anyone can name a single instance where the gods men conceived actually accomplished anything. Although the most famous of them have death in common. The Christian god got himself killed and the Islamic god would have everyone die.

As we proceed, you will find Yahowah’s style consistent and reassuring. He will continually reinforce what He wants us to know – recognizing that repetition is the best method of filing something important in our long-term memory.

“You should observe (wa shamar – you should closely examine and carefully consider, open your eyes and focus upon) His clearly communicated, inscribed prescriptions of what we should do to be cut into the relationship (choq huw’ – His engraved thoughts and recommendations on living to be allocated a share of the inheritance), in addition to the instructive conditions of His binding agreement (mitswah huw’ – His authorized directions and written instructions, including the designated precepts, stipulations, and terms) which, to enjoy the benefits of the relationship (‘asher – which reveal the proper path to walk to get the most enjoyment out of life), I have instructed and directed you (‘anoky tsawah ‘atah – I have guided you, posting on a sign for you, appointing and stipulating) this day (ha yowm).

Then, as a result of the relationship (‘asher), He will be good to you and accepting of you (yatab la ‘atah – He will favor you and be of benefit to you (qal imperfect)), and also of your children (wa la beny ‘atah) after you (‘achar ‘atah – remaining so to the end), and (wa) for the express purpose (la ma’an) of elongating your days (‘arak yowmym – prolonging your time) upon the earth (‘al ha ‘adamah) which, to show the way to get the most out of life (‘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), your God (‘elohym ‘atah), is giving to you (nathan la ‘atah – is bestowing to you as a gift, producing and placing before you (qal participle)) for all time (kol ha yowmym).” (Dabarym 4:40)

It ought not take a genius to figure out that there weren’t two “Torahs” at the time, one in writing covering everything Yahowah and Moseh said to the people, and another “by mouth” and undisclosed. Moseh is asking Yisra’el to observe the choq and mitswah communicated through him – not something said to others on another day.

Throughout An Introduction to God, Yada Yahowah, Observations, and Coming Home, and now Twistianity, we are consistently reminded of four things: what Yahowah is offering, what God expects in return, what He reveals is beneficial, and what He perceives as counterproductive. It is to our benefit, and that of our children, to focus on His prescriptions and instructions. The lives of those who do are prolonged into perpetuity, and they are afforded the opportunity to reside in the Promised Land.

The Towrah affirms that God is good for us. His goal is to make us happy and extend our lives.

“So, this is (wa zo’th) the Towrah (ha Towrah – the Instruction and Teaching, the Guidance and Direction) which, to reveal the correct path to walk to receive the benefits of the relationship (‘asher), He placed before (sym la paneh – He appointed and conveyed in the presence of, He assigned, gave, preserved, and extended through the appearance of (qal perfect – literally providing at this time to)) Moseh (Mosheh – the One who Draws us Out) and the Children of Yisra’el (beny Yisra’el – the Offspring who Strive to Engage and Endure with God). (Dabarym 4:44)

This is (‘el leh) the enduring Witness and restoring Testimony (‘eduwth – the written stipulations and requirements regarding the agreement, the evidence which is validated by the eyewitnesses; from ‘ed – eternal witness and restoring testimony and ‘uwd – to return, renewed and revived to the one bearing witness), the clearly communicated prescriptions which were thoughtfully inscribed to allocate a share of the relationship (wa ha choq – meaningful requirements which were appointed and engraved to cut us into the affiliation which have been etched into stone and delineated for those with the resolve to act upon that which has been prescribed; from chaqaq – to cut out, inscribe, engrave, mark out, and portray something whereby the proper response is required to receive a share of the allotment) along with the ways to execute good judgment regarding the means to correctly resolve disputes (wa ha mishpat – in addition to the process to pursue to make correct decisions about what is good and bad, right and wrong to correctly assess what is true and false, deciding upon that which is beneficial while avoiding that which is counterproductive; from my – to contemplate the implications of shaphat – making good decisions by being judgmental, discerning, and discriminating) which, for the benefit of the relationship (‘asher), Moseh (Mosheh – the One who Draws us Out) spoke to (dabar ‘el – communicated using words to, conveying and declaring the message on behalf of) the Children of Yisra’el (beny Yisra’el – the Offspring who Strive to Engage and Endure with God) when they came out of (ba yatsa’ hem min – when they left, being removed and withdrawn from) the Crucibles of Religious and Political Oppression (Mitsraym – the cauldrons of governmental, military, economic, and conspiratorial coercion and cruelty, where the people were confined, restricted, and persecuted; plural of matsowr – to be treated as a foe and besieged during a time of troubling testing and tribulation; from tsuwr – to be bound and constrained by an adversary, troubled and assaulted, as if in a concentration camp by those showing great hostility).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 4:45)

According to Yahowah, who ought to know, this is the Towrah. It is clearly not the Talmud, nor is it the New Testament. All protestations otherwise are lies – a grotesque and arrogant perversion of the truth.

There is only one Towrah. This title is always presented in the singular, and it speaks for Yahowah. There are no rabbis mentioned within it. There is no endorsement of Judaism. There is no reference to Christianity or Jesus.

Yahowah’s Towrah contains God’s Guidance and Teaching. There are no laws to obey – no commandments, either. Our Heavenly Father is soliciting the eyes and ears of those with an open mind.

For the benefit of the Covenant relationship, Yahowah’s Instructions were conveyed to Moseh, who preserved them in writing so that we might live. His audience was and remains the Children of Yisra’el.

By using ‘eduwth, we learn that Yahowah’s Towrah contains His “enduring Witness and restoring Testimony.” It is comprised of “‘eduwth – the written stipulations and requirements regarding the agreement” God established through His Covenant. Unlike the Babylonian Talmud, the Towrah provides “evidence which is validated by the eyewitnesses. More telling still, ‘eduwth is a compound of ‘ed – the eternal witness and restoring testimony pertaining to ‘uwd – how to return, be renewed and revived by the One bearing witness.” What a marvelous description of Yahowah’s Guidance.

We are reminded that Yahowah’s Towrah is not a compilation of Laws but is instead: “ha choq – the clearly communicated prescriptions which were thoughtfully inscribed to allocate a share of the relationship.”

Not only has Yahowah provided us with the evidence required to know Him, His Towrah | Guidance enables us to: “ha mishpat – execute good judgment regarding the means to correctly resolve disputes.” This method of restoring our relationship with the Almighty is presented within this very same Towrah. Yahowah refers to the process of reconciliation throughout the Miqra’ey | Invitations to be Called Out and Meet. And as we have learned, mishpat is a compound of my – to contemplate the implications of something and shaphat – making good decisions by being judgmental, discerning, and discriminating.

Once we walk away from our mitsraym | forms of religious, political, governmental, military, economic, and conspiratorial coercion, we are free to benefit from the Covenant relationship. That is what Yahowah conveyed to Moseh. It is what we need to know today.

And so now you know what Yahowah has to say about the enduring and restoring nature of His Towrah and that His focus is on His Covenant. You have even seen a brief presentation of my credentials in this regard. And I might remind you that Paul has none.

Unfortunately, the Yisra’elites did the opposite, preferring men to God and religion to the relationship He was offering. Paul was not unique in this regard – just the most shrill and damning of deceivers.

“‘So then (wa ‘atah), this stipulation (ha mitswah ha zo’th) is directed toward you (‘el ‘atem), the ones performing the religious rituals (ha kohen): (Mal’aky 2:1) If (‘im) you do not listen (lo’ shama’), and if (wa ‘im) you do not place it on your heart, considering it logically (sym ‘al leb) to give (la nathan) some significance and dignity (kabowd) to My name (la shem ‘any),’ says (‘amar) Yahowah (YaHoWaH) of the spiritual representatives (tsaba’), ‘then I will dispatch (shalach) among you (ba ‘atem) a thoughtful curse which keeps you bound to your embittered existence (‘eth ha ma’erah).

Thereafter, I will condemn (wa ‘arar) your pronouncements and your blessings (‘eth barakah ‘atem). Moreover (wa gam), I will denounce them (wa ‘arar huw’) because (ky) you will not consider this matter responsibly (sym ‘al leb). (Mal’aky 2:2)

Behold (hineh – look here now and see), I, Myself, will rebuke and abhor (‘any ga’ar) your offspring and that which you sow (la ‘atem ‘eth ha zera’) to such an extent (wa) that I will spread (zarah) the fecal matter, viscera, and dung (peresh) of your feasts and festivals (chag ‘atem) upon your faces (‘al paneh). Then it will be taken away and you with it (wa nasa’ ‘eth ‘atem ‘el huw’).’” (Mal’aky / My Messenger / Malachi 2:3)

Should you prefer to read Yahowah’s condemnation of rabbis and Judaism in context, the first four chapters of Mal’aky / Malachi are translated within the context of Yahowah’s imminent return throughout the final chapter on Kipurym in the Mow’ed | Appointments volume of Yada Yahowah. And while that is a worthy endeavor, we are tasked with the mission of correcting 2,500 years of Yisra’el being estranged, embedded, and wrong and it is long past time that we remove the stench of their religious fecal matter, beginning with the dung of Christendom.



As we proceed, we will compare the proclamations by the Messiah, the Son of God and King of Kings, scribed by Yahowah’s Beloved, His Chosen Shepherd and Prophet, to the mutterings of the man who falsely claimed an affinity with the Almighty. Sha’uwl / Paulos commenced his crusade against Yahowah and His Towrah by writing these words – the first scribed in the name of the new religion:

“Paulos, an apostle, not of men, not even by the means of man, but to the contrary on behalf of Iesou Christou and Theos, father of the one having awakened Him out of a dead corpse, (Galatians 1:1) and all the brothers with me to the called out of the Galatias, (Galatians 1:2) Grace to you and peace from Theos, father of us and Lord Iesou Christou, (Galatians 1:3) the one having given himself on account of the sins of us so that somehow, he might gouge and tear out, uprooting us from the past circumstances of the old system which had been in place and is disadvantageous and harmful, corrupt and worthless, malicious and malignant according to the desire and will of Theos and father of us, (Galatians 1:4) to whom the opinion regarding the glorious appearance of the shining light, a manifestation of Theos’ reputation, by means of the old and the new systems, Amen, let it be so. (Galatians 1:5)

I am astonished, wondering in this way how quickly you changed, becoming disloyal apostates and traitors away from your calling in the name of Charis | Grace to a dissimilar healing messenger (Galatians 1:6) which does not exist differently, or conditionally negated, because some are stirring you up, confusing you, proposing to pervert the healing message of Christou, (Galatians 1:7) but to the contrary, if we or a messenger out of heaven conveys a beneficial messenger to you which is contrary to what we delivered as a good messenger to you then a curse with a dreadful consequence exists. (Galatians 1:8)

As we have said already, and even just now, repetitively I say, if under the condition someone communicates a useful message to you contrary, even greater than that which you received, it shall be (in fact I command and want it to exist as) a curse with a dreadful consequence. (Galatians 1:9)

For because currently, is it men I presently persuade, actually using words to win the favor of, seducing and appeasing for Theos? And by comparison, do I seek to please and accommodate humans? Yet nevertheless, if men I am accommodating and exciting, being lifted up as a slave of Christou, certainly not was me. (Galatians 1:10)

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

Because indeed, you heard of my wayward behavior in a time and place in the practice of Judaism, namely that because throughout, showing superiority, surpassing any measure of restraint, and to an extraordinary degree, better than anyone else, I was aggressively and intensely pursuing, persecuting, oppressing, and harassing the called out of god, and I was and am devastating her, continuing to undermine, overthrow, and annihilate her. (Galatians 1:13)

And so I was and continue to progress, accomplishing a great deal, and I persist moving forward in the practice of Judaism, over and beyond many contemporaries among my race, zealous and excited, devoted and burning with passion to belong to the traditions and teachings handed down by my forefathers. (Galatians 1:14)

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

I did not ascend into Yaruwshalaim with the goal of being with or against the Apostles before me, but to the contrary I went away, withdrawing to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. (Galatians 1:17) Then later in the sequence of events, after three years’ time, I ascended up to Yaruwshalaim to visit and get acquainted with Kephas and remained against him for fifteen days. (Galatians 1:18) But other of the Apostles, I did not see. I did not pay attention to them, nor concern myself with them except Ya’aqob, the brother of the Kurios | Lord. (Galatians 1:19)

But now what I write to you, you must pay especially close attention in the presence of Theos, because I cannot lie. (Galatians 1:20)

Thereafter, I came to the regions of Syria and also of Cilicia. (Galatians 1:21) But I was not known and was disregarded, either ignored, not understood, or unrecognized personally by appearance as an individual by the called out of Yahuwdah in Christo. (Galatians 1:22)

But then they were constantly hearing that the one presently pursuing and persecuting us at various times, now he presently proclaims a healing message of faith where once he was attacking, continuing to annihilate, ravaging and destroying. (Galatians 1:23) And so they were praising and glorifying me, attributing an exceptionally high value and status to me, considering me illustrious and magnificent, magnifying in me for Theos. (Galatians 1:24)

Later, through fourteen years also, I went up to Yaruwshalaim along with Barnabas, having taken along also Titus. (Galatians 2:1) I went up from uncovering an unveiling revelation which lays bare, laying down to them the beneficial messenger which I preach among the races according to what is mine alone, uniquely and separately.

But then as a result of the opinions, presumptions, and suppositions, into foolishness and stupidity, without purpose, it was thought that I had run. (Galatians 2:2) On the contrary, not even Titus, a Greek individual, was compelled, forced or pressured to be circumcised. (Galatians 2:3)

But then on account of the impersonators who faked their relationship and were brought in surreptitiously into the group to spy upon and plot against the freedom from conscience and liberation from the constraints of morality that we possess in Christo Iesou in order that us they will actually make us subservient, controlling us for their own ends, (Galatians 2:4) to whom neither to a moment we yielded, surrendered, or submitted in order that the truth of the Theos may continue to be associated among you. (Galatians 2:5)

But now from the ones currently presumed and supposed to be someone important based upon some sort of unspecified past, they were actually and continue to be nothing, completely meaningless and totally worthless, to me.

It carries through and bears differently in the face of Theos with regard to man not taking hold or receiving, because to me, the ones currently presuming and dispensing opinions based upon reputed appearances, were of no account. Worthless was their advice and counsel in the past. (Galatians 2:6)

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

And having recognized, becoming familiar with the Charis | Grace of the one having been given to me, Ya’aqob, Kephas, and also Yahowchanan, the ones presently presumed and supposed to be leaders, the right place of honor and authority they granted to me, and to Barnabas fellowship as a result. We to the nations and ethnicities, but they to the circumcision. (Galatians 2:9) Only alone by itself the lowly and poor, the worthless beggars of little value that we might remember and possibly think about which also I was eager and quick to do the same. (Galatians 2:10)

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

Nevertheless, when I saw that they were not walking through life rightly with the truth of the healing and beneficial messenger, I said to Kephas in front of all: ‘If you Jews are actively being racists, how do you compel and force the ethnicities into being and acting Jewish? (Galatians 2:14) We are Jews by nature and are not from the social outcasts of sinful and heathen races. (Galatians 2:15)

I have come to realize, albeit without investigation or evidence, that by no means whatsoever is any manmade right or vindicated by means of acting upon or engaging in the Towrah if not by belief and faith in Iesou Christou.

And we of Christon Iesoun, ourselves believed in order for us to have become righteous, we have to have been acquitted and vindicated out of faith in Christou, and not by means of acting upon or engaging in the Towrah, because by means of engaging in and acting upon the Towrah not any flesh will be acquitted or vindicated, nor be made righteous. (Galatians 2:16)

But if by seeking to be made righteous and innocent in Christo, we were found ourselves also to be social outcasts and sinners, shouldn’t we be anxious that Christos becomes a guilty, errant, and misled, servant of sin?

Not may it exist, (Galatians 2:17) because if that which I have torn down and dissolved, dismantled and invalidated, abolishing and discarding, this on the other hand I restore or reconstruct, promoting this edifice, I myself bring into existence and recommend transgression and disobedience. (Galatians 2:18)

I then, because of the Towrah’s allotment and law, myself, genuinely died and was separated in order that to Theos I might currently live. In Christo I have actually been crucified together with. (Galatians 2:19)

I live, but no longer I. He lives then in me, Christos. This because now I live in the flesh. In faith I live of the Theos and Christou, the one having loved me and surrendered for me, entrusting authority to me, yielding and handing over to me the power to control, influence, and instruct exclusively of himself because of me. (Galatians 2:20)

I do not reject the Charis | Grace of the Theos because if by the Torah we achieve righteousness then, as a result, Christos for no reason or cause, without benefit and in vain, he died. (Galatians 2:21)

O ignorant and irrational, unintelligent and unreasonable, Galatians. Who bewitched and deceived you, and who are you slandering, bringing this evil upon you, seducing yourselves? (Galatians 3:1)

This alone I want to learn from you: out of accomplishments of the Towrah was the spirit received by you or alternatively out of hearing and belief? (Galatians 3:2) In this way you are ignorant and irrational, lacking in knowledge and unable to think logically. Having begun with the spirit, now in flesh are you completing? (Galatians 3:3)

So much and for so long you have suffered these things, vexed and annoyed without reason or result, chaotically without a plan. If indeed this really happened and you were so thoughtless, achieving nothing, being without reason or result. (Galatians 3:4)

The one therefore then supplying you with the spirit and causing it to function, was this operation of powers in you by acting upon and engaging in the tasks delineated in the Torah or out of hearing faith? (Galatians 3:5)

Just as and to the degree that Abram believed and had faith in the Theos so it was reasoned and accounted to him as righteousness. (Galatians 3:6) You know as a result that the ones out of faith, these are the sons of Abram. (Galatians 3:7)

Having seen beforehand by contrast in the writing that out of faith makes right the people from different races and places, the Theos, He before beneficial messenger acted on behalf of Abram so that they would in time be spoken of sympathetically in you to all the races. (Galatians 3:8) As a result, the ones out of faith, we are spoken of favorably, even praised together with the faithful Abram.” (Galatians 3:9)

Given the choice between relying upon Yahowah’s Word as it was scribed by Moseh and Dowd, or believing what was scribbled in Sha’uwl’s / Paul’s letters, it is a wonder three people, much less three billion, have chosen to place their faith in this worm of a man. It is also hard to imagine that someone claiming to speak for God would call His Towrah a “curse.” But nonetheless, that is precisely what the founder of the Christian religion said next...

“Because (gar – for) to the degree that (hosos – as many and as far as) out of (ek) tasks and activities of (ergon – works or actions associated with, engaging in or acting upon) the Torah (nomou – Towrah, tragically misrepresented as “Law,” but meaning: the means to being nourished by that which is bestowed to become heirs, precepts which were apportioned, established, and received as a means to prosper and be approved, and prescriptions for an inheritance; from nemo – that which is provided, assigned, and distributed to heirs to nourish them (singular genitive, and thus a specific characterization)), they exist being (eisin eisin) under (hupo – by way of) a curse (katara – that which a supernatural power deploys when he wishes to invoke harm by promoting evil, that which is accursed, denounced and detested), because (gar – for indeed) it has been written (grapho) that (hoti): ‘To become accursed (epikataratos – to be exposed, abhorrent, and repugnant, slanderous, hateful, and malicious (to become is a product of the nominative case)) is everyone (pas – all and completely) who (hos) does not (ou) remain in (emmeno – stay and continue in, persevering with) all (pas) that (tois) has been written (grapho) in (en) the scroll (to biblion – the book or documented written record typically on papyrus) of the (tou) Torah (nomou – Towrah), accordingly (tou) to perform (poieomai – to make, produce, or do) them (autos).’” (Galatians 3:10)

This is the ultimate Pauline confession and it is to the crime of the millennia. For informed and rational individuals, the case against Paul is closed. The testimony Yahowah has called “good, beneficial, and perfect, healing and restoring,” Sha’uwl has just labeled “abhorrent and malicious.” Since both cannot be telling the truth, who do you suppose is lying?

And as for anyone who feels that my vilification of the Plague of Death is too harsh, God begs to differ. The curse isn’t the Towrah but, instead, Paul.

We have comprehensively researched every discernible connotation of “nomos.” And here, Sha’uwl has openly confessed to what we have long known. He is using nomou to describe the “Torah,” as if nomos and towrah were synonymous. We know this because in the attempt to prove this point he translated the Hebrew word “towrah” into Greek as “nomou.” As a result, a Pauline apologist can no longer promote the myth that Paul was condemning Rabbinic Law instead of the Towrah without contradicting Paul’s own testimony. With this statement, the debate is over, the question has been answered. Paul is demeaning and denouncing not just the Word of God, but Yahowah’s foundational testimony.

Beyond emphatically demonstrating that Sha’uwl was using variations of nomos to convey “Torah” throughout his letters, to be intellectually honest, the meaning of towrah in Hebrew which is “teaching, instruction, direction, and guidance” must prevail over “law.” Therefore, not only is Paul implicating himself by disparaging the Word of God, those who publish Christian Bibles are universally guilty of misrepresenting one of the most important words ever written when they render towrah via nomos as “law.”

While Sha’uwl has bragged about annulling and destroying Yahowah’s Teaching, he has now upped the ante. He has devolved into outright slander. Katara, translated as “a curse,” is actually a considerably more demeaning concept. This noun is defined in a dozen lexicons as being “an execration, imprecation, and malediction.” Since these are not common terms, let’s consider how they are defined. To execrate is to “denounce someone or something in an insulting manner, declaring it or them to be abhorrent and loathsome.” To imprecate is “to invoke evil on someone or something, cursing them or using profanity.” And a malediction is defined as “a word or phrase uttered with the intention of bringing about evil.” It speaks of “slander which maligns and is malicious,” and of “magical thinking.” If we are to believe Sha’uwl, all of these pejoratives apply to Yahowah and to His Towrah.

Katara is a compound of ara, “a malevolent prayer which is harmful, hateful, and repugnant,” and kata, meaning “down from, according to, and throughout.” Therefore, there is no getting around the fact that Sha’uwl is denouncing Yahowah’s Towrah because he loathes it. Sha’uwl wants us to believe that the book Yahowah authored to introduce Himself, to reveal His Covenant, to present His Invitations, and to provide His Guidance is “hateful and abhorrent, something to be maligned because it is evil, slanderous, harmful, and malicious throughout.”

This known, I have a confession. I joined the two verbs in the opening statement together because the second insertion of eisin, which means “they are or they exist” when it is scribed in the third-person plural, is out of place at the statement’s conclusion. According to the Nestle-Aland, this sentence actually reads: “For as many as from works of law are under curse they are...” Therefore, I combined the verbs to convey the concepts of “being and existing.”

In both instances, eisin was scribed in the present active indicative third-person plural. In the present tense, Paul is portraying the evil curse as being in process with no end in sight. The active voice reveals that those who have chosen to observe the Torah have brought this abhorrent, harmful, and repugnant condition upon themselves. Worse, in the indicative mood, Paul is saying that his evaluation of the Towrah and its consequence is real, genuine, and actual.

Sha’uwl used a variation of katara to convey “accursed” in his citation of the Towrah’s Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 27:26. This variation is from epikataratos, an adjective that adds the prefix epi, meaning “on, upon, before, or against.” As such, Paul is attempting to ascribe each of the horrendous aspects of katara to the Towrah, itself, impugning its Author, by inserting this abhorrent concept directly into the Towrah’s dialog.

By doing so in this context, Sha’uwl is affirming beyond any doubt that the nomou he is attempting to destroy is the one Yahowah authored. If he had meant to demean Rabbinic Law, he would have quoted from the Oral Law which became the Talmud.

Incidentally, Sha’uwl’s initial condemnation is actually undermined by his citation. If the Torah is “katara – a curse from a supernatural power designed to invoke harm by promoting evil,” and if it is “katara – abhorrent, slanderous, and malicious,” then it cannot be a credible source. That which is katara is “not reliable,” and thus should not have been used to validate his claim. And yet, having come to understand Paul’s strategy relative to dissolving and dismantling the Towrah, and now viewing it as it is presented in Galatians 3:6 to 4:31, there is no denying that Paul was trying to use the Towrah to demonstrate that the Towrah should not be used.

And he did so foolishly by citing a passage that negated his point simply because it included the words “curse” and “Towrah.” Sha’uwl was evidently hoping that his audience would believe he was right in inferring that even God thought “the Towrah is a curse.” Beyond this singular similarity, it was counterproductive for him to cite Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 27:26 in this context. After all, the passage says nothing about working for one’s salvation.

But if, as Christians protest, Paul was intending to say that “observing the Torah” cannot save us because we have to do “everything that is written in the scroll of the Torah” or be “accursed” by it, then they and he would still be wrong. While that is the most reasonable interpretation of Paul’s rhetoric, the very purpose of the Towrah is to provide a remedy for our failures. It perfects the imperfect.

The flawed and truncated Greek citation is based upon Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 27:26. The discussion in which it is found begins with a long list of blessings, all of which flow from observing the Towrah – all of which, therefore, negate the point Sha’uwl was attempting to promote. As always, the context destroys his argument.

Starting with the 9th verse of Dabarym 27, we find:

“Then (wa) Moseh (Mosheh – One Who Draws Out), the priests (ha kohen – ministers), and the Lowy (Lowy – those who unite) spoke (dabar – sharing the word) to (‘el) all (kol) Yisra’el (Yisra’el – individuals who engage and endure with God) to say (la ‘amar – in order to communicate), ‘Choose to be quiet (sakath – refrain from speaking and elect to be silent (the hifil stem and imperative mood mean that we facilitate our ability to listen when we choose to close our mouths)) and (wa) listen (shama’ – hear), Yisra’el (Yisra’el – everyone who exists and endures with God). This (ha zeh) day (yowm) you are (hayah – you exist as (in the niphal perfect, the existence of an individual who lives with God is predicated upon their willingness to listen to God’s complete testimony)) a family (la ‘am – of related people) approaching (la) Yahowah ( – a transliteration of YaHoWaH as instructed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), your God (‘elohym). (27:9)

Choose to actually listen (shama’ – under the auspices of freewill, elect to literally hear the totality of (the qal stem encourages a literal interpretation, the perfect conjugation conveys completeness, and the consecutive mood is an expression of volition)) to the voice of (ba qowl –to the speech and words of) Yahowah ( – the pronunciation of YaHoWaH as guided by His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), your God (‘elohym).

And (wa) of your own volition, act upon (‘asah ‘eth – elect to observe, celebrate, gain from, and profit in accordance with) His terms and conditions (mitswah – the directions associated with His relationship agreement), along with (wa ‘eth) His inscribed prescriptions for living (choq – His written instructions which cut us into the relationship) which beneficially (‘asher – as a result of the relationship) I am instructing you (‘anky tsawah – I am guiding, directing, and teaching you) this day (ha yowm).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 27:9-10)

Rather than “praying without ceasing,” which is a constant jabbering and something only Paul insisted upon, Yahowah is encouraging His children to be quiet and listen to what He has to say. By doing so, we are prepared to respond to the conditions of His Covenant which serve as prescriptions for living.

Yahowah inspired Moseh to explain that, by listening to Him and by responding to His Towrah, a person is established in the relationship and blessed. But then, knowing that many would choose a different course, with many being misled by the likes of Sha’uwl, the Towrah delineates a series of behaviors that God says will engender an unfavorable response.

“Invoking harm upon oneself (‘arar – bringing a curse upon oneself by making oneself unlikable) is the individual (‘ysh) who (‘asher) engages and acts with regard to (‘asah – who conceives, performs on behalf of, and makes) a presentation of a false god (pesel – an idol or icon fashioned to be believed and worshiped). Any (wa) representation of a pagan god which is offered (massekah – presented as a cocktail of imagined deities poured out) is a detestable thing (tow’ebah – an abomination which is repulsive, loathsome, and abhorrent) to Yahowah (Yahowah – written as directed by His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence).

It is the work (ma’asah – the pursuit, practice and undertaking) of the hand (yad – influence [note that Sha’uwl’s epistles were inscribed by the hand]) of a clever and crafty man (charash – of an artificer who contrives and devises an inscribed and artificial construct), choosing to present it (wa sym – and through their designs to formally place it, bringing it about, establishing, listing and appointing it) slyly, concealing his purpose (ba ha sether – acting covertly in a veiled manner so as to hide his disingenuous behavior, doing it in a hidden way obfuscating his motives).

And then (wa) the entire family (ha kol ‘am) replied (‘amar), ‘This is truthful, trustworthy, and reliable (‘amen – this is verifiable and dependable).” Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 27:15

The list of counterproductive behaviors continues with he: “who lightly esteems his (Heavenly) Father and Mother…, who steals his neighbor’s property…, who misleads a blind person…, who denies justice to a stranger, foreigner, orphan, or widow…, who commits any form of incest…, who commits bestiality…, who strikes and beats his neighbor…, and who accepts a bribe which harms an innocent person.” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 27:16-25)

We should not be surprised, therefore, that those who consistently perpetrate these unsavory behaviors will be shunned by God. But it is telling that the course Paul charted was listed first (in 27:15), and unlike the others was called “an abomination,” suggesting that nothing is worse than what Sha’uwl has done.

Paul’s misappropriated citation follows. It was misquoted and then removed from the context which incriminated him since the Dabarym message is the antithesis of what Paul reported…

“Invoking harm upon oneself (‘arar – cursing oneself by making oneself undesirable) is whoever relationally and beneficially (‘asher) is not (lo’) established (quwm – restored, supported, encouraged, lifted up and caused to stand, confirmed, and enabled to endure) by (‘eth – with and through) the words (dabar – message and accounts) of this (ha zo’th) Towrah (towrah – source of guidance, direction, teaching, and instruction), approaching (la) by engaging through them (‘asah ‘eth – by acting upon them and doing productive things according to them, celebrating and profiting with them).

And then (wa) the entire (kol) family (‘am – people and nation) responded (‘amar – answered, promised, and declared), ‘This is true, acceptable, and reliable (‘aman – this is affirming, supportive, verifiable, and dependable).’” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 27:26)

Therefore, according to Yahowah: “Invoking harm upon oneself is whoever relationally and beneficially is NOT established, restored, and supported by the words of this Towrah | Teaching, approaching by acting upon them. And the entire family responded, ‘This is true, acceptable, reliable, verifiable, and dependable.’” This means that any attack on the Torah, any belittlement of it, any attempt to negate or annul it, any statement which suggests that it is a curse, is directly opposed to Yahowah’s Guidance. It also means that, to “make” his point, Sha’uwl had to misquote God to the point of inverting His message. But more on that in a moment.

When Paulos misquoted Yahowah’s instruction regarding the restorative nature of His Towrah to imply that it was a curse, two things became indisputable. First, Paul is deliberately and undeniably contradicting Yahowah. The man’s message and God’s testimony are incongruous. Their conclusions are the antithesis of one another. Therefore, this man could not have been speaking for God.

And second, since Paulos wrote nomou in his letter to translate the word, towrah, in Moseh’s statement, each time we see any variation of nomos in the Greek text, we should translate it “Towrah.” The man whose letter we are evaluating translated it for us. And in this case, that must take precedence over any lexicon.

Reinforcing God’s essential instruction, the very next statement from Moseh regarding the value of Yahowah’s Towrah reveals:

“And it shall reliably exist (wa hayah – it (the Towrah) was, and without interruption it will literally be (the qal stem affirms that this promise can literally be relied upon, the perfect conjugation conveys that this realization is total and complete without interruption, and consecutive mood affirms that this is God’s desire and our choice)) that if (‘im – predicated upon the condition that) you really listen to and consistently hear (shama’ shama’ ba – you actually pay attention to and continually receive (the qal stem conveys the genuine and literal nature of the relationship while the imperfect conjugation communicates that which is continual and consistent, unfolding throughout time)) the voice of (qowl – the recited words of) Yahowah (YaHoWaH – an accurate presentation of the name of ‘elowah – God as guided by His towrah – instructions regarding His hayah – existence), your God (‘elohym), for the purpose of (la) observing (shamar – closely examining and carefully considering) and for the purpose of (la) engaging in and acting upon (‘asah ‘eth – celebrating and profiting through) all of (kol) His terms and conditions (mitswah – the codicils of His covenant) which beneficially and relationally (‘asher) I (‘anky) am instructing (tsawah – I am directing, teaching, and guiding) you this day (ha yowm), then (wa) Yahowah (Yahowah – written as directed by His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), your God (‘elohym), He will place and appoint you (natan – He will grant you the opportunity to be) as the most high (‘elyown) among and above (‘al) all (kol) the ethnicities (gowym – people from different races and places) of the earth (ha ‘erets).

And (wa) flowing over you (bow’ – coming upon you) will be all of these, the Almighty’s, blessings (kol ha barakah ‘eleh – beneficial promises and valuable gifts), continuing to reach and inundate you (nasag – will be offered to you) when (ky) you consistently listen (shama’) to the voice of (ba qowl – the recited words of) Yahowah (Yahowah – a transliteration of , our ‘elowah – God as directed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), your God (‘elohym).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 28:1-2)

The Towrah’s | Guidance is as wonderful as its Teaching is consistent, as rewarding as its Instructions are enlightening. The Towrah exists to bless us in this life and reward us in the next. All we have to do to benefit from Yahowah’s promises is to listen to Him and then act upon what He has requested.

Since Yahowah inspired Moseh | Moses to say…

“Invoking harm upon oneself is whoever relationally and beneficially is not established, restored, and supported by the words of this Towrah, approaching by engaging through them. And then the entire family responded, ‘This is true, acceptable, and reliable,’” (Dabarym 27:26) …why did Paul write:

“Because to the degree that out of tasks and activities of the Torah, they exist under a curse which a supernatural power deploys when he wishes to invoke harm by promoting evil, doing what is accursed, denounced, and detested, for it has been written that: ‘To become accursed, abhorrent and repugnant, everyone who does not remain in everything that has been written in the scroll of the Torah, such that they do them.’” (Galatians 3:10)

These statements are the antithesis of one another, diametrically opposed and opposites. The Towrah says: “a person invokes harm upon themselves and is not restored or established, when they ignore the Towrah by failing to act upon it.” Galatians says: “to become accursed, a person should remain associated with Towrah, doing everything it requires.” Paul’s “citation” is so blatantly fraudulent, so obviously disingenuous, why have so many people been fooled by all of these errant quotations and subsequent assertions? This is not the first time Sha’uwl has misquoted God, nor will it be his last. It is just the worst.

Along these lines, please make a note of Yahowah’s instruction in Dabarym 28:1-2, where He has asked us to “genuinely listen to and hear the voice of Yahowah, our God,” repeating the request twice. Later in Galatians, Sha’uwl will play off of Yahowah’s “listen to Me,” mocking God to say “the Towrah cannot hear you.” Inverting God’s message was his specialty. He was better at it than the Serpent in the Garden.

Now that you are informed, if you are rational, it is impossible for you to view Paul and Galatians favorably. He is disingenuous, and it is filled with his deceptions. And while I wish it were that simple, it isn’t because Paul’s destructive, deadly, and damning rhetoric has been placed where it does the most harm – superseding the Towrah and Prophets. He has undermined Yahowah’s credibility and testimony, and promoted something that is completely opposed to both. All the while, he was pretending to speak for God by misquoting Him.

In this way, Sha’uwl has done more to separate souls from God than anyone who has ever lived. It is the reason he alone was called out by Yahowah, by name, with God telling us that his religion would be as popular as it would be devastatingly deadly among Gentiles. And while that’s sad, since Paul demonized Jews, his anti-Semitic religion is an abomination.

According to the Nestle-Aland, the statement Paul wrote actually reads: “For as many as from works of law are under curse they are. It has been written for (not applicable) curse on all who not stay in all the things having been written in the small book of the law the to do them.”

Not bothering to examine the passage Sha’uwl cited in the Torah, as it was written in Hebrew, Bacon’s King James Version, and Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, misquoted Sha’uwl and Yahowah. And by doing so, they demeaned the source of life. KJV: “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.” LV: “For as many as are of the works of the law (operibus legis) are under a curse. For it has been written (Scriptum): “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all the things that have been written in the book of the Law (Libro legis), so as to do them.”

After considerable study and thought, I’m convinced that, while the New Living Translation is inconsistent with the Greek text, this Christian publisher accurately conveyed Paul’s intended message: “But those who depend on the law to make them right with God are under his curse, for the Scriptures say, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the commands that are written in God’s Book of the Law.’”

You’ll notice, of course, that the NLT had to corrupt the Dabarym quotation to keep it from refuting Paul’s thesis. But that is precisely what Paul wanted them to do, what he expected those he deceived to do, which is why he thought he could get away with misquoting a passage to support his declaration when he knew that it was actually in direct opposition to it.

Paul’s strategy here, as it will be in each of the passages which comprise the foundation of his thesis, is to play off word pairs and patterns. In Galatians 3:10, the operative words associating Paul’s premise with the inaccurately cited verse are “cursed – towrah – doing.” Variations of each of these words appear in both statements, albeit to communicate mutually opposed ideas.

Ambivalent to Paul’s tactic, of his willingness to twist the Towrah to serve his agenda, Christians and Jews have been cursed by the legacy of Galatians. They have now been led to believe that the Torah is not just irrelevant and passé but is actually a curse to be avoided and they have used it to drive a wedge between Jews and their God.

Nonetheless, Yahowah’s instruction is clear. It is neither hidden nor obscure. This is hard to misinterpret: “Invoking harm upon oneself is whoever relationally and beneficially is not established, restored, and supported by the words of this Towrah, approaching by engaging through them. And then the entire family responded, ‘This is true, acceptable, and reliable.’” (Dabarym 27:26) And as always, the context in which it was delivered reinforced the merit of God’s instruction.

In light of this statement, and the ones which precede and follow it in Dabarym, Paul’s postulate is torn asunder. According to God, the Towrah is not just the means to eternal life, it is the only way to live forever – which is why those who do not capitalize upon it are said to be harming themselves. And yet Christians have managed to justify the juxtaposition of two mutually exclusive thoughts, one from man, the other from God, to infer that the Torah is a curse, rather than the source of life and redemption. It is little wonder that Yahowah called Sha’uwl the Plague of Death.



Continuing to play games with word patterns, Sha’uwl reinforced a similar presumption by once again misappropriating God’s testimony:

“But (de – if follows, moreover, and namely) because (oti) with (en – inside and with regard to) the Torah (nomo –– the Towrah | Teaching, with nomo meaning: allotment which is parceled out, the inheritance which is given, and the prescription to become an heir) absolutely no one (oudeis – nothing, nobody, and not one; from oude heis – not even a singular individual) is vindicated or justified (dikaioo – made or shown to be correct, proper, or right, acquitted or declared righteous) by (para – with and in the opinion of) the God (to ΘΩ – the Theos) becomes evident (delos – becomes clear and is made plain (scribed in the nominative, where an adjective is presented influencing the subject, God, in this case, renaming Him)) because (oti – namely and for this reason): ‘Those who are correct, righteous, and proper (o dikaios – those who are right, upright, virtuous, and guiltless) out of (ek) faith (pistis – originally meant trust but evolved to faith or belief as a result of Sha’uwl’s usage in these letters) will live (zao – will be alive).’” (Galatians 3:11)

This statement is as errant as it is unequivocal. Sha’uwl has misquoted Yahowah, twisting His words again to claim that God is incapable of saving anyone. Sha’uwl / Paul wants Christians to believe that “oudeis – absolutely no one, not even one person” can become righteous or vindicated as a result of Yahowah’s Towrah | Guidance.

If this is so, why did God say otherwise? If so, why did Yahowah send Dowd to fulfill the Towrah’s promises on the Miqra’ey (Invitations to be Called Out and Meet) of Pesach (Passover), Matsah (UnYeasted Bread), and Bikuwrym (Firstborn Children)? Why was the Towrah associated with the doorway to eternal life during the Instruction on the Mount? And if Yahowah cannot save, how is it that Paul or Gospel Jesus could do what God could not?

Why does Yahowah say that Dowd is right and thus vindicated if He is incompetent? Why did Yahowah bother saving Noah? What was the purpose of liberating the Children of Yisra’el from the Crucibles of Oppression in Egypt? Why bother with the Covenant if no one survives to enjoy it. Why did Yahowah promise to make His children immortal and perfect, adopting them, enriching them, and empowering them as the benefits of the Covenant?

Should Paul be right and God wrong, if the Towrah cannot do any of these things, the children of Yahowah’s Covenant, ‘Abraham, Yitschaq, Ya’aqob, and all twelve of Ya’aqob’s sons, are dead, along with ‘Adam, Chawah, Noach, his family, Moseh, ‘Aharown, Yahowsha’ ben Nuwn, Dowd, Shamuw’el, and all of the prophets including Yasha’yah and Yirmayah. If Paul is right, there would have been no hope for anyone who lived in the first four millennia of human history. Even the man who scribed the Towrah would have been destined for She’owl.

Why write the Towrah? Why bother with the Prophets? What is the purpose of the Psalms? Why was the Covenant conceived? Why were the Ten Statements etched in Stone? Why did God bother inviting us to attend His seven annual Feasts? What is the benefit of God accurately predicting the future if not to demonstrate that He can be trusted?

Sha’uwl has clearly thrown down the gauntlet by saying that God’s Teaching and Guidance, His Towrah, has not, cannot, and will not save a single solitary soul. So, how does anyone benefit from what Yahowah has done if they do not know what He has done? How does Passover restore life? How does UnYeasted Bread perfect souls? What is the means to adoption into the Covenant Family on Firstborn Children? How and why did Yahowah enrich and empower His family? What is the purpose of the Covenant? These are all questions without answers should the Towrah be rendered moot. And that, perhaps, is the reason Sha’uwl never addresses any of these issues. All he asks is that you believe him when he lies, especially when misquoting and contradicting God.

Most people don’t know that Chabaquwq / Habakkuk was one of Yahowah’s prophets and that is to their detriment because, taunting and mocking those he played for fools, Sha’uwl ripped a passage out of a prophecy that actually condemned him by name. This is as brazen as Muhammad telling Muslims that the proper food for them to consume was “Halal” – which is Satan’s given name.

The battle lines have been drawn. There is no getting around what is at stake. This is Sha’uwl and his letters versus Yahowah and His Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms. So let’s compare notes.

Perhaps we should reevaluate Yahowah’s narrative in Chabaquwq / Habakkuk in which Sha’uwl’s lies were exposed. In that getting this right is important, let’s not make the same mistake that Sha’uwl made by removing part of one verse from the context of that prophetic discussion. Yahowah begins...

“Upon My requirements and responsibilities, I will continually stand. I will provide affirmation and validation for that which protects and fortifies. Therefore, I will be on the lookout in order to see what he will say about Me, observing how he will question Me. So then, how can I be expected to change My attitude, My thinking, or My response concerning My disapproving rebuke? (Chabaquwq / Habakkuk 2:1)

Then Yahowah responded to me, and He said, ‘Write this revelation and expound on it in writing so that by reciting this, he might run away.’ (2:2) Still surely, this revelation from God is for the appointed time of the Mow’ed Meetings. It provides a witness and speaks, pouring out evidence in the end. Whatever extended period of time is required for this question to be resolved, this shall not be proven false. Expect him in this regard, because indeed, he will absolutely come, neither being delayed nor lingering. (Chabaquwq / Habakkuk 2:3)

Pay attention, he will be puffed up with false pride. His soul, it is not right or straightforward in him. Therefore, through trust and reliance, by being firmly established and upheld by that which is dependable and truthful, those who are upright and vindicated shall live.” (Chabaquwq / Habakkuk 2:4)

Before we press on and consider the remainder of this prophetic warning regarding Sha’uwl | Paul, let’s check to see if he quoted Yahowah accurately when he wrote: “But because with the Torah absolutely no one is vindicated or justified by God becomes evident because: ‘Those who are correct, righteous, and proper, out of faith will live.’” (Sha’uwl / Galatians 3:11)

Once again, a modicum of inquiry reveals that Sha’uwl twisted Yahowah’s statement so significantly that the opposite of what was conveyed was used to undermine God’s credibility. But this time, in so doing, Sha’uwl took us directly to Yahowah’s single most damning personal rebuke. The prophecy continues, with Yah saying...

“Moreover, because the intoxicating and inebriating spirit of this man of deceptive infidelity and treacherous betrayal is a high-minded moral failure, and his is an arrogant and meritless presumption, he will not rest, find peace, or live, whoever is open to the broad path, the duplicitous and improper way, associated with Sha’uwl. He and his soul are like the plague of death.

And so those who are brought together by him, receiving him, will never be satisfied. All of the Gentiles will gather together unto him – all of the people from different races and nations in different places. (Chabaquwq / Habakkuk 2:5)

But they do not ask questions, any of them, about him. Terse references to the word they lift up as taunts to ridicule, with implied associations that mock, controlling through comparison and counterfeit, along with allusive sayings with derisive words arrogantly conveyed.

There are hard and perplexing questions which need to be asked of him, and duplicitous dealings to be known regarding him.

So they should say, ‘Woe to the one who claims to be great so as to increase his offspring, acting like a rabbi, when neither applies to him.’

For how long will they make pledges based upon his significance, becoming burdened by his testimony?” (Chabaquwq / Habakkuk 2:6)

“Woe to one who is cut off, coveting, while wickedly soliciting ill-gotten gain in league with him, setting up and appointing his temple in association with heights of heaven, thereby snatching away property and possessions from the paws of fellow countrymen. (Chabaquwq / Habakkuk 2:9)

You have deliberately decided upon and conspired at the advice of another to promote a shameful plot to confuse those who approach your religious edifice, ruining and reducing many by separating people from different races and places, and in the process losing your soul.” (Chabaquwq / Habakkuk 2:10)

“Woe to the one who causes his neighbors, companions, or countryman to drink, thereby associating them with this venomous wrath, but also making them drunk for the purpose of observing their genitals.

You will get your fill of shame and infamy instead of honor and glory. Inebriated, in addition, you also show yourself unacceptable, going roundabout over the lack of circumcision.

Upon you is the binding cup of Yahowah’s right hand. Therefore, public humiliation and indignity will be your status and reward.” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:15-16)

Sobering.

Beyond Sha’uwl’s / Paul’s pathetic attack on the Towrah, his entire premise is nonsensical. Faith has no value. Imagine three people crossing a bridge over a deep cavern. The first has complete faith in its design and construction. The second despises the architect and builder and has no confidence in either. The third is the village idiot who couldn’t spell cat even if you spotted him the c and t. And yet their fate is the same – unaffected by their beliefs. They will succeed or fail, live or die, based upon the viability of the bridge, not their attitude toward it.

In so many ways, faith is the antithesis of trust, just as belief is the inverse of reliance. This dichotomy exists because trust is predicated upon knowing and understanding, while faith fills the void when both are absent. From this perspective, the King James Version, which is a revision five times over of the Latin Vulgate, which was a blended compilation of Greek translations of the Hebrew text, is worse than misleading with regard to the Torah’s message. They are wrong. KJV: “But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, ‘The just shall live by faith.’”

The King James’ position is illogical, albeit since it’s a translation, it may not be entirely their fault. Even if no one was justified by the Torah, that does not infer that the just shall live by faith. Rather than cause and effect, these are mutually exclusive ideas. It is like saying: Islam does not work so it is evident we should all be atheists.

The Roman Catholic text reads: “And, since in the law no one is justified with God, this is manifest: “For the just man lives by faith.” That is not what Yahowah said or Habakkuk wrote. And it is not true.

Often entertaining, NLT postured: “So it is clear that no one can be made right with God by trying to keep the law. For the Scriptures say, ‘It is through faith that a righteous person has life.’” While this was Sha’uwl’s intent, Paul has been anything but “clear.” The passages he has quoted he has muddled, and he is often guilty of contradicting his own statements in addition to God’s. Moreover, the Towrah does not say anything about “faith,” much less that belief leads to being “righteous.”

As has become our custom, let’s also consider the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear. It conveys: “But that in law no one is made right along the God clear because the right from trust will live.”

If God’s Word cannot save anyone, then whose words can? Should “faith” actually be the key to salvation, who should we believe? Said another way: who would be so foolish as to believe a man who said that he spoke for a god who he claimed could not be trusted?

Speaking of trust, you may have noticed that with the exception of the Nestle-Aland Interlinear, all three of the most popular Bible translations rendered pistis, “faith,” and not “trust.” So, while we have done all of the etymological archeology necessary to prove that pistis meant “trust and reliance” to Greeks circa 50 CE, the uniformity found in old and modern translations regarding pistis demonstrates that Paul’s letters caused its meaning to metamorphosize into “faith and belief” as a result of his popularity. As a direct result of Paul’s letters, Christians refer to themselves as “believers,” and use “faith” as if it were synonymous with religion.

Frankly, the moment we recognize that “trust” is not achievable in the context of Galatians due to its lack of specificity, we must acquiesce to the modern interpretation. After all, it would be absurd to ask someone to “trust or rely” upon anything without giving them sufficient evidence or reason to do so. But it would be perfectly appropriate to ask them to “believe” that which they do not know, that which was neither explained nor verified, much less rational. And that is the rub; Paul’s position is irrational, necessitating faith.

The reason that Paul never provides the basis of trust, which is evidence, or the basis of reliance, which is understanding, is that his letters are focused on articulating contrarian opinions and conflicting conclusions. Reason is his enemy, his most debilitating foe. His singular ploy is to draw invalid cause and effect relationships between false statements.

We have seen nothing but a litany of lies tied together by circular reasoning. Not once in the entirety of this epistle has Paul, or will Paul, provide any reliable evidence, and thus nothing to bolster his use of pistis. Even here, where he has misquoted a portion of two verses, neither validates his point. Instead, both only reflect his rhetoric when they are inverted. Therefore, since a reader is incapable of trusting his position, Paul has limited “believers” to put their “faith” in his assertions – all of which are false.

A very thoughtful friend sent a note. He wrote: “When I was agnostic, I would ask Christians why I should place my faith in their religion, and not believe the Islamic Allah, Buddha, or even the Hindu gods. No one was able to provide a rational answer. Their only “proof” was that they felt the presence of their god controlling their lives.

And yet, every Islamic terrorist would say the same thing, with many of them willing to kill others in the process of dying for their faith. So I came to realize that faith was this fuzzy nebulous concept which required no thought, no actual evidence, and no proof. With faith, a person does not have to learn anything or think. Both of which are appealing to many.”

Therefore, the most logical and informed conclusion based upon the evidence available to us is that Paul established his faith, his religion, with these words, rendering them as he intended them. As you read them, remember that this was the beginning of the New Testament – the first words written on behalf of a religion drawing its credibility from a God the chief architect was debasing. It’s a wonder it survived this incredulous beginning…

“O ignorant and irrational, unintelligent and unreasonable, Galatians. Who bewitched and deceived you, and who slandered, bringing this evil upon you, seducing you? (Galatians 3:1)

This alone I want to learn from you: out of accomplishments of the Towrah was the spirit received by you or alternatively out of hearing and belief? (Galatians 3:2)

In this way you are ignorant and irrational, lacking in knowledge and unable to think logically. Having begun with the spirit, now in flesh you are completing? (Galatians 3:3)

So much and for so long you have suffered these things, vexed and annoyed without reason or result, chaotically without a plan. If indeed this really happened that you were so thoughtless, achieving nothing without reason or result. (Galatians 3:4)

The one therefore then supplying you with the spirit and causing it to function, was this operation of powers in you by acting upon and engaging in the tasks delineated in the Torah or out of hearing faith? (Galatians 3:5)

Just as and to the degree that Abram believed and had faith in the Theos so it was reasoned and accounted to him as righteousness. (Galatians 3:6) You know as a result that the ones out of faith, these are the sons of Abram. (Galatians 3:7)

Having seen beforehand then by contrast, in the writing because out of faith makes right the people from different races and places, the Theos, He before beneficial messenger acted on behalf of Abram so that they would in time be spoken of favorably in you to all the races. (Galatians 3:8) As a result, the ones out of faith, we are spoken of favorably, even praised together with the faithful Abram.” (Galatians 3:9)

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

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

Based on what he has written and what follows, Paul bluntly stated that the Towrah was incapable of saving anyone. It is the basis of Pauline Doctrine. It is what Christians believe. It is wrong.

The Towrah says that Yahowah will shower those who listen to Him with blessings. He will adopt us into His Family, so long as we respond to the advice He has shared in His Towrah. And based upon the fulfilled prophecies He has articulated, we can trust Him.

A relationship with Yahowah is predicated upon coming to know Him. This is only possible by reading what He had to say about Himself in His Towrah. And second, it is predicated upon observing the Towrah’s guidance regarding the Covenant, which enables us to properly respond to its conditions. We approach Yahowah by answering His Miqra’ey | Invitations. They work in tandem with the Covenant.

While no one has ever been saved just because they ate lamb during Passover and matsah on UnYeasted Bread, it is by capitalizing upon what Yahowah has done for us on these days through His Son that makes it possible for us to live forever, be perfected, and then adopted into Yahowah’s Family.

The reason God consistently uses the Hebrew word, shamar, meaning “observe,” in connection with His Towrah Guidance, is because He wants us to examine the Torah closely, to look at it intently, to investigate it thoroughly, to not only move in close and scrutinize its “jots and tittles,” but to step back and visualize how its threads are woven into a comprehensive and cohesive tapestry. In this regard, shamar and shama’ are related concepts. Shama’ means “to listen” and shamar means “to observe.” By combining our senses of hearing and sight, our understanding of God grows.

By closely examining and carefully considering the Torah as if the fate of our soul depended upon it, by listening to what Yahowah had to say, by coming to know its Author, by understanding what He is offering and expects in return, we are in a position to trust Him, to rely upon His Word. And that is the sum and substance of the Towrah, its Covenant, and our subsequent redemption.

Yahowah explained what we should eat and what to avoid, not only because His advice, if respected, will keep us healthy and enable us to live longer, more enjoyable lives, but also because He wants us to look at the words we are being asked to consume. Ingest too many unhealthy and poisonous propositions, and eventually they will kill you. Dine on a feast of trustworthy terms, like those found in the Towrah, and you will live.

No one has ever endeared themselves with God because they forsook pork, but if you roll around in the mud with pigs, you are going to get dirty and die estranged from Him. There is nothing deadlier than a deceitful diet.

God wants us to know Him and understand His message, so that we can objectively and rationally choose to trust and rely upon Him. He doesn’t want us to jump into the unknown with our eyes closed, in a giant leap of faith, because that will get us killed. He wants us to walk with Him into the light, with our eyes, ears, hearts, and minds open and receptive to His message.

“And (wa) I will grow and thrive (rabah – I will increase, becoming greater by rearing offspring, continuing to remain (hifil perfect)) with (‘eth – alongside) your offspring (zera’ ‘atah – seed, descendants, and extended family) in connection with (ka – corresponding to and suitable for) the highest and most illuminated (kowkab – speaking of the light emanating from stars in the loftiness of (from kabar – to be multiplied and enriched in abundance)) spiritual realm of the heavens (ha shamaym – of the abode of God in the seventh dimension).

In addition (wa), I will give (nathan – I will bestow and deliver, I will grant a gift, I will offer and hand down (qal perfect)) to (la – to facilitate the approach of) your offspring (zera’ ‘atah – extended family and descendants) everything (kol) associated with (‘eth) these (ha) Godly (‘el) realms (‘erets – regions).

So (wa), through (ba – with and by way of) your descendants (zera’ ‘atah – your seed, offspring, and extended family), every (kol) race (gowym – ethnicity and place) on the earth (ha ‘erets – of the realm and land) will be blessed with more favorable circumstances (barak – will be greeted, lifted up, commended, and adored). (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 26:4)

This is because (‘eqeb – this is the reason for and the end result of, it is the cause and consequence, the merit and reward, of trusting the evidence; from ‘aqab – to dig in one’s heels, leaving footprints which are straightforward and steadfast, unwavering (the basis of Ya’aqob’s name)), to show the way to the benefits of the relationship (‘asher – to reveal the path to an upright and elevated state, a joyful attitude, and an encouraged mindset, to demonstrate walking the correct way along the proper path to a prosperous life, and to make the connections which lead to building an enduring, close, and beneficial association), ‘Abraham (‘Abraham – father who raises and lifts up those who stand up and reach up, father of the abundantly enriched, merciful father, or father of multitudes who are confused and troublesome) listened to (shama’ – for a period of time he heard, he used his ears and the perception of hearing to completely process audible information so as to totally understand (qal perfect – literally but not consistently or continually)) My voice (b-qowl-y – the way I speak, to the sound of My call, to My audible instructions and guidance; related to quwm – to arise, take a stand, and establish and qara’ – by way of an invitation and summons, an offer to meet and be welcomed, to be called out by reading and reciting), and he visually observed and carefully considered (shamar – he habitually kept his eyes focused upon, literally and continuously closely examining and diligently evaluating, paying attention to the details so that he would understand, thereby protected by caring about, prioritizing, and watching over (qal imperfect – literally and continually)) My requirements and My responsibilities (mishmereth ‘any – My verbalized expressions regarding My mission to provide safeguards and My obligation to fulfill them; from mashal – vivid and easily remembered proverbs and parables providing wisdom through representation and comparison and shamar – to observe), My directions and conditions pertaining to what I am offering and expecting in return (mitswah ‘any – My binding instructions regarding My contractual agreement and My authorized requests regarding this relationship), My inscribed and clearly communicated prescriptions for living (chuqah – My engraved and thus written statements which have been chiseled in stone to communicate how one should respond to be cut into the relationship; from chaqah and choq – to carve out a share of something and cut someone into a relationship through a portrayal of nourishing thoughts, cheqer – addressing that which can be discovered, explored, probed, and examined to gain information through a determined and comprehensive search to increase comprehension), and My Towrah (Towrah ‘any – the Source from which My Teaching, Guidance, Instruction, and Direction Flow).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 26:5)

No further explanation required.

The man who benefited most from it and contributed the most to it said of the Towrah…

“Properly guided and happy (‘ashery – blessed by favorably advancing along the straightforward path, making progress by being led and walking in the right direction; from ‘asher – shown how to receive the benefits of the relationship and to get the most out of life) is the Way (derek – is the journey and path) to becoming perfected, entirely right, and without limitation (tamym – to becoming totally innocent, sound and perfectly healthy, whole and complete, unimpaired and impeccable, honest and correct, in absolute accord with the truth, demonstrating integrity and becoming upright, even righteous) are those who walk (ha halak – are those who travel, journeying through life by proceeding (qal participle – moving in a highly demonstrable and genuine manner)) in (ba) the Towrah (Towrah – the Teaching and Instruction, the Guidance and Direction) of Yahowah (Yahowah – the proper pronunciation of YaHoWaH, our ‘elowah – God as directed in His ToWRaH – teaching regarding His HaYaH – existence and our ShaLoWM – restoration).” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 119:1)



Twistianity

Devil’s Advocate

…Plague of Death

2

Epaggelia | The Promise

It is Written…

This next Pauline proposition was positioned to say that if the faithful were to be so foolish as to do something God requested and instructed, then they would be as good as dead. Incredulously, however, Paul’s renouncement of the Towrah was based on a citation from the very Towrah he was demeaning.

Logic wasn’t Sha’uwl’s strong suit. Perhaps that is why he panned knowing and insisted on faith.

Paul’s misappropriation was yet another truncated theft of Yahowah’s Teaching, this time from Qara’ / Leviticus 18:5. However, without referencing it, we would be challenged to make sense of Paul’s malfeasance. The Anti-god wrote…

“But (de) the Towrah (nomou – the allotment which is parceled out, the inheritance which is given, the nourishment which is bestowed to be used to grow, the precepts which are apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper and approved, and the prescription to become an heir) exists (eimi – is) not (ouk) out of (ek) faith or belief (pistis), but to the contrary (alla – making an emphatic contrast with an adversarial implication), ‘The one having done (o poieomai – the one having made and performed as such becoming) them (autos) will live (zao) in (en – with and by) them (autos).’” (Galatians 3:12)

Or if you prefer, the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear, reads: “But the law not is from trust but the one having done them will live in them.” While both are reasonably accurate renditions of the text, neither approach is literate due to the inferior substrate.

Nevertheless, having dealt with this malevolent malcontent up to this point, in this context, we can readily deduce that Sha’uwl / Paul was dismissing the Towrah using a Gnostic argument. He was saying that, because Yahowah’s plan was presented to people in the real world, asking them to engage in some things while avoiding others, it was of the flesh. This would be underscored by his animosity toward circumcision, as well as his jaundiced perception that towrah meant “laws to be obeyed” instead of “teaching to guide.” Further, as something to be known and understood, the Towrah was different than, more difficult, and thus, inferior to, faith – which was the basis of his resplendent euangelion | gospel scheme. Therefore, according to Paul, if someone foolishly yoked themselves to the antiquated and laborious way of the flesh rather than accepting his free and easy, new and improved, Faith, then they will have committed themselves to live out the rest of their miserable lives as slaves to the Tyrant of the Law.

At this point, I would have suggested that Satan could have conveyed this treasonous mantra in a more literate fashion, but having translated the Quran for God Damn Religion, I know better. The Devil and his Apprentice are Dumb and Dumber.

The prevailing verbs are “poieomai – having done” and “zao – will live.” Poieomai, which means “do, make, perform, carry out, cause to be, work, toil, behave, or accomplish an assigned task,” was conveyed in the aorist participle which designates antecedent time. This means that a person must perform, doing what the Towrah demands of them, to live, at least according to Paul. Antecedent time addresses that which has gone before or that which precedes another event – in this case, faith leading to future life. Further, in the active voice, poieomai presents the individual performing the action, which is to say that he is trying to prolong his own life. The nominative case requires us to view the subject, those attempting to perform as the Towrah directs, as becoming reclassified, thereby actually becoming defined by the Towrah.

Zao was scribed in the future tense, once again reinforcing the process Sha’uwl is rejecting. In the middle voice, we discover that the Towrah-observant individual is being affected by his own actions, suggesting that his performance will determine his fate. And finally, in the indicative, the writer is portraying this cause-and-effect scenario as real, even though he may not actually believe what he’s saying.

Reflecting Paul’s intent without actually translating what he wrote, the fervent Pauline apologists at the New Living Translation published: “This way of faith is very different from the way of law, which says, ‘It is through obeying the law that a person has life.’” Apart from changing “having done” to “obey,” altering all three verb tenses, and adding without justification “this way,” “very different from,” “the way,” “which says,” “it is through,” “the law,” and “that a person has,” while ignoring “but,” “not out of,” “to the contrary,” “the one,” “having done,” and “them” twice, what the NLT has proposed appears to convey the spirit of Sha’uwl’s proposition. However, by promoting a loose paraphrase, they have run even farther afield of the partial passage Paul cited.

To their credit, it is true that the “way of faith is very different from the way of the Torah.” One is the opposite of the other, telling us that the way of faith actually leads in the opposite direction of the way presented in the Towrah, with faith being at cross purposes with Yahowah’s Guidance. On this, we agree. But since that is true, recognizing that Yahowah insists that His Towrah | Guidance leads to Him, where do you suppose the “Way of Faith” might lead since it “is very different?” Might we venture a guess and suggest that the answer is found in Sha’uwl’s name – She’owl | Hell?

To satisfy our quest for understanding, the Qara’ 18:5 passage Sha’uwl was misappropriating is set into the context of the following Towrah | Instruction…

“Speak (dabar – communicate using words) to (‘el) the Children of Yisra’el (beny Yisra’el – children who engage and endure with God), and (wa) say (‘amar – affirm) to them (‘el), ‘I am (‘anky) Yahowah ( – a transliteration of YaHoWaH as instructed in His ToWRaH | teaching regarding His HaYaH | existence), your God (‘elohym). (Qara’ / Invited to be Called Out and Meet / Leviticus 18:1-2)

With regard to things which could be considered similar to (ka – as with and making a direct comparison to) the practices (ma’aseh – the pattern of behavior, the work, the things done, undertakings, and pursuits) of the realm (‘erets – land) of the troubling Crucibles of Oppression (Mitsraym – of the subjugation of religious, political, military, and economic hardship, control, and confinement) where (‘asher) you dwelt (yashab), you should not engage in or act upon (lo’ ‘asah – you should not celebrate or profit from) similar (ka) pursuits (ma’aseh – patterns of behavior, things done, undertakings, and practices) in the land (ba ‘erets) of Kana’any (Kana’any – Zealousness which subdues, bringing people into subjection; commonly transliterated Canaan), which beneficially as a result of the relationship (‘asher), I am (‘anky) bringing and accompanying you (bow’ ‘esh).

There (sham), you should not act upon or engage in (lo’ ‘asah) their decrees or customs (chuqah – their prescriptions for living and their traditions and statutes), never walking in or following them (lo’ halak – never patterning your life after them).” (Qara’ / Leviticus 18:3)

If I’m not mistaken, I could have sworn that Paul openly admitted that his euangelion | gospel was for Gentiles. And when we read this, we hear God say, “Don’t do that!” Instead, do this…

“With (‘eth) My means to exercise good judgment regarding the resolution of disputes (mishpat – My means to decide regarding justice and judgment), you should continually engage and genuinely act (‘asah). With (‘eth) My prescriptions for living (chuqah – My inscribed recommendations which cut you into the relationship), you should examine and carefully consider (shamar – you should make a habit of consistently and actually observing) for the purpose of approaching by (la) walking in them (halak ba). I am (‘anky), Yahowah (YaHoWaH – an accurate presentation of the name of ‘elowah – God as guided by His towrah – instructions regarding His hayah – existence), your God (‘elohym).” (Qara’ / Invited to be Called Out and Meet / Leviticus 18:4)

This Fatherly advice serves as an open invitation to meet with Yahowah and as a clear indictment against religion – also known as Christianity and Judaism. It is a call to expose and condemn the adoption and incorporation of the rites, rituals, and festivals of pagan religions into a community or culture. It is, therefore, denouncing the very fabric of Roman Catholicism, where the entire religion is predicated upon incorporating such things.

God is warning us against the integration of religion into government, avoiding the propensity of civilizations to maintain large militaries in addition to their tendency to improperly compensate workers for their labor due to the prevalence of the repressive caste system. The civilizations Yahowah is describing in Egypt and Canaan were famous for creating and worshiping religious imagery and for enslaving and controlling people. They promoted the concepts of the Trinity, crosses, Easter, Christmas, Sunday worship, Communion, the Eucharist, bowing, and praying to false gods who died and were resurrected. They venerated a goddess as the Mother of God and Queen of Heaven, referred to their god as the Lord, and called him all manner of names, none of which was Yahowah. Sound familiar? Affirming these connections with Egypt and Canaan was the reason we studied their religion in the previous volume of Twistianity.

Yahowah’s next statement is the verse Sha’uwl misrepresented to promote his agenda – one that adopted the political and religious practices of the Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans. But before I share it, take note of the fact that in it “shamar – observe,” which is to “closely examine and carefully consider something by focusing upon it with your eyes,” was scribed in the qal perfect consecutive. Thereby, Yahowah is encouraging us to choose of our own volition to literally examine the totality of His “chuqah – inscribed prescriptions for living” and His “mishpat – means to make good decisions about resolving disputes,” viewing God’s written testimony as a whole while recognizing that it is complete.

But then recognize that with “‘asah – engaging in and acting upon” what we have observed and come to know about His prescriptions for living and His means to resolve disputes, the qal imperfect was deployed. From this we can deduce that our response does not have to be complete, nor perfect, but simply ongoing. God is not expecting us to do anything flawlessly, nor is He even asking us to behave in complete harmony with His instructions.

This realization has profound implications which exonerate the Towrah and condemn Sha’uwl. God has given us the opportunity to examine and consider His Towrah testimony, but the choice is ours whether we elect to read it, ignore it, or oppose it. All God is asking is that we do not take snippets of what He has said out of context, but rather that we review His Towrah as a whole while recognizing that it is complete. This means that we should consider it from Bare’syth to Dabarym, from Creation to ‘Eden, from the flood to the Beryth, from slavery in Mitsraym to freedom in the Promised Land. We should also view Yah’s Towrah as lacking nothing. It provides answers to every question regarding life and relationship. Nothing should be added, nothing should be taken away, and, thus, nothing should be changed.

And yet, our willingness to observe what God has written represents the input side of this equation. On the output side, we have our reaction, which is essentially our attitude in response to God. Here, scribed in the imperfect, Yahowah is neither expecting nor asking, and, most especially, not requiring, perfection from us. We are only being asked to be consistent going forward. Even better, in the imperfect conjugation, once we stop being religious and begin responding according to Yahowah’s Instructions, we are right with God.

Further, the imperfect implies that the more we learn, the more we will understand, the more trusting we become, and also more capable. It is a process, as are all relationships, with us growing with Yah over time.

By contrast, Sha’uwl’s point has been that there is no reason to observe the Towrah because unless a person does everything the Torah demands flawlessly, they will be condemned by God. But that is the antithesis of what Yahowah is saying here...

“And so (wa) you should choose of your own volition to actually observe (shamar – under the auspices of freewill, you should decide to carefully examine (qal perfect consecutive)) accordingly (‘eth) My prescriptions for living (chuqah – My inscribed (and thus written) instructions which cut you into a relationship (and thus into the Covenant) with Me) and also (wa) My means to exercise good judgment to resolve disputes (mishpat – My approach to making sound decisions regarding redemption (thereby directing our attention to His seven Invitations to Meet)).

Whoever (‘asher – relationally and beneficially) acts upon and engages (‘asah – consistently endeavors to genuinely celebrate and continually benefit (qal imperfect)) with them (‘eth), that individual (ha ‘adam – that man and person) is completely restored to life as a result of his decision, living forever (wa chayah – he is literally revived, perfectly renewed, actually nurtured, spared, and kept alive into perpetuity through this exercise of freewill, raised, preserved, and allowed to flourish (qal perfect consecutive)) through them (ba – with and by them).

I am (‘any) Yahowah (Yahowah – the proper pronunciation of YaHoWaH, our ‘ELoWaH – God as directed in His ToWRaH – teaching regarding His HaYaH existence and our ShaLoWM – restoration).” (Qara’ / Called Out / Leviticus 18:5)

Yahowah has promised to “chayah – restore the lives” of those who choose to examine and consider His Towrah and respond favorably to His prescriptions for living and His means to resolve disputes. And since the restoration and elongation of His children’s lives are our Heavenly Father’s responsibility, He had Moseh scribe “chayah – life” in the best way possible. The qal stem is relational, creating a connection between the subject, which would be those of us who listen to Yah, and the action of the verb which is to be restored and live. The qal stem also conveys actions that are simple to understand, straightforward, and real, and thus actual. The perfect conjugation reveals that Yahowah is not only promising to make us whole and complete, entirely perfect, but He is also saying that He will do all of the work to accomplish this on our behalf – with nothing additional added on our part. He is even saying that the restoration of our lives is not a process that could be abated but is instead done, as in leaving nothing to prove and nothing more to accomplish or do.

It gets even better because the perfect was prefixed with a wa, making this the consecutive form. This causes the perfect conjugation to reflect the unfolding and ongoing nature of the imperfect, telling us that our lives are being restored forever. In addition, the consecutive form reveals that this is volitional, and thus it reflects our choice and God’s will.

However, returning to Galatians, Paul said: “But the Towrah exists not out of faith or belief, but to the contrary, ‘The one having done and performed them will live in them.’” (Sha’uwl / Galatians 3:12)

Comparing that to the Towrah, Yahowah said: “And so you should choose of your own volition to actually observe My prescriptions for living and also My means to exercise good judgment to resolve disputes. Whoever acts upon and engages with them, that individual is actually and completely restored to life as a result of this decision, living forever through them. I am Yahowah.” (Qara’ / Called Out 18:5)

It is hard to miss the horrible pattern that is emerging. This time, however, Sha’uwl’s statement is misleading principally because he removed Yahowah’s statement from the context of the point God was making. And in so doing, Paul created an invalid perception. He did the very thing Yahowah asked us not to do in the passage he abbreviated.

Yahowah is telling us that restoration of our souls and life eternal are a direct derivative of observing His means to resolve disputes which serve as prescriptions for living. And Paul is promoting blind faith.

Once again, Sha’uwl has abridged, misquoted, and misapplied a passage which is inconsistent with his own message, perhaps hoping that the use of a common word, this time, “perform or do,” in conjunction with an aspect of the Towrah would be sufficient to fool the impressionable and ignorant that God agrees with his position and that Yahowah and His Towrah are self-incriminating.

But at least we have another affirmation that it is Yahowah’s Towrah that Sha’uwl is assailing by misappropriating citations from it. Under these circumstances, a rational argument cannot be made in favor of the Oral Law or the Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem Talmud being the focus of Sha’uwl’s ire. He consistently refers to the Towrah in order to undermine it, while never once referring to or citing the Oral Law which was ultimately memorialized in the Babylonian Talmud.

Also, while Yahowah’s message was clear, even straightforward and easy to understand, Sha’uwl’s was not. What on earth does “the law exists not out of faith and belief” mean? What is the connection or contrast between this clause and Yahowah’s statement in Qara’ / Leviticus 18:5? Why did Paul only cite the end of the verse when its meaning is derived from the introduction?

Since Paul’s castrated citation of this passage was as inappropriate as his statement was undecipherable, let’s turn to those hypnotized by his spell for additional insight into the Christian mindset. The King James Version reads: “And the law is not of faith: but, the man that doeth them shall live in them.” At least it’s clear that it was derived from the Latin Vulgate which says: “But the law is not of faith; instead, “he who does these things shall live by them.”

If nothing else, we know that Shim’own Kephas / Peter was right in saying that Paul’s letters were convoluted, such that they would deceive the ignorant and malleable, robbing them of their salvation. But like so many accurate assessments, it has no value unless it is understood and applied.

In that Paul was fanning the flames he was using to burn Yahowah’s Torah, I am convinced that he meant to say: “The Torah is not like the way of faith, but to the contrary, it requires you to do what it says in order to live.” (Galatians 3:12 reflecting Paul’s intended message.)

At this point, we must ask ourselves: can Paul’s faith, his religion, be “unlike” “the Torah” and still facilitate a relationship with God? Is it possible that God could have endorsed a plan that is counter to the one He authored?

Irrespective of the answer (which is obviously “no”), at least the battle lines are becoming clearer. According to Paul, it is his testimony against God’s Word. We are now immersed in the Great Galatians Debate: Are we to trust Yahowah’s Torah or believe Paul’s Gospel of Grace?

Before we press on, since the context of the Qara’ / Leviticus passage was particularly germane to Paul’s Galatians epistle, a letter that serves as the foundation of Christendom, and its first written archive, I would like to reinforce Yahowah’s advice. God encouraged His people to avoid the religious practices and political traditions of the Egyptians and Canaanites. That means we should not do the things that were also done in Babylon, Greece, and Rome whose civilizations either inspired or copied them. And that means we should not celebrate New Year’s Day, Saint Valentine’s Day, Lent, Easter, Halloween, or Christmas, or gather in churches on Sundays, pray, bow to, or worship a Lord.



The key to understanding this next statement is “katara – curse.” As we discovered at the beginning of this discussion when reviewing Galatians 3:10, kata is either being used to communicate “down from,” “according to” or “against,” with the latter serving as a negation of ara, and its root, airo, which is either a “prayer” or “a curse.” Therefore, the “ara – curse” could well be “not having one’s prayer answered, not having one’s “airo – burdens lifted,” or not having one’s soul “carried away” to heaven. Further, katara is especially demeaning. It suggests that Yahowah uses His “supernatural power to invoke harm by promoting evil, doing what is accursed and abhorrent, detestable and loathsome, maligning and malicious.”

According to the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear, Paul wrote: “Christ us brought out from the curse of the law having become on behalf of us curse because it has been written curse on all the one having hung on wood.” And now, more completely, accurately, and literally...

“Christos (ΧΡΣ placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement to usurp the Septuagint’s credibility and infer divinity) us (ego) bought back (exagorazomai – worked to redeem and purchase, making good use of the opportunity, taking advantage to buy and deliver; from ek, out of, and agarazo, doing business in the marketplace where (agora) people assemble for a public debate, to buy, sell, and vote) from (ek) the curse (katara – from the evil, hateful, abhorrent, loathsome, maligning, and malicious influence) of the (tov) Towrah (nomou – Torah, which Christians have misconstrued as “Law,” with nomou actually presenting the means to being nourished by that which is bestowed to become heirs, precepts which were apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper and to be approved through prescriptions for an inheritance; from nemo – that which is provided, assigned, and distributed to heirs to nourish them (singular genitive, and thus a specific characterization)), having become (ginomai – having existed as) for our sake (hyper ego) a curse (katara – a repugnant prayer, invoking the power to harm others by wishing evil upon them, maligning and malicious), because (hoti) it has been written (grapho – inscribed): ‘A curse on (epikataratos – being exposed to divine slander and vengeance) all (pas) the one (o) having hung (kremamai – suspended) on (epi) wood (xylon).’” (Galatians 3:13)

That was especially nasty, even demonic. There is, indeed, a curse afoot.

Paul is reaffirming his diagnosis. He would have those he has sickened believe that Yahowah’s “Torah is an abhorrent and deadly curse which promotes evil.” God’s Word, according to Sha’uwl’s assessment, is “malicious and repugnant.”

The cure, according to the Plague of Death, is to believe the Euangelion | Good Messenger and place one’s faith in his Euangelion | Beneficial Message. This viper wants you to believe that the God who conceived life and authored the DNA code which enables it, was a sadist, not unlike Josef Mengele, torturing His victims before killing them. Then somehow bored by His tragically failed experiment, the malicious aging deity suddenly gives up and hands His cosmic stethoscope to Sha’uwl and sulks away – allowing an inarticulate and irrational megalomaniac to fix the mess He had made.

All one has to do is reject everything that “mean old God” said and believe that the Serpent’s paralyzing neurotoxin is the elixir of life – ‘Scripture.’ A few mesmerizing props, such as a dead god on a stick, a spellbinding tale cleverly placed, some really amazing claims, a little replacement Foolology, and poof – everything the Apostle Paul and his Gospel of Grace have opined is rainbows and glitter! “It happened on one of them zip-a-dee-doo-dah days. Now that’s the kind of day where you can’t open your mouth without a song jumping right out of it. My, oh my, what a wonderful day. Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay, my oh my, what a wonderful day. Plenty of sunshine headin’ my way. Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay. Mr. Bluebird’s on my shoulder. It’s the ‘truth.’ It’s ‘act-ch’ll.’ Everything is ‘satisfact-ch’il.’ Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay. Wonderful feelin’, wonderful day.”

I know, I know, it isn’t fair to compare Bible verses with the lyrics of a children’s song. Ray Gilbert was a much better writer than that and does not deserve to be compared to such nonsense. My apologies.

Returning to Paul’s proposition, Christos has cut a deal and engaged in a business transaction whereby he has redeemed us, not from religion and rebellion, but instead from the malignant toxicity of the Torah itself. It wasn’t Passover, but instead “Pass Away.” The “old God” had passed His prescription pad and pen to Paul.

Call it cynicism, but if so, wouldn’t that make this nincompoop greater than God? Methinks not but that is because me thinks.

Nevertheless, since this hideous proposition is the antithesis of what Yahowah has said and done, we now know with absolute certainty that Paulos was a psychotic psychopath – a schizophrenic narcissist devoid of empathy. Calling the man who contradicted God while claiming to speak for Him “delusional” has become wholly inadequate. Paul’s animosity toward God, and his uncontrollable arrogance, made him especially susceptible to being demon-possessed, goaded and controlled, by one of Satan’s envoys. But even then, this is hard to swallow.

This insane admission from the Devil’s Advocate, does, however, confirm that Paul was deliberately maligning the Towrah in his opening statement, because what he wrote in Galatians 3:13 echoes the same sentiment found in Galatians 1:4. Remember:

“Iesou Christou, the one having produced and given himself on account of the sins and errors of us, so that somehow, he might possibly gouge and tear out, uprooting and taking us away from the past inflexible and unrelenting circumstances of the Old System; unrelenting and unaccommodating, it had been disadvantageous and harmful, worthless and wicked, annoying and malicious, malevolent and malignant, according to the will of the Theos and Pater of us all…” (Galatians 1:4)

The “poneros – worthless and malevolent” “aionos – inflexible and unrelenting old system” which is being called “katara – a repugnant curse” is, according to Sha’uwl | Paul, the nomou | Towrah” – the Teaching and Guidance of Yahowah. Therefore, according to the new Sheriff in town, everything Yahowah said and did was untrue and unreliable, indeed tortuous and tormenting. Even his Christou is now a curse.

Only one tiny, little, problem – even for the fellow who chose the moniker Paulos | Lowly and Little, Yahowah did not hand His prescription pad or pen to anyone. He did not cease being God. Nothing has changed.

But alas, it was always the Impossible Delusion. It is an untenable flight of fanaticism to claim to be God’s exclusive authorized agent to the world and then not only write such incomprehensible drivel, not only contradict and misquote said God, but deliberately mischaracterize and malign the Creator of the universe – all while impugning the replacement deity Iesous Christos.

Frankly, I am embarrassed and ashamed that I was once counted among his victims. And yet, I am thankful that Yahowah is ever ready to overlook such stupidity once we acknowledge and repudiate it. This is the blessing of the imperfect conjugation. All I had to do was disavow any association with Christianity and then engage in His Covenant as He instructed to become part of His Family.

By calling Yahowah’s Towrah a curse, and by saying that his mythological Christos was cursed because of it, Paul has proposed the preposterous. The proposition is so asinine it serves to prove that religion renders its victims incapable of rational thought.

His claim on behalf of Christianity is so absurd it strains credulity. To believe that Yahowah would curse us with His Word and then turn to this blathering idiot to break that spell is among the dumbest notions ever told and sold.

Lest we forget, the statement Sha’uwl misquoted, and then misappropriated, also comes from the Towrah he was maligning. He was again quoting Moseh to negate Moseh, this time from Dabarym / Words 21:23. The insight reads…

“Indeed, when (wa ky) it comes to pass (hayah – it transpired that (qal imperfect – literally happens with ongoing implications)) that an individual man is associated with (ba ‘ysh) missing the way and bearing the acquired guilt (chata’ – religious rebellion) which is judged after thoughtful consideration to necessitate (mishpat – is assessed upon the exercise of good judgment to warrant; from my – to consider every aspect of shaphat – making good decisions) death (maweth – dying as a result of the pandemic and plague), and his physical body dies (wa maweth – is deprived of life as a penalty to be just (hofal perfect – he is compelled and forced to die at that specific time)) with you putting him to death fastened and suspended (talah ‘eth huw’ – you attach his arms and legs such that he hangs while dying (qal perfect – actually at that moment)) upon a wooden timber (‘al ‘ets – on a tree or plank of wood), (Dabarym 21:22) do not leave his dead body overnight (lo’ lyn nebelah huw’ – do not allow the carcass to remain during the night) on the wooden pillar (‘al ha ‘ets – upon a tree or the plank of wood). Rather instead (ky – emphasizing this point, there is a reason), you should without equivocation, prepare and entomb his body (qabar qabar huw’ – it is essential that you place his body in a sepulcher (qal infinitive absolute imperfect energic nun)) during this same day (ba ha yowm ha huw’).

Indeed, because (ky) the One being put to death by being fastened and suspended (talah – the one being hanged with his arms and legs attached while dying (qal passive participle)) is being vilified and diminished (qalalah – is being maligned and slighted; from qalal – snubbed, scorned, and abated) by God (‘elohym). So you should not defile (wa lo’ tame’ – you should not cause to be unclean and desecrate), accordingly (‘eth), your soil (‘adamah ‘atah – your ground, earth, and land; from ‘adam – mankind and thus your human nature), which for the benefit of the relationship (‘asher) Yahowah ( – a transliteration of YaHoWaH as instructed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence), your God (‘elohym), gave (nathan – produced, offered, and bestowed) to you (la ‘atah – for you to approach) to become heirs (nachalah – as a means to an inheritance).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 21:22-23)

This is a prophetic portrait of the fulfillment of Passover. It confirms that Dowd, as the Passover Lamb, would be fastened to a wooden pillar, hanging from it until his basar | physical body died under the strain. It confirms that his carcass would be removed from the wood prior to sundown and then placed in a sepulcher. Therein, Dowd’s mangled and mutilated body would be incinerated in harmony with the Towrah’s instructions.

This prophecy also affirms what Yasha’yah would describe: The Passover Lamb would be laden with our guilt, bearing the consequence of us having missed the way. He would, thereby, offer to resolve our culpability. Bearing our iniquity, Dowd’s nepesh | soul was judged, vilified, and maligned, then diminished and abated by God in She’owl in the process of removing our guilt and carrying it away.

God did not want the body of the Lamb buried, not only because by so doing there would be no proof of its incineration, but also because, symbolically, the Lamb was defiled with our sin. So now as an inheritance, we are able to live perfected in Yahowah’s home which has not been sullied by association. Our guilt was taken away to a place on the opposite side of the universe from the Promised Land.

Therefore, Yahowah’s prophetic testimony reveals that the Messiah would be considered guilty of our crimes which were deserving of death. He would be suspended from a wooden timber – the Roman means to inflict a torturous death to those who were defying them. After fulfilling this portion of his mission, his body would be removed from the upright pole before the sun set that same day. His corpse would be prepared and placed in a tomb, as opposed to being buried in the ground. As a result, even though our sins were associated with him, our future home was not defiled.

Then on Matsah, the Son’s soul became slighted and diminished, separated and abated in She’owl. Also, by using ‘adamah, it is “‘adam – human nature” which is no longer contaminated as a result.

While the passage is powerful in the sweeping nature of its predictions, making Yahowah’s plan known 1,500 years before it was implemented, it was not even remotely supportive of Paul’s argument. If anything, this precise prediction demonstrates that the Towrah and its Author can be trusted to do what He has promised. This prophetic announcement represents the means to something Paul has called impossible: our reconciliation and redemption through the Towrah.

Recognizing that Sha’uwl misrepresented a truncated portion of the Dabarym reference to what Father and Son would accomplish, and realizing that his was a woefully inaccurate rendering of Yahowah’s prophetic plan, we are compelled once again to question the veracity of everything Sha’uwl wrote and said, even question his intentions.

There is a very significant difference between: “A curse on all the one having hung on wood,” and…

“Indeed, when (wa ky) it comes to pass (hayah) an individual man is associated with (ba ‘ysh) missing the way and bearing the acquired guilt (chata’) which is judged appropriate after thoughtful consideration to be worthy of (mishpat) death as a result of the plague (maweth), and his physical body dies (wa maweth) with you putting him to death fastened and suspended (talah ‘eth huw’) upon a wooden timber (‘al ‘ets), (Dabarym 21:22) do not leave his dead body overnight (lo’ lyn nebelah huw’) on the wooden pillar (‘al ha ‘ets). Rather instead (ky), you should without equivocation, prepare and entomb his body (qabar qabar huw’) during this same day (ba ha yowm ha huw’). This is because (ky) the One being put to death by being fastened and suspended (talah) is being vilified and diminished, maligned and abated (qalalah) by God (‘elohym). So, you should not defile (wa lo’ tame’) that which is associated with (‘eth) your soil (‘adamah ‘atah) which, for the benefit of the relationship (‘asher), Yahowah (), your God (‘elohym), gave (nathan) to you (la ‘atah) to become heirs (nachalah).” (Dabarym 21:22-23)

Without the context provided by Yahowah, the reference to “being vilified and diminished by God” is senseless. Therefore, a profound and precise eyewitness account, serving as both prediction and explanation of Passover and UnYeasted Bread which would transpire fifteen centuries hence, becomes incomprehensible, and thus worthless, apart from God’s explanation.

And yet Sha’uwl has now plucked three statements Yahowah has made from the context that makes them valuable, miscasting his redacted variations such that each truncated citation now infers the antithesis of what God actually revealed. Each time he revised God’s message to suit his thesis – which was to nullify and replace Him with himself.

While he was obviously and viciously wrong, we cannot exonerate Sha’uwl by supposing that he was misinformed. The Devil’s Apostle cannot claim ignorance because finding these related word patterns back in the day would have required considerable knowledge. Moreover, these could not have been careless mistakes because they were used to convey the opposite of God’s intent. Therefore, Paul’s resulting recipe was deliberately concocted, making Sha’uwl a deliberate and disingenuous deceiver.

The only other possibility – that his letters were changed after he wrote them – requires us to view every Greek manuscript of the Christian New Testament as being unreliable, including the Papyrus 46 codex dated to the 2nd century CE, in which Paul’s letters are extant. It is as close to the original autograph as anything written in the New Testament.

Therefore, later scribes are not the crux of this problem. Paul was stuck in a rut. Each Towrah quotation was selected, not because it affirmed his position, but because of word patterns. In all four couplets, he has abridged God’s statement and then twisted it to make it appear as if his preaching was consistent with God’s position because he found a word or two that could be replicated in his revisionist replacement. To excuse this pattern of malfeasance as “being an honest mistake,” “being God’s will,” “being inspired by the Spirit,” or “being a product of scribal error” is to be played for a fool.

Paul was a false witness. He purposefully misquoted and perverted Yahowah’s testimony in order to establish his doctrine. This is evil in the worst sense of the word. And the consequence has been catastrophic. Billions of souls have been ensnared in his hideous trap and cursed by these letters which have served to be a curse on Jews. To Hell with him and his Replacement Foolology.

Unwilling to consider the Greek or Hebrew text, and relying instead on the Latin Vulgate, the Christian theologians who created the revision known as the King James Version missed the fact that the Torah predicted what God’s Firstborn fulfilled: “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, ‘Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.’” If the King James has accurately reflected Paul’s thought, then, at least according to Paul, the Torah is actually a curse. Rather than fulfilling the Torah, the Messiah ransomed us from it. And rather than being the perfect Lamb of God, Dowd embodied all the negativity a “curse” implies.

Had Jerome created his Latin Vulgate from Greek manuscripts, as opposed to blending his preferred readings from Old Latin variations, he would have seen the light as well. But alas, he didn’t. “Christus has redeemed us from the curse of the law, since he became a curse for us. For it is scriptum / written: ‘Cursed is anyone who hangs from a tree.’”

The only curse pronounced by the Torah is upon those who disregard it, and Christians are wont to do just that. NLT: “But Christ has rescued us from the curse pronounced by the law. When he was hung on the cross, he took upon himself the curse for our wrongdoing. For it is written in the Scriptures, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.’” When they added “he was hung on the cross,” it became obvious that they noted the very same pattern I have been concerned about. The NLT translation team members, like their patriarch, are not oblivious, they are mischievous.

Moving deeper into the excrement of this verbal swamp, Paul remains consistent. He is again acting like Satan and misrepresenting Yahowah’s instructions to deliberately deceive. In this case, Abraham’s words do not comprise Paul’s “euangelion – gospel of the healing messenger and beneficial message.” Further, there is no connection between Abraham’s statements and Dowd, much less to the mythical Christo Iesou.

“As a result (hina – in order that), to (eis – in, among, or in reference to) the people from different races (ta ethnos – the cultures and ethnicities) the beneficial word (e eulogia – the praise, flattery, or polished language, the laudation, benefit, or favorable terms; from eu – to be well off, to fare well, and to prosper and logos – speech or word) of (toe) Abram (Abraam – a truncated pre-Covenant transliteration of ‘Abraham – the Merciful, Forgiving, and Compassionate Father) might become (ginomai – may happen (the aorist tense denotes a snapshot event without respect to any process, the middle voice signifies that Abraham was being affected by his own actions, and the subjunctive mood presents this as being probable)) in (en) Christo Iesou (ΧΩ ΙΗΥ – placeholders used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement and Iesou) that (hina – in order to) the promise (ten epaggelia – the announcement or claim to do something (singular)) of the (tou) spirit (ΠΝΣ) we might take hold (lambano – we may grab and grasp, obtain possession, being carried away) through (dia – by) faith (pistos).” (Galatians 3:14)

By way of full disclosure, Papyrus 46, scribed within a century of Paul’s original letter, includes a second eulogia, meaning “beneficial word” or “polished language” before the placeholder for Spirit. If this had been written in Hebrew, and had it been a verb, it would have intensified the action. However, in Greek, it is nonsensical, and as a result, I have omitted it from this translation.

The story of Abraham, and his relationship with Yahowah, is presented in Bare’syth / Genesis, the opening book of the Towrah. Without exception, including the exodus from slavery in Egypt, God’s depiction of His Covenant is His most highly prioritized presentation of His interaction with humankind. His account is detailed, chronological and historical, both personal and passionate. The narrative is candid and real, with Abraham’s numerous indiscretions and serious character flaws noted to keep us from crediting Israel’s patriarch for the resulting relationship as Sha’uwl is now doing. The story is grounded in a specific geographical and geopolitical context so that we might come to more fully appreciate the merits of the Covenant’s conditions and benefits in a tangible way.

This Covenant relationship is the very reason God created the universe and conceived life. Yahowah reveals in no uncertain terms what He is offering and expects in return so that we are able to respond appropriately. We are given the same opportunity to engage in the Covenant as was ‘Abraham, enjoying the same benefits that he was afforded. As a result, few things are as important as knowing and understanding the Covenant’s conditions as Yahowah articulated them to him.

In this regard, there are five specific requirements. First, we must walk away from Babylon, which denotes the confusing and corrupting nature of politics and religion – especially when they are mingled together. And it just so happens that I am the first person to discern and share that there was one prerequisite (disassociating from the confusion of religious babel and its integration into politics and culture) and four instructive conditions leading to five remarkable rewards, all of which are facilitated by our acceptance of the first three Miqra’ey as Dowd fulfilled them. And while these are explained throughout Yada Yahowah, there are two volumes in particular, Family and Covenant, which are devoted entirely to them.

Second, as one of the conditions, instead of being dependent upon one’s country, or being engrained in its culture, we are asked to trust and rely on Yahowah. This can only be achieved by those who have come to know Him by observing His Towrah and listening to His Prophets.

Third, we are asked to walk to Yahowah to become perfected. This is achieved by answering the annual Miqra’ey | Invitations to be Called Out and Meet. Our path to God begins at the Doorway to Life, which is Pesach | Passover. Now immortal, our souls are unleavened, and thus cleansed of the pervasive fungus of religion and politics, during Matsah | UnYeasted Bread as we cross the threshold and enter Yahowah’s home. We are adopted into our Heavenly Father’s Covenant Family on Bikuwrym | Firstborn Children as a result.

Once part of His Family, Yahowah enriches, empowers, enables, and enlightens His newborn sons and daughters so that we live more fulfilling lives and become effective troubadours heralding the Harvests of Shabuw’ah | Seven Sevens and Taruw’ah | Trumpets, sharing Yahowah’s Towrah | Teaching with all who will listen. This leads to Yahowah’s crowning achievement, Yowm Kipurym | the Day of Reconciliations, when Father and Son restore the Covenant relationship with Yisra’el upon their return. Then after ridding the world of the stigma of religion and politics, militarism and conspiracy, Yahowah will restore the Earth to the perfect conditions enjoyed in the Garden of Eden. As a result, we will Sukah | Camp Out together here on Earth for one thousand years.

Fourth, since we must walk to God along the specific path He has articulated and facilitated, we are encouraged to observe the terms and conditions comprising the Covenant. This is achieved by closely examining and carefully considering Yahowah’s Towrah | Guidance.

And fifth, as a sign of our acceptance, and as a commitment to raise our children so that they also choose to embrace the Covenant, God has asked parents to circumcise their sons.

Those who accept these conditions are rewarded. The five benefits of the Covenant include eternal life, being perfected, adopted into His Family, enriched with the Towrah’s teaching, and empowered by the Spirit. And this makes the Towrah – which is the only place where the Covenant is presented – essential, thereby negating everything Sha’uwl has written.

It is absolutely and unequivocally not “the beneficial word of Abram that became in Christo Iesou.” First, ‘Abram was a bit of a scallywag, having twice pimped out his wife, Sarah, for financial gain. Further, he wasn’t all that bright. So it wasn’t his words which are beneficial but, instead, Yahowah to him and through him to us. And second, the people, places, and proposition presented in God’s presentation of His Beryth are all real. Christo Iesou was the product of identity fraud.

There are only two viable connections, one between ‘Abraham and the Beryth and the other between Abraham and Yisra’el. However, since what Abraham actually represents negates Paul’s premise, the Father of Lies ignored the meaningful connections and superimposed a myth of his own.

Further, as any informed person ought to know, ‘Abraham, in spite of his glaring deficiencies and faults, was the beneficiary of the Covenant and not the instigator. Abraham profited from Yahowah’s words, not his own. Paul’s testimony is, therefore, wrong from beginning to end. And it is obvious.

It is also worth restating: it is irrational to discredit and misrepresent the testimony one is using for validation. Apart from the Towrah, Abraham and the Covenant are unknown and unknowable. So, to suggest that a person can believe in a promise expressed by an individual known exclusively through the Towrah, while discrediting the Towrah, is absurd. And since this conclusion is irrefutable, how is it that this letter launched a religion? Are people really that stupid?

It is Yahowah’s Covenant. Abraham did not conceive it, present it, modify it, codify its terms, or enable its benefits. Abraham cannot influence our lives in any way. He does not have the ability or authority to grant life, to perfect us, to adopt us, to enrich us, or to empower anyone. The Covenant is based exclusively upon Yahowah’s testimony, Yahowah’s plan, Yahowah’s promises, and Yahowah’s ability to deliver the desired result.

And yet Sha’uwl would have us believe that our attention should be on his mischaracterization of Abram, because that way he could sidestep Yahowah while bypassing His Towrah, thereby dismissing Jews and ignoring Dowd. The result is Christianity. But this is like saying that the person in seat 14A (after ‘Adam and Chawah, their sons, then Noach and his family), rather than just a passenger, is the sum of all things, having designed, built, paid for, and then flown the airplane to its final destination, leaving Sarah and Yitschaq stranded along the way.

While the promises made by Yahowah to Abraham were showcased to reveal the conditions and rewards of the Covenant relationship, this portion of the story is not the Towrah’s most adroit connection between the Passover Lamb and the Covenant’s promises. Had Paul wanted to make a case from which his audience could build a solid foundation, he would have referenced what happened on Mount Mowryah, where and when Yahowah promised Abraham and Yitschaq that He would provide the Lamb – foreshadowing the fulfillment of Passover with His Son. But he didn’t because Paul’s intent is to deceive, not teach. And the Messiah and Son of God, our Savior, Shepherd, and King, Dowd, is someone to rob. He was the victim of identity theft in Paul’s rendition of replacement Foolology.

Surveying Sha’uwl’s faulty premise from the other translations, we find this in the NA: “That in the nations the good word of the Abraham might become in Christ Jesus that the promise of the spirit we might receive through the trust.” KJV: “That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” LV: “This was so that the blessing of Abraham might reach the Gentibus through Christo Iesu, in order that we might receive the promise of the Spiritus/Spirit through faith.”

Most every word presented in the NLT is wrong, either errantly transliterated, mistranslated, or simply not represented in the Greek text: “Through Christ Jesus, God has blessed the Gentiles with the same blessing he promised to Abraham, so that we who are believers might receive the promised Holy Spirit through faith.” In total, 26 of the 30 words found in the New Living Translation were not translated or transliterated, but instead authored. It is little wonder Christians are deceived.

With an eye to the benefit of context, let’s reconsider Paul’s preposterous proposition as he first presented it…

“I have come to realize without investigation or evidence that by no means whatsoever is any man made right or vindicated by means of acting upon or engaging in the Towrah if not by belief and faith in Iesou Christou.

And we of Christon Iesoun, ourselves believed in order for us to have become righteous, we have to have been acquitted and vindicated out of faith in Christou, and not by means of acting upon or engaging in the Towrah, because by means of engaging in and acting upon the Towrah not any flesh will be acquitted or vindicated, nor be made righteous. (Galatians 2:16)

But if by seeking to be made righteous and innocent in Christo, we were found ourselves also to be social outcasts and sinners, shouldn’t we be anxious that Christos becomes a guilty, errant, and misled, servant of sin?

Not may it exist, (Galatians 2:17) because if that which I have torn down and dissolved, dismantled and invalidated, abolishing and discarding, this on the other hand I restore or reconstruct, promoting this edifice, I myself bring into existence and recommend transgression and disobedience. (Galatians 2:18)

I then, because of the Towrah’s allotment and law, myself, genuinely died and was separated in order that to Theos I might currently live. In Christo I have actually been crucified together with. (Galatians 2:19)

I live, but no longer I. He lives then in me, Christos. This because now I live in the flesh. In faith I live of the Theos and Christou, the one having loved me and surrendered for me, entrusting authority to me, yielding and handing over to me the power to control, influence, and instruct exclusively of himself because of me. (Galatians 2:20)

I do not reject the Charis | Grace of the Theos because if by the Torah we achieve righteousness then, as a result, Christos for no reason or cause, without benefit and in vain, he died. (Galatians 2:21)

O ignorant and irrational, unintelligent and unreasonable, Galatians. Who bewitched and deceived you, and who are you slandering, bringing this evil upon you, seducing yourselves? (Galatians 3:1)

This alone I want to learn from you: out of accomplishments of the Towrah was the spirit received by you or alternatively out of hearing and belief? (Galatians 3:2) In this way you are ignorant and irrational, lacking in knowledge and unable to think logically. Having begun with the spirit, now in flesh are you completing? (Galatians 3:3)

So much and for so long you have suffered these things, vexed and annoyed without reason or result, chaotically without a plan. If indeed this really happened and you were so thoughtless, achieving nothing, being without reason or result. (Galatians 3:4)

The one therefore then supplying you with the spirit and causing it to function, was this operation of powers in you by acting upon and engaging in the tasks delineated in the Torah or out of hearing faith? (Galatians 3:5)

Just as and to the degree that Abram believed and had faith in the Theos so it was reasoned and accounted to him as righteousness. (Galatians 3:6) You know as a result that the ones out of faith, these are the sons of Abram. (Galatians 3:7)

Having seen beforehand by contrast in the writing that out of faith makes right the people from different races and places, the Theos, He before beneficial messenger acted on behalf of Abram so that they would in time be spoken of sympathetically in you to all the races. (Galatians 3:8) As a result, the ones out of faith, we are spoken of favorably, even praised together with the faithful Abram. (Galatians 3:9)

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

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

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

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

As a result, to the people from different races, the beneficial word of Abram might become in Christo Iesou that the promise of the spirit we might take hold, being possessed through faith.” (Galatians 3:14)

This is so twisted and perverse, so completely moronic, utterly ignorant and irrational, it speaks poorly of the human race, because so many people have placed their faith in this charlatan. What is wrong with people? It is as if there is no longer any desire to think, any merit to evidence or reason, not even when the evidence comes from God, Himself, and is unassailable.

A rational case cannot be made in Paul’s defense. His message comes full circle in the manner of all great spellbinders. From his perspective, the “good word” came from Abram, not Yahowah, making a man responsible for Christo Iesou, and his annulling of the Towrah and advent of the New Testament, even the salvation of his ekklesia | church. Knowing the truth no longer matters because righteousness comes through faith.

As a result of these words, humanity is faced with a choice. Men and women can decide to believe Paul or listen to God. Both has never been an option. They are adversaries, not allies. Therefore, it is long past time that we acknowledge that Paul’s words demonstrate that Yahowah was right about him. Sha’uwl is a false prophet, the Father of Lies, the Son of Evil, and the Plague of Death.



As we press on, making our way through this insidious web, some foresight might be helpful. In addition to Paul’s present course, that of denouncing and attempting to nullify Yahowah’s Towrah, replacing it with his faith-based “Gospel of Grace,” Sha’uwl will soon attack the centerpiece of the Towrah, its Covenant. By miscasting and misrepresenting the parties who initially participated in the Covenant established between Yahowah and ‘Abraham, Paul will seek to invalidate it, calling the Towrah’s Covenant “enslaving.” This sleight of hand will then set the stage for a new, entirely different covenant, the one conceived by Paul, the one which became Christianity’s “New Testament.”

I have shared this glimpse into the next chapter of Galatians because it helps highlight the hypocrisy of Sha’uwl’s next ploy, which is to say once an agreement is established, it cannot be invalidated or augmented. Beyond the fact that this conclusion is untrue, Paul will use this strategy to further invalidate the Towrah, suggesting that since the Towrah came after Abraham, it has no bearing on the Covenant established prior to its existence. While this assumption is also untrue, for reasons we considered in the previous chapter, and which we will confront once again, the truth has become irrelevant in Paul’s fictitious realm of faith. The self-proclaimed apostle is counting on his audience remaining as he sees them, ignorant and irrational. So long as he irritates and badgers Jews to the point that they stop exposing him as a fraud, and such that their credibility is assailed when they do, his Greek and Roman audience won’t know any better. They will play along and believe him when he says that Abram was considered righteous simply because he believed.

And yet, every nuance of this is opposed to the Towrah’s presentation of this relationship. In the Towrah, God reveals that it was Abraham’s actions, his response to the terms and conditions of the Covenant, which facilitated the benefits associated with it. This is why Paul needs his audience to completely overlook, even reject and discard, the Towrah.

But how is it plausible that the only witness to this relationship, and ensuing conversations between Abraham and Yahowah, is not germane to its formation and result? If God’s testimony regarding what He requested of and offered to Abraham isn’t reliable, how can Paul’s suppositions regarding a Covenant that he was not a party to, one that was formed two thousand years before he was born, have merit?

Sha’uwl’s argument is akin to discounting the Towrah’s creation account, its revelations regarding ‘Eden, its presentation of the Flood, and the story of the Exodus, since these things all occurred before God’s explanation of them was recorded in writing. But worse, he is then offering a contrarian view of the Towrah’s Covenant while using the Towrah as his only reference.

And lest I forget, never once does Yahowah state that He “saved” Abraham as a result of his participation in the Covenant. That is not the Covenant’s purpose nor is it one of its benefits. Further, it is the Covenant’s aspirants who must be right regarding their response to what Yahowah is expecting. God does wonderful things for us, but being correct, and thus “righteous,” is something we must discern for ourselves by being Towrah-observant. Fortunately, it is an open-book test, so the answers are readily available.

In his next statement, Sha’uwl writes that men realize how to honor covenants and that they neither invalidate nor disregard them. Therefore, he is either oblivious to what he, himself, is now doing, or he no longer thinks he is human.

The tactic that Sha’uwl is deploying is to distinguish between the conversational promises God made to Abraham and the terms of the Covenant as they were inscribed in the Torah. The fact that they are inseparable is a realization that was lost on him. A case cannot be made that the discussion differs from the lone record of it. Paul’s duplicity in this regard was fabricated to get Christians to believe that they can bypass the Torah and still have a relationship with God. But that is not possible according to God.

Sha’uwl perpetrates his scheme in part by suggesting that “adding to” the Covenant’s conditions or benefits, which is something Yahowah does as the relationship develops, somehow invalidates the preexisting oral agreement. Therefore, his argument is: to capitalize upon the promises made to Abram, Christians ought not consider Yahowah’s stipulations, but instead ignore them. That is because, as a man, Moseh was not in a position to delineate conditions for participation.

The fact that Sha’uwl does this very thing is something he wants Christians to overlook. Just because Paul is deceitful does not mean that he is not clever. After all, Yahowah warned us way back in ‘Eden that the Serpent, Sha’uwl’s guiding spirit, would be cunning.

To position the second plank in his thesis, Sha’uwl had to ignore these words which were spoken to Yitschaq, Abraham’s son:

“I will grow and thrive with your offspring in connection with the highest and most illuminated heaven. Therefore, I will give to your offspring everything associated with this realm of God.

In addition, all people from every race and place on the earth can be blessed with this favorable outcome through your offspring.

This is because, to receive the benefits of the relationship, Abraham listened to the sound of My voice and he continuously observed and closely examined My instructive conditions which comprise the Covenant, My inscribed prescriptions for living which cut you into the relationship, and My Towrah (Towrah – My teaching, guidance, direction, and instruction).” (Bare’syth / Genesis 26:4-5)

Disregarding the Divine affirmation that Yahowah shared His “Towrah – Teaching and Guidance” with Abraham concurrent with His presentation of the Covenant, Sha’uwl would like his devotees to believe:

“Brothers (adelphos), according to (kata – among, down from, against, and in opposition to) man (anthropos – human beings), I say (lego – I speak and provide meaning) nevertheless as a concession (homos – similarly, likewise, and all the same, even so and yet) a man (anthropos – a human being) having been validated with (kyroo – having shown something to be real, having been ratified and reassured, even authenticated by (in the perfect tense the ratification occurred in the past and is producing validation presently, the passive voice reveals that said man is being acted upon as opposed to choosing to engage himself in the process, where the participle form serves as a verbal adjective and the accusative case marks the direct object of the verb)) an agreement (diatheke – a covenant or promise, a testament or will designed to dispose of assets after death), no one (oudeis – nobody ever) rejects (atheteo – sets aside, does away with, disregards, invalidates, thwarts, voids, nullifies, abrogates, or refuses to recognize) or (e) actually accepts added provisions (epidiatassomai – actually or currently accepts something additional (present tense (currently), middle/passive voice (accepts), indicative mood (actually))).” (Galatians 3:15)

As is the case with so many of Paul’s statements, this paradigm appears reasonable until you actually think about it. Then it becomes laughably absurd. Man has elevated the violation of agreements to an art form. Legions of attorneys attest to this sorry state of affairs. Not to mention that Paul is, himself, in the process of rejecting and invalidating the Torah and its Covenant. He is rejecting all of the original provisions, then adding new ones. Moreover, in business and in life, as relationships grow, provisions are added to accommodate the parties engaged in the agreement, delineating what is being sought by each and offered in return.

For example, when our sons and daughters were infants, we fed and coddled them, and expected nothing in return. When our sons and daughters were children, we provided a loving home and sent them to school, providing an education. But at this point in their lives, there were expectations, conditions if you will, regarding the kind of behavior that was considered permissible within our family. When our sons and daughters became adults, we, like so many parents, helped them buy their first cars and homes, hoping that they would show some appreciation in return. And now they are self-sufficient, building their own families. Our relationship with our sons and daughters evolved as they grew and matured. The same is true with almost every business relationship which I have developed. It is the nature of things.

Said another way, the 27 amendments to the US Constitution, including the first 10 announcing the Bill of Rights, do not negate the Constitution but, instead, modify and augment it. It is the nature of all contracts.

With the Covenant, Yahowah initially asked Abram to walk away from his country, which was Babylon, and his family, which was pagan. After they had come to know one another, Yahowah asked Abram to trust Him. Then Yahowah encouraged this man to walk to Him and become perfected but not before He provided the path and explained it to him, guiding Abram through the process by sharing His “towrah – teaching.”

All along the way, God presented the conditions and benefits of His Covenant to ‘Abraham. He even asked him to pay especially close attention to what He had offered as well as to what He expected in return. Then, many years into this relationship, Yahowah asked Abraham to demonstrate his acceptance through circumcision. Therefore, the conditions of the Covenant were presented and explained over time as were the benefits. The relationship grew and it matured; it was never invalidated.

Another example is presented in Yirma’yah / Jeremiah 31, where Yahowah prophetically reveals that He will restore His Beryth with Yisra’el and Yahuwdah, albeit with an amazing addendum. He will be writing His Towrah | Guidance inside of us such that it becomes part of the fabric of our lives. This not only affirms that the Towrah remains vital to our existence, but that God is at liberty to augment His provision.

It should also be noted that, during the Instruction on the Mount, it was revealed that “the Heavenly Father’s gift to His children is the Torah and Prophets,” and that “the Torah represents the narrow gate to life.” This occurs in the same discussion where the Christian theological position that the “Law was annulled by Grace” was obliterated. After all, Dowd “came to fulfill the Towrah, not discard it,” saying that every “jot and tittle” of every Hebrew letter comprising every word “in the Torah would remain in effect as long as the universe existed, and until its every promise was fulfilled.” This statement becomes particularly poignant when we realize Dowd’s Song to the Towrah, his 119th, sings the Towrah’s praises in alphabetic order, giving credence to every “jot and tittle” of each Hebrew letter as they were deployed to explain Yahowah’s interactions with us. With eight statements authored by each of the twenty-two letters, the Mizmowr is unique in the way it celebrates and explains Yahowah’s Towrah | Guidance.

Therefore, the only way Christians can be right is for the Messiah to be wrong. And if the Son of God was wrong when composing the Mizmowr | Psalms, Christians can’t be right. And therein lies the conundrum the religious are unwilling to confront.

Properly evaluated, Paul’s position is Christianity’s death knell. After all, their “New Testament” is not just a monumental addition to the Towrah and its Covenant, it alters everything, invalidating the entirety of Yahowah’s testimony regarding life, relationships, and salvation.

The Christian interpretations of this passage are as errant as Paul’s suppositions. The NA proposed: “Brothers, by man I speak likewise of man having been authenticated agreement no one sets aside or adds.” The KJV published: “Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.” Jerome in his LV promoted: “Brothers (I speak according to man), if a man’s testament has been confirmed (confirmatum testamentum), no one would reject it or add to it.” Men and women have disavowed vastly more “covenants” than they have upheld. And this Covenant is God’s, not man’s.

Politically correct and charming, the NLT presents: “Dear brothers and sisters, here’s an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or amend an irrevocable agreement, so it is in this case.”

The inspiration for Sha’uwl’s “zera’ – seed” ploy appears in Bare’syth / Genesis 17:8. But so as not to err in the way of Sha’uwl, let’s consider the statement in context. Yahowah was speaking to Abraham…

“I will stand up, establish, and restore (quwm), with (‘eth) My Familial Covenant Relationship (beryth). It serves as a means to recognize Me and as the source of understanding with regard to an association between Me (byn) and (wa) between you, to help you think and respond (byn), and between your offspring, so that they might be observant and responsive (wa byn zera’) after you (‘achar) in (la), their dwelling places and generations (dowr) for an eternal and everlasting (‘owlam) Family Covenant Relationship (beryth).

I will genuinely remain (la hayah) as your (la) God (‘elohym), approaching (wa la) your offspring (zera’) after you (‘acharown). (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:7)

Therefore (wa), I will give (nathan) to you (la), and to (wa la) your offspring (zera’) after you (‘achar), this (‘eth) land (‘erets) where (‘eth) you are living as an alien (magowr), the entire (kol) land (‘erets) of Kan’aow | Canaan (Kan’aow) to (la) eternally (‘owlam) possess and settle within (‘achuzah). And (wa) I will exist (hayah) unto them as their (la hem la) God (‘elohym). (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:8)

Then (wa) God Almighty (‘elohym) said (‘amar) to (‘el) Abraham (‘Abraham), ‘And (wa) as for you (‘eth ‘atah), you should actually and continuously observe, closely examining and carefully considering (shamar) My Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth-y), you (‘atah) and (wa) your offspring (zera’) after you (‘achar) throughout (la) their generations, dwelling places, and eras of time (dowr).’” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:9)

Observation leads to knowledge, which when the proper connections are drawn leads to understanding, the most valuable and empowering commodity in the universe. It is what Yahowah wants for us. But this approach is overtly opposed to Paul’s pretext of a faith-based proposition. And so while evidence and reason guide us through Yahowah’s presentation of His Covenant, Sha’uwl’s preference is to toss everything aside and believe that facts don’t matter. As a result, he pursued childish word associations, playing off a minor nuance in the Towrah’s Bare’syth / Genesis presentation recorded in 17:8 and 26:4. Then Sha’uwl nurtured a seed into a full-blown theory.

“But (de – then) to (to – the) Abram (Abraam – the abridged pre-Covenant name of Abraham, which is based upon the Hebrew ‘ab and racham, meaning Merciful, Compassionate, and Forgiving Father), these (ai) promises (epaggelia – announced agreements (this time plural rather than singular); from epaggello, meaning to announce and promise to do something voluntarily while professing the ability and authority to do as sworn, and epi, to be in position, and aggelos, to be a messenger) were said (erreoesan – were spoken and verbally communicated (aorist, passive, indicative, third person, plural)): ‘And (kai) to the (to) offspring / seed (sperma – seed (singular)) of him (autos).’ Not (ou) it says (lego): ‘And (kai) to the (tois) seeds (spermasin – offsprings (plural)),’ like (hos – as) upon (epi) many (polys – a great number), but to the contrary (alla – by contrast) as (hos – like) upon (epi) one (heis), and (kai) ‘to the (to) seed (sperma – offspring (singular)) of you (sou)’ which (hos – who) is (eimi) Christos (ΧΡΣ – Divine Placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement to usurp the Septuagint’s credibility and infer Divinity).” (Galatians 3:16)

That is so ridiculous, it is a wonder this fooled anyone. Not only is “zera’ – seed” a pluralistic concept in Hebrew, as it is in English (with a bag of seed containing many seeds), the terminology and the context of this discussion preclude it from pertaining to a single individual, much less exclusively to the imaginary “Christos.”

In that it is revealing, it should be noted that Yahowah promised to supply five specific benefits to those who embraced His Covenant. These include immortality, perfection, adoption, enrichment, and empowerment – as well as ancillary gifts, including inheriting the Promised Land and living with Him. Therefore, while it would be accurate to speak of these as “promises,” plural, Sha’uwl would have the faithful believe that there was only a singular “epaggelia – promise,” “which is Christos.” Having written numerous books on the Covenant, I can assure you that Yahowah made many promises, and Christos was not among them. Therefore, this new twist reveals a troubling inconsistency – one which lies at the very heart of his thesis, with many being one and one replacing many.

And since God made more than one promise, articulating each of them in His Towrah, why hasn’t Paulos noted any of them? Why, instead, has he replaced them with two of his own, unspecified “righteousness” and imaginary “Christos?”

Somewhere during the process of changing from the Hebrew Sha’uwl to the Roman Paulos, this schizophrenic narcissist and psychopath turned on his own people and became anti-Semitic. What he is attempting to accomplish here is to sidestep the lineage of the Covenant through Yitschaq and Ya’aqob, who became Yisra’el. By writing them out of the story, he jumps directly from ‘Abraham to his Christos while bypassing 2,000 years of history, the preponderance of the Towrah, the Covenant, the Invitations to Meet, the Promised Land, and the Chosen People. Christianity, which disassociates itself from all of these things, and then replaces some while discarding others, is the residue of this ploy. While the scholastic term is “Replacement Theology,” there is nothing Godly or studious about it, such that it is more appropriately labeled “Replacement Foolology.”

As mentioned, not only is Sha’uwl’s reasoning flawed, his specificity with regard to zera’ being “seed” singular, not plural, suggests that I was right. It is unlikely that Paul accidentally misappropriated and misquoted Yahowah’s testimony to convince his readers that his message was supported by the God he was offending. It would be irrational to assume that this man misconstrued the intent of everything Yahowah has said, and yet correctly isolated one aspect of zera’ to negate the rest.

In reality, this is pure madness. Even today, both “seed” and “offspring” have plural connotations and implications. If you asked someone to bring you a bag of seed, what would you say if they arrived with a single seed inside a container suitable to hold 2,000 years of history? Likewise, we say “offspring” when depicting our children, not “offsprings.” Proving this point, zera’ does not have a differentiated singular and plural form when addressing seed. When a person is depicted sowing an entire field, zera’ is used, as it is when the descendants number in the thousands or even millions. This argument, thereby, preys on ignorance.

Further demonstrating this point, in context, the statement Sha’uwl | Paul misappropriated cannot be used to infer a single beneficiary, much less the imaginary product of identity theft. The plural of the pronoun “you” and then “they” were ascribed to the verb “byn – making connections to understand” on both occasions when addressing ‘Abraham’s “zera’ – offspring.” All “dowr – generations and dwelling places” were specified, not just the one pertaining to Iesou Christou. And this was so that every generation might better appreciate the Covenant and our God, not just one individual. On top of all of this, Gospel Jesus was not given the land of Canaan either. In fact, at the time, Yisra’el no longer existed and the Romans were occupying Judea.

As proof, please reconsider…

“I will stand up, establish, and restore (quwm), with (‘eth) My Familial Covenant Relationship (beryth). It serves as a means to recognize Me and as the source of understanding with regard to an association between Me (byn) and (wa) between you, to help you think and respond (byn), and between your offspring, so that they might be observant and responsive (wa byn zera’) after you (‘achar) in (la), their dwelling places and generations (dowr) for an eternal and everlasting (‘owlam) Family Covenant Relationship (beryth). I will genuinely remain (la hayah) as your (la) God (‘elohym), approaching (wa la) your offspring (zera’) after you (‘acharown). (Bare’syth 17:7) Therefore (wa), I will give (nathan) to you (la), and to (wa la) your offspring (zera’) after you (‘achar), this (‘eth) land (‘erets) where (‘eth) you are living as an alien (magowr), the entire (kol) land (‘erets) of Kan’aow | Canaan (Kan’aow) to (la) eternally (‘owlam) possess and settle within (‘achuzah). And (wa) I will exist (hayah) unto them as their (la hem la) God (‘elohym). (Bare’syth 17:8) Then (wa) God Almighty (‘elohym) said (‘amar) to (‘el) Abraham (‘Abraham), ‘And (wa) as for you (‘eth ‘atah), you should actually and continuously observe, closely examining and carefully considering (shamar) My Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth-y), you (‘atah) and (wa) your offspring (zera’) after you (‘achar) throughout (la) their generations, dwelling places, and eras of time (dowr).’” (Bare’syth / Genesis 17:9)

Simply stated, Paul’s seed proposition is preposterous. And yet without it, his entire edifice crumbles.

Moreover, zera’ | seed lies at the heart of the Messiah’s most relevant title – Zarowa’. While he planted the seeds that would grow into the Covenant Family by serving as the Passover Lamb, as his herald, as the final Zarowa’, it is my mission to cultivate those seeds such that they grow and produce the Shabuw’ah and Taruw’ah Harvests and result in a remnant of Yisra’el celebrating God’s Homecoming.

Demonstrating that one requires faith to believe that God inspired these words, the Nestle-Aland has Paul saying: “To the but Abraham were said the promises and to the seed of him. Not it says and to the seeds as on many but as on one and to the seed of you who is Christ.”

Missing the magnificence of the word which served to unify the Torah’s promises with their fulfillments, the inadequate KJV writes: “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.”

The Catholic Church’s Latin Vulgate reads: “The promises were made to Abrahæ and to his offspring. He did not say, “and to descendents,” as if to many, but instead, as if to one, he said, “and to your offspring,” who is Christus.” To this Jerome added: “~ The Promise was certainly made to many descendants of Abraham, since God used the figure of the stars in the sky and the sand on the shore. But Paul is saying that the word used for offspring can be taken in the singular sense, because the promise is primarily about Christ, (the one offspring who redeems all other offspring), and only secondarily about the physical and spiritual descendants of Abraham.” The Roman theologian is saying that Paul made a big deal out of nothing, and I concur. And to make his point, Jerome had to change “promises” back to “promise.”

Speaking of making something out of nothing, the New Living Translation would have us believe that zera’ and sperma both mean “child.” “God gave the promises to Abraham and his child. And notice that the Scripture doesn't say ‘to his children,’ as if it meant many descendants. Rather, it says ‘to his child’—and that, of course, means Christ.” Therein we see one of the problems of Paul’s writing and reasoning exposed. His words and thoughts are far too easily misconstrued and misrepresented.

The less evident, but more intriguing message related to the use of “zera’ – seed” is found in a promise made in the Garden of Eden. Yahowah predicted that the “zera’ – seed” of woman would bruise Satan on his head, which is precisely what Dowd accomplished with his mentally stimulating Psalms and with his fulfillment of Chag Matsah. God also warned that the Serpent would bruise mankind in the heel, which serves as the basis of Ya’aqob’s name – the child of the Covenant who became Yisra’el.

Apart from appreciating the eternal nature of the relationship between Yahowah and Abraham, and how that led to God blessing Yitschaq and Ya’aqob, and therefore Yisra’el, in addition to providing the lineage that led over chasms of time to the Shepherd and Lamb, this is all much ado about a failure to understand the language of revelation. It is a pathetic argument without merit.

Once again, citing the book Christians are wont to claim Galatians was nullifying, Sha’uwl’s next sentence is based upon Bare’syth / Genesis 15:13. In context, here is some of what Yahowah’s Towrah reveals about the ongoing nature of the Covenant, which He said would remain in effect…

“And He said to him, ‘I am Yahowah who, for the benefit of the relationship, brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans | Babylon to give you this land to possess as an inheritance. (Bare’syth / Genesis 15:7)

So, he said, ‘Yahowah, in what way shall I know that indeed I shall possess it as an inheritance?’ (Bare’syth / Genesis 15:8)

“He said: Abram, you should know with absolute certainty that indeed as one making a sojourn, your seed will exist in a land which is not for them (in Egypt). And they shall serve them. And they will respond and seek resolution, accordingly, in four hundred years. (Bare’syth / Genesis 15:13)

But also, therefore, that Gentile nation which reduces them to servitude, I will judge. And afterward, they shall come out with an intensely important and tremendously valuable possession. (Bare’syth / Genesis 15:14)

As for you, you shall go to your Father in peace, satisfied and reconciled. You shall be buried with grey hair, moral and pleasing. (15:15) And they shall return here in the fourth generation of time, because indeed, the corruption, distortions, and perversity of the ‘Emory | Amorites are not yet fully developed or totally complete. (Bare’syth / Genesis 15:16)

On this day, Yahowah cut the Familial Covenant Relationship with Abram to promise and affirm: ‘To your offspring (zera’), I give (nathan) this (‘eth ze’th) Land (‘erets).’” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 15:18)

“To your seed I will give this land” cannot be misappropriated to say “‘And to the offspring of him,’ it does not say: ‘And to the seeds,’ like upon many, but to the contrary as upon one, and ‘to the seed of you’ which is Christos.” Although, having buried the truth regarding Yahowah, His Son, the Covenant, and the Towrah, the gift of the land may have seemed like an appropriate comparison to Sha’uwl.

Very few Christians have attempted to explain what Sha’uwl does next. This is the first of countless times that Sha’uwl will deploy a phrase that sets him apart from those who scribed the Towrah and Prophets. They spoke for Yahowah, but Paul speaks for himself. His “but I say” is used so frequently, it should have alerted everyone to the fact he was speaking for Paul when he wrote...

“But (de) this (houtos) I say (lego – I speak), ‘A promised covenant agreement (diatheke – a testament, will, or agreement of some kind to dispose of and distribute a deceased individual’s property) having been ratified beforehand (prokyroo – having been sanctioned and validated in advance; from kuroo, to promise and confirm publicly that something is valid, and thus truthful and reliable, and pro, ahead of time) by (hupo – because of, under the auspices of, by the means of, and for the reasons that) the God (tou ΘΥ), this (o) after (meta – with) four hundred and thirty (tetrakosioi kai triakonta) years (etos), having become (ginomai – having appeared on the scene and arrived upon the stage of history as) Towrah (nomos – the means to be nourished by that which is bestowed, becoming heirs, precepts which are apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper and to be approved, prescriptions for an inheritance) does not (ou – objectively denying the reality of an alleged fact) revoke it (akyroo – invalidate, nullify, contradict, or void it, depriving it of authority) so as to (eis) invalidate or abolish (katargeo –idle or inactivate, diminish or remove the force of) the (o) announced promise (epaggelia – the heralding of the consent approval and agreement (singular)).’” (Galatians 3:17)

You may have noticed that the singular promise which became promises, plural, is now singular again. This is a symptom of one of the many problems associated with lying: remembering what was said.

Speaking for Himself, Yahowah, in Bare’syth / Genesis 26:5, told us that He not only shared His Towrah with Abraham, but that the reason He was now honoring its provisions with Yitschaq was because Abraham listened intently and carefully observed everything He had to say. Therefore, the very Towrah which presents the Covenant was concurrent with it. These are parallel events, not sequential.

For comparison’s sake, the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear attests that Paul wrote: “But this I say, agreement having been validated before by the God, the after four hundred and thirty years, having become law not invalidates for the to abolish the promise.”

As has become his custom, Paul has positioned a principle that is only plausible if the audience is unaware of what Yahowah has written. He is suggesting that the Towrah is irrelevant because the Covenant preceded it, and therefore cannot nullify it. When in reality, the Towrah not only confirms every nuance of the Covenant; without the Towrah, the Covenant is unknown and unknowable. Simply stated: without the Towrah, there is no Covenant. With the Towrah, there is only one Covenant. The Covenant is inseparable from the Towrah. One does not exist without the other.

It is inappropriate, although not out of character, for Paul to begin this statement with “But this I say.” It is as if he thinks his personal suppositions, even when they are in conflict with God, are superior. And yet here, what he is saying is only believable if you are unaware of what Yahowah has said.

Rather than affirming that the Covenant established with Abraham was validated and memorialized in the Towrah, Sha’uwl is proposing the notion that the Towrah “did not revoke or invalidate” it. In that way, rather than the Towrah being essential to the Covenant, it becomes irrelevant to it. This strategy was ingenious, albeit insidious.

To understand why Sha’uwl used such twisted logic, blending half-truths with outright lies, we have to consider this statement within the context of the point he has been trying to advance. Paul is linking “the promise / promises made to Abraham” with his “Christos” and then to “believing the message he has been preaching,” while at the same time bypassing the entirety of Torah, which must be negated for his formula to prevail. Therefore, he is telling the Galatians that since the Torah cannot revoke or invalidate the promise, the Torah is extraneous to that promise.

The reason this clever, although ridiculous, line of reasoning prevailed is that the natural tendency of people ensnared in a religious system is to give those who claim to speak for God the benefit of the doubt. I am embarrassed to say that I was once counted among those he beguiled. And that is why I shared my preconceived thoughts regarding Galatians at the outset of this evaluation. I was predisposed to justify the discrepancies between the Christian interpretation of this epistle and Yahowah’s testimony. I had hoped to solve the many conundrums by suggesting that it was the Talmud, not Yahowah’s Towrah, that was being assailed. But I would have to sacrifice my integrity and my soul to do either. Since the facts condemn Paul, it would be immoral and irrational to absolve him by concealing or twisting his testimony.

It is ironic in a way. I have been vilified for having turned over and exposed the rocks Paul has hurled at the Torah. And yet, for far too long I was guilty of letting my desire to validate Paul’s message taint my judgment.

The Torah didn’t invalidate Yahowah’s promises. But that is like saying the novel Moby-Dick didn’t overturn Ahab’s vow to get the whale. Every last detail associated with these promises would be completely unknown without the Torah. In this light, please ponder:

“Brothers, according to man I say nevertheless a man having been validated with an agreement; no one rejects or actually accepts added provisions. (Galatians 3:15) But to Abram these promises were said, ‘And to the offspring of him.’ It does not say: ‘And to the seeds,’ like upon many. But to the contrary, as upon one, and to the seed of you which is Christos. (Galatians 3:16)

But this I say, ‘A promised covenant agreement having been ratified beforehand by the God, this after four hundred and thirty years, having become Towrah does not revoke it so as to invalidate the promise.’” (Galatians 3:17)

In context, the transition from “promises” to “promise” in the beginning of Galatians 3:16 and at the conclusion of 3:17 is glaring. Those skilled in rhetoric recognize that inconsistencies of this type serve as proof that an individual is lying and cannot be trusted.

The twist here is “invalidate” as opposed to “validate.” In reality, the Covenant’s promises which were discussed between Yahowah and Abraham were affirmed, that is to say, they were “validated,” while they were being established, and again concurrent with the liberation of the Children of Yisra’el from bondage in the crucibles of Egypt – a story central to the message of the Towrah and its Covenant.

Turning to the interpretive translations of Galatians, we find the KJV inferring that, since the Law cannot invalidate the promise, the Law must be wrong, which is worse than, albeit a natural extension of, what Sha’uwl was trying to say. “And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.”

The Latin Vulgate isn’t wrong; it’s just inadequate: “But I say this: the testament confirmed by God (testamentum confirmatum a Deo), which, after four hundred and thirty years became the Law (Lex), does not nullify, so as to make the promise empty.”

The New Living Translation published: “This is what I am trying to say: The agreement God made with Abraham could not be canceled 430 years later when God gave the law to Moses. God would be breaking his promise.” After all, Paul was composing the lyrics for their hymnals.

If we were to search the full archive of human literature, we’d be hard-pressed to find anything as appalling as what we have read. It is pretentious in its inception, audacious in its scope, and horrendous in its presentation. This is the worst lie ever told.



Twistianity

Devil’s Advocate

…Plague of Death

3

Mesites | The Middleman

Would you Believe?…

His frayed emotions spent, Paul continued to flail at the air, taking sweeping swipes at God. Having not landed a solid blow, he became a tragic figure, tangled up in his pathetic frenzy. He was a punch-drunk boxer, tottering in the midst of his tantrum.

Fueled only by ego and desperate to land the haymaker he craved, his vendetta against the Almighty devolved into madness. He continued to tamper with the evidence and bellow bombastic taunts as he mocked everyone, including God.

And yet through it all, completely detached from reality, he became the high-minded moral failure Yahowah had foretold 666 years earlier. Reflecting his Lord’s overbearing attitude and unappealing arrogance, Sha’uwl continued to present his attack on the Almighty as if he were a beacon of light in a dark world. The bad seed of Abraham was insane, and yet with every whiny breath, this lowly and little man would have us believe that he alone was imbued with the means to save mankind.

This would be his haunting refrain: God is wrong, Paul is right, Jews are bad, Gentiles are mine.

Amidst this dearth of reason, the writing quality, which has been abysmal, deteriorates. Paul’s next verse requires a reordering of the words, the addition of a verb, a preposition, and some articles for it to convey a quasi-intelligible thought.

Therefore, let’s begin with the most credible scholastic source, the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear: “If for from law the inheritance no longer from promise to the but Abraham through promise has favored the God.”

“Because (gar – for) if (ei – as a condition) from (ek – out of) the Towrah (nomou – the allotment which is parceled out, the inheritance which is given, the nourishment which is bestowed to be possessed and used to grow, the precepts which are apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper and approved, and the prescription to become an heir (singular genitive, and thus restricted to a singular specific and unique characterization)) the (e) inheritance (kleronomai – possession of gifts from a deceased parent), no longer (ouketi) from (ek – out of) a promise (epaggelia – an agreement or consent (singular)), but (de) to (to) Abram (Abraam – a transliteration of Abram, Abraham’s original name) by (dia – through) promise (epaggelia – agreement or consent (singular)) he has favored (charizomai – he has done a favor to gratify and pleasure, showing hospitality and merriment, serving as a derivative of Charis – the name of the Greek goddesses of Charity) the God (o ΘΣ).” (Galatians 3:18)

The primary purpose of Yahowah’s Towrah | Teaching is to present His Beryth | Covenant. And the sole purpose of this Familial Relationship is to bequeath an inheritance, allowing the Children of the Covenant to inherit its blessings, the physical universe, and heaven.

Diving into the dark mind of Paul’s madness, this desperate theory would have us believe that Yahowah’s Towrah – a book filled with God’s promises – cannot possibly contain any of the promises the Almighty made on behalf of ‘Abraham because the surviving eyewitness to this conversation attested to it 430 years after these events transpired.

It is like saying that, because Yahowah didn’t provide Moseh | Moses with a 14-billion-year-old transcript of His methods concurrent with creation, it did not occur. Or if you prefer a more modest analogy, think of it this way: you agree upon a price to buy a home and shake hands with the seller. Later, when you have a realtor memorialize your agreement in writing, rather than affirming it, according to Paul’s approach, you have invalidated the promises made to one another.

And speaking of delusional, how is it that Paul believes that Abram favored God when it was clearly the other way around? All five of the Covenant’s blessings are for our benefit.

While we have all had our fill of Paul by now, in a way, his continued and desperate attempt to portray both Abraham and the Covenant as being distinct and separate from the Towrah in which both are presented adds considerable credence to the assertion that this ploy is the fulcrum upon which Pauline Doctrine pivots – the very essence of the Christian religion. The realization that it is faulty does not bode well for believers.

Paul wants the faithful to believe, without evidence or reason, that Abram, circa 2000 BCE, became “righteous and vindicated,” and thus “saved,” as a result of “believing some sort of promise.” And then he wants them to reject the rest of the Towrah, the only source in which this relationship is known, even though it was inspired by God.

But how can anyone believe this wholly unverifiable and conflicting “promise of salvation through faith” when the Towrah’s account methodically presents Abraham engaging in a relationship with Yahowah by responding to what God had requested of him? To put this in perspective, the story of Abraham and God’s relationship begins in the 11th chapter of Bare’syth / Genesis and continues into the 25th chapter – providing page after page of detailed information, all of it pertinent and interesting. And yet Paul would do away with all of this and reduce the development of the Covenant to a single promise, one he didn’t bother to delineate, which was, nonetheless, positioned so as to be in conflict with everything God revealed. As a result, so long as the faithful believe Paul, they can dispense with the Towrah and Prophets. Fact is, they can dispense with evidence and reason, but not wisely.

Even if Paul’s contradictory claims were true, and they are not, even if Paul could validate his proposition, and he can’t, why would God deliberately present an inaccurate depiction of the most pivotal relationship He ever formed? And if God cannot be trusted to tell us what happened, why should we believe someone who claims to speak for Him regarding this relationship and its consequences?

In the Towrah, there is a very specific way God is open to being approached. That process requires walking away from religion and politics, getting acquainted, developing a relationship, and growing together, with God enhancing our lives along the way. But with Paul, getting to know God and then developing a relationship with Him is immaterial. He goes directly from believing to vindication. It is this improper perspective that beguiles so many Christians.

According to Yahowah, trust is the second of five steps we must take to participate in His Covenant. These steps, or requirements, include 1) walking away from our country, especially that which is represented by Babylon, and therefore, from religion and politics, 2) trusting and relying on Yahowah, which necessitates knowing Him and coming to understand what He is offering, something that can only be achieved by studying the Towrah, 3) then based upon this knowledge, walking to Yahowah to become perfect, a path guided by the Towrah through the Miqra’ey, 4) which is why we are asked to closely examine and carefully consider every aspect of the Covenant relationship, which again can only be achieved by studying the Towrah, and 5) be circumcised as men, and as parents, we are asked to circumcise our sons as our commitment to raising our children to become God’s children. After we do these five things, Yahowah responds by making our souls immortal, perfecting us, and adopting us into His Covenant family so that He can enrich us with His teaching and empower us with His Spirit.

It would be foolish for Yahowah to save someone who does not know Him, who is not part of His family, who has not so much as bothered to consider what He wants or to understand what He is offering. If He were to do so, heaven would be no different than the mess men and women have made here on earth.

In the Towrah, salvation is a byproduct of the Covenant relationship because our Heavenly Father cares for His children. And this is why faith in the unknown is not part of this equation.

But with Paul, salvation is instantly awarded to those who believe him. A person does not need to know Yahowah’s name, consider Yahowah’s instructions, engage in Yahowah’s Covenant, or answer Yahowah’s Invitations. Nothing is required. No knowledge. No thinking. No relationship. No action. No commitment. And yet, should Paul be right, heaven would be hell for Christians. Those who have an affinity for the thoughtless and inactive myth he has woven will be completely unprepared for the voyage of discovery we will take with Yahowah through His word and they would hate what they discover upon their arrival in God’s world.

The second reason to discard Paul’s ploy is that the scenario he is presenting is rationally impossible. Since the Towrah is the only place where God introduces Himself to us, the only place where the terms and benefits of the Covenant are presented, and the only place where the path to God and thus to salvation is explained, by negating and bypassing it, there are no promises.

Third, to suggest that a person cannot rely on the written testimony of God in His Towrah but can believe an unrecorded and unsubstantiated promise from this same God, is insane. Keep in mind, Yahowah proved that His testimony can be trusted by offering countless accurate prophecies. And Paul proved that his antagonist position should not be trusted by providing an onslaught of errant citations and logical fallacies. He could not even get his own personal history right.

Fourth, almost every aspect of Paul’s “salvation by believing a promise made to Abram” theory conflicts with the lone eyewitness account of what actually occurred. To discard the written testimony of an eyewitness, especially when that eyewitness is God, only to believe this man is far too foolish even for faith. Doing so requires the faithful to believe that God authorized a man to trash His reputation, to annul His testimony, to deny His purpose, and to refute His solution, so that everything He promised and proposed could be discarded.

And fifth, since Yahowah demonstrated beyond any doubt that He is God and that He authored the Torah and Prophets, and did so through countless prophecies, all of which have occurred precisely as predicted, or are in the process of coming true right before our eyes, to reject such affirmed testimony, and instead believe in Paul’s letters, a man who got his lone prediction wrong, isn’t real smart.

Returning to the text of Galatians 3:18, kleronomai, translated as “inheritance,” highlights one of many problems with Christianity. As a result of Paul’s letters, the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms have been relegated to an “Old Testament,” with the inference that it is “kleronomai – the will and testimony of a deceased parent,” or at least that of a retired and incapacitated father who is no longer relevant because he “relinquished everything he possessed to his son.” The same concern is also evident in diatheke, which Paul has used relative to the “agreement,” which also speaks of “a testament or will which was written to dispose of and distribute a deceased or incapacitated individual’s property.”

Also interesting, kleronomai is a compound of kleros which is “a means of selecting someone by random chance” and, specifically, “to cast or draw lots,” and the all-too-familiar nomos, “allotment which is parceled out as an inheritance.” It is therefore a “random chance” means of determining one’s inheritance which is being errantly associated with the Torah.

Beyond this, the notion that because something is written it ceases to be a promise is also absurd. A “promissory note” is a written pledge to pay someone what is owed to him. A legal contract stipulates responsibilities and delineates the things each party promises to perform. The contract does not change the nature of the promises, it simply holds the parties accountable for the promises they have made. Likewise, while it is actually a three-party agreement with the government, most consider their marriage license to be a written affirmation of a husband’s and wife’s oral vows regarding their union. Similarly, an affidavit serves to memorialize oral testimony, making one’s oath legally binding rather than nullifying it. Written agreements prevent misunderstandings and create an enduring legacy.

This passage, combined with the previous one, once again precludes us from pretending that Paul was referencing the Oral Law or Traditions of the Rabbis. According to Pauline Doctrine, the Torah must be bypassed for the promise to remain valid and for “believers” to become heirs of his god. Therefore, in his warped mind, the affinity between the Covenant established between Yahowah and Abraham, and the Towrah in which this Covenant has been memorialized, is counterproductive. Therefore, with Paul, this is an “either-or” proposition. According to Sha’uwl, you can fail by following the Towrah’s guidance or you can be saved by believing in an unspecified promise made by the very same God whose testimony is incapable of saving anyone.

Christians have been misled by Paul’s letters into believing that the Torah represents a works-based, onerous, and thus impossible means to salvation. And yet that is not remotely accurate. While we must engage to participate in the relationship, our salvation is the byproduct of that agreement. All we are required to do to become perfect and immortal is to answer Yahowah’s Invitations and meet with Him on the days that He has set aside to save us. He does the work, as do all loving fathers on behalf of their children.

From a Pauline perspective, “faith in a promise” requires nothing from the beneficiary. But as an heir, they must wait for the benefactory to die. However, what is in it for God? Imagine having to endure the company of someone with whom you share nothing in common and whose agenda and priorities are the opposite of your own. After all, Yahowah is averse to everything Christians hold dear: Paul and his letters, being religious, discounting His name, being referred to as Lord, the Christian New Testament, an Old Testament, being anti-Semitic, a new covenant, Grace, calling His Word “the Bible,” everything associated with the Church, the Trinity, the cross, bowing down, being worshiped, Sunday observances, Christmas, Lent, Easter, Halloween, the pagan myth of a dying and bodily resurrected deity, and prayers apart from responding to His Towrah.

Relative to Galatians 3:18, the problem is not with the translations, but instead with the original document. Paul wrote: “Because if, as a condition, from the Towrah the inheritance, no longer from promise, but to the Abram by promise of the God, He has favored and pleasured.” The King James Version published: “For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.” It was a precisely accurate translation of the Latin Vulgate. “For if the inheritance is of the lege/law, then it is no longer of the promise. But God bestowed it to Abraham through the promise.”

That said, Gerald Borchert of the Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Douglas Moo of Wheaton College, and Thomas Schreiner of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary working under the auspices of Mark Taylor, the “Chief Stylist,” Daniel Taylor, the “Senior Stylist,” and Philip Comfort, the “N.T. Coordinating Editor,” collectively known as “Team Tyndale,” with regard to Galatians, coordinated this stylish theological twist whereby the promised inheritance was nullified by trying to keep the law. Then for good measure, they tossed in an extra “grace,” just to be sure they had paid proper homage to Paul’s goddesses. “For if the inheritance could be received by keeping the law, then it would not be the result of accepting God’s promise. But God graciously gave it to Abraham as a promise.”

Why would one God have “Old” and “New” Testaments? Was He unable to get it right the first time?

According to Yahowah, His Covenant has not yet been renewed, and when it ultimately is reaffirmed on Yowm Kipurym in year 6000 Yah, the restoration of the familial relationship will be predicated upon full integration of the Towrah. Yahowah has promised to write His “towrah – teaching” inside His children such that it enhances our ability to make sound decisions. As such, the notion that the Towrah and its Covenant are outdated, necessitating new approaches, is inconsistent with this promised future event.

Turning to Sha’uwl’s next statement, we are confronted with considerable differences between an older manuscript and the majority texts as presented in the Nestle-Aland. So, while I’ve included the additional verbiage found in post-Constantine codices, I’ve placed those words within brackets. But with or without them, this is nearly incomprehensible.

After having said that Yahowah’s Towrah was both irrelevant and diabolical, Paul was compelled to explain why God even bothered to write it. So, here is Paul’s most lucid explanation as it is chronicled by the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear: “What then the law? Of the transgression on account it was set forward until which might come the seed to who it has been promised having been directed through messengers in hand of mediator.”

Rearranging these same words, but not misrepresenting any of them, here is another perspective on the same statement:

“Then (oun – therefore), why (tis – or what) the (o – this) Towrah (nomos – Torah, mistakenly perceived as “the Law” by Christians, with nomos speaking of an allotment which is parceled out, precepts apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper and approved, and prescriptions to become an heir)?

[Of the (ton) transgressions (parabasis – violations and promulgations, disobediences and disregarding, lawbreaking and overstepping) because of the favor (charin – for the purpose and reason of, for the charity and pleasure of) it was continued (prostithemai – it was provided and added to)] u/Until (achri) the (to) seed (sperma – offspring and descendants) which (hos – who) might come (erchomai – may happen (in the subjunctive mood the verb’s action is a mere possibility)) to whom (hos – to which) it has been promised (epangellomai – asserted, professed, or announced) having been commanded (diatasso – having been instructed, arranged, and planned) [by (dia – through)] messengers (angelos / aggelos – a class of spiritual beings serving as envoys commonly known as angels) in the hand (en cheir – in control of) of a mediator and middleman (mesites – of a reconciler; from mesos – middleman).” (Galatians 3:19)

Paul has painted himself into a corner. At this time, especially within walking distance of Yisra’el, the Towrah was the best-known and most often quoted text. That is still true. It is the most accurate historically, the most prophetically precise, the most thoroughly moral, the most consistently enlightening, and the most innovative and important document the world has ever known. So now that Paul has trashed it, his audience is obviously questioning why God bothered with it in the first place. What was God’s purpose? What, if anything, did He accomplish by writing it? Where did God go so wrong that His teaching is no longer valid?

Sha’uwl is floating another trial balloon, hoping that no one actually reads or considers the book he is relegating to a bygone era. In Paul’s view, Yahowah’s Towrah was a document “ton parabasis – associated with transgressions.” Yahowah’s Teaching and Guidance “ton parabasis – overstepped its bounds with promulgations, which is the spread, proliferation, and dissemination of a decree which cannot be disobeyed and disregarded.”

At best, at least according to this self-proclaimed apostle of God, the Towrah “prostithemai – was provided, augmented, and continued” only “achri – until” the “charin sperma – fortuitous and charitable seed” “erchomai – might come” to rescue mankind from the mean-spirited and incompetent god of that old testament. The replacement “sperma – offspring” would be more “charin – pleasurable, charitable, and agreeable, treating everyone favorably,” liars like Paul included.

So attractive would be the replacement god, he would come in the name of the Greek Charis – Charities and the Roman Gratia – Graces, emulating the beautiful party girls of pagan mythology. That, according to Paul, was the full extent of the Torah. And now that the seed had come, you were encouraged to cast the Torah aside. Goodbye and good riddance, God’s alleged spokesman said of God.

Who do you suppose is the “mesites – mediator and middleman” if not Paul, himself? When he means to say Iesou Christo, he writes it. Moreover, since this supposition is diametrically opposed to what was proclaimed during the Instruction on the Mount, the Messiah is obviously not Paul’s mediator.

I would also be remiss if I did not share two additional facts. First, Yahowah specifically asks us not to “prostithemai – add to” His Towrah. And second, Yahowah routinely affirms that His Towrah is “‘owlam – eternal and everlasting.”

If that were not enough to suggest that Sha’uwl ought not be trusted, the second half of his pontification is especially ripe with rotten fruit. From whence is a person going understand how to capitalize on the favor being provided by the new seed? If the mercy He is providing does not come by observing the Towrah, why was he promised in the Towrah?

Why pretend that the seed’s credibility is enhanced because it was promised that he “erchomai – might come?” Scribed in the subjunctive mood, the promise was, at best, probable. Do you suppose that Paul is trying to disparage Yahowah’s prophetic record in the Towrah and Prophets, where everything He has promised has materialized? After all, any rational individual who studies God’s predictions and their fulfillment comes to realize that Yahowah not only proves that He is God, but also that His Towrah testimony can be trusted. Is Sha’uwl implying that God just got lucky this time, and that we would be wasting our time to observe His prophecies more closely?

Facts aside, it would be in Sha’uwl’s interest for his audience to relegate Yahowah’s Word to the scrap heap of time because those who seriously consider God’s testimony will reject Paul’s letters.

But that is not the end of the rotten fruit. Dowd arrived in the fourth millennium of human history to fulfill the Towrah’s promises in the Yowbel year of 4000 Yah. He entered Yaruwshalaim in the fourth epoch of human history as foretold in the opening chapter of the Towrah and on the exact day, four days before Passover, the very moment he predicted in the ninth chapter of Dany’el. Then he, in concert with the Father and Spirit, enabled the benefits that would be provided through Yahowah’s Invitations to Meet on Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym. It was not perchance but by design.

While predicted and explained, it was not a command, and more importantly, his arrival was not “dia angelos” by way of “angels.” Yes, Gabriel announced his arrival to Dany’el, but that was the full extent of any “mal’ak – spiritual messenger’s” contribution. Therefore, Sha’uwl is willing to mislead his audience, hoping that they disassociate Yahowah from His Son.

There is nothing in the Towrah to suggest that it was a “temporary” solution, and if there were, you could bet your oldest shekel Sha’uwl would have cited it. Virtually every important instruction in the Torah comes with the provision that “this is to be ‘owlam – eternal and everlasting.”

Especially relevant, the Sermon on the Mount expressly refutes the notion that the Messiah came to annul the Torah. He said that even the smallest strokes of the letters comprising the words which proclaim its message would endure as long as the universe exists and until every last promise is fulfilled. (Matthew 5:17-19) Therefore, since Paul’s message is in direct conflict with the Son of God, who is Paul’s “sperma – seed?”

Nowhere in the Torah does one read that it was given because of transgressions. But that didn’t stop the KJV from proposing: “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” The inspiration for those words came from the Latin Vulgate: “Why, then, was there a lex/law? It was established because of transgressions, until the offspring would arrive, to whom he made the promise, ordained by Angelos through the hand of a mediator.”

A disclaimer is in order: what you are about to read is not true. Using the New Living Translation may be harmful to your health. “Why, then, was the law given? It was given alongside the promise to show people their sins. But the law was designed to last only until the coming of the child who was promised. God gave his law through angels to Moses, who was the mediator between God and the people.”

That is not what Paul wrote, and thus the NLT is not a translation. It is not even true. It is not what Yahowah said about the Torah’s purpose, so this message is counter to the Word of God.

Not only is “law” an invalid depiction of the Towrah, but it was not given by way of angels. That means that Team Tyndale, comprised of Gerald Borchert of the Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, Douglas Moo of Wheaton College, Thomas Schreiner of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and their stylists Mark and Daniel Taylor, and Philip Comfort have joined with Sha’uwl to deceive – all gaining fame and making money in the process.

How do you suppose these “scholars” reconcile their “but the law was designed to last only until the coming of the child who was promised” with the child of the promise saying:

“You should not think or assume (me nomizomai – you do not consider, expect, nor suppose at any time even the possibility of the commonly held or popularly established presumption, never accepting the prevailing precept or justification (negative particle, aorist active subjunctive verb)) that (hoti – namely) I actually came (erchomai – I appeared then, now, or in the future (aorist active indicative)) to tear down, invalidate, put an end to, or discard (kataluo – to dissolve, destroy, disunite, subvert, overthrow, abrogate, weaken, dismantle, or abolish, releasing or dismissing any of the implications, force, influence, or validity of) the Towrah (ton nomon – that which has been assigned to nourish and provide an inheritance) or the Prophets (e tous prophetes – those who are inspired to speak and write based upon divine inspiration, making God’s thoughts and plans known even before they happen).

I actually came not (ouk erchomai) to dismiss, to invalidate, to discard, or to put an end to it (kataluo – to tear it down, to dissolve, to destroy, to disunite, to subvert, to overthrow, to abrogate, to weaken, to dismantle, or to abolish it, dismissing any implication or influence), but instead (alla – to the contrary, emphatically contrasting that to the certainty) to completely fulfill it (pleroo – to proclaim and complete it, providing the true meaning and thinking, to liberally supply, carrying out, accomplishing, and rendering it totally and perfectly). (Matthew 5:17)

Because (gar – for this reason then so that you understand) in deed and in truth (amen – truly and reliably), I say to you (lego sy), till (hoes – up to the point that) with absolute certainty (an) the heaven and the earth (o ouranos e ge – the universe and the surface of the planet) cease to exist (parerchomai – pass away, disappearing), not ever under any circumstance shall (ou me – there is no way whatsoever, not even so much as a possibility that) one aspect of the smallest letter (eis iota – shall a single Yowd, the first letter in Yahowah’s name and the smallest character in the Hebrew alphabet) nor (e) a single stroke of the pen (mia keraia – one of the smallest line distinguishing any aspect of any Hebrew letter) cease to be relevant (parerchomai – be averted or neglected, have any chance of being ignored or disregarded, being passed over or omitted, perishing) from (apo – being disassociated, separated, or severed from) the Towrah (tou nomou – that which has been assigned to nourish and provide an inheritance) until with absolute certainty (hoes an) everything (pas – every last aspect, all and the totality of it) comes to exist (ginomai – it all take place and happens, becoming a reality). (Matthew 5:18)

Therefore (oun – indeed and as a result), whoever may (hos ean – if at any time anyone introduces a contingency or condition whereby the individual) dismiss or attempt to do away with (luo – may seek to toss aside, invalidate, or abolish, tearing away or asunder) one of the (mian ton) smallest and least important of these (houtos ton elachistos) prescriptions and instructions which are enjoined (entole – rules, regulations, and authorized directions, precepts, and teachings), and (kai) he may instruct or indoctrinate (didasko – he might teach, delivering moralizing discourses while conceiving and instilling doctrine, expounding or explaining so as to enjoin) people (anthropos – humanity or mankind) in this manner (houto – thusly and likewise), he will actually be called by the name and will be judicially summoned as (kaleo – he will be referred to and called by the proper name, literally and passively summoned, called to task and designated) Lowly and Little (elachistos – a.k.a., Paulos, which means small, inadequate, and insignificant, insufficient, irrelevant, and unimportant, of no consequence, immaterial, and inconsequential (Paulos, the Latin name Sha’uwl adopted as his own means “elachistos – lowly and little)) in the kingdom of heaven (en te basileia ton ouranos – by, within, among, and with regard to the reign and royal authority of the heavens).

And then (de – but by contrast), whosoever (hos an) might act upon it (poieomai – may engage through (the Towrah), making the most of it, attempting to carry out its assigned tasks (aorist active subjunctive)), teaching it (didasko – trying to provide and share its instructions, expounding upon it), this individual (houtos – these things) will properly be referred to and named (kaleo – it will be judiciously and appropriately called and designated) valuable and important (megas – sensible, albeit surprisingly uncommon) among those who reign within the heavens (en te basileia ton ouranos – by and with regard to the kingdom and royal authority of the heavens).” (Matthew 5:19)

While this was likely Dowd addressing his audience in Hebrew, the translation of his Instruction on the Mount begins using “me nomizomai” in the aorist active subjunctive, which is “an express prohibition against accepting what will become a commonly held belief.” In this tense and mood, this “is something so wrong we should not allow ourselves to even begin to think this way, no matter how popular or prevalent this sentiment is within our society.”

Therefore, the Zarowa’ was telling us that so many people would embrace the myth that Sha’uwl has been promoting, that his supposition would ultimately become commonly held, and presumed to be established throughout the world. And yet it was absolutely and irrefutably wrong to assume that the Son of God returned to invalidate any aspect of the Towrah, as Paul was claiming.

The most common Christian dismissal of God’s unequivocal statement is to suggest that “pleroo – to completely fulfill” somehow means “to do away with” as opposed to “doing what one has promised.” But twice in this very same statement, the Messiah is translated using kataluo to say that this interpretation is in irreconcilable conflict with his position and reality. And last time I checked, the universe and the earth still exist. Therefore, we can be reassured that every promise, every prediction, every direction, and inspiration in the Towrah remains true and in effect. This is what makes God so reliable.

Eliminating any opportunity for misunderstanding, Dowd was specific, telling us that not so much as the smallest Hebrew letter, a Yowd, which not-so-coincidentally is the first letter in Yahowah’s name, nor even the smallest stroke of the lines which comprise the Hebrew letters forming the Hebrew words of the Hebrew Towrah would be disregarded, then, now, or in the future. As a result of the Messiah’s specificity, we are compelled to conclude that Paul lied when he claimed to be authorized by God, no matter how tortured the justification.

Incidentally, the reason that the validity of the smallest strokes and letters which currently comprise the Towrah was not presented as “eternal and everlasting” is because the words which comprise the current Towrah do, in fact, have a limited life. By the end of the Millennial Shabat in year 7000 Yah (3033 CE), there will be no need for the Towrah’s Teachings regarding how to come to know Yahowah or His Directions on how to engage in the Covenant relationship, even His Guidance on how to walk to Him by answering His Invitations, because by this time every soul will know Yahowah personally and will be part of His Family, becoming recipients of every promised benefit. And yet at that time, as we watch our Heavenly Father create a new universe, we will still need His “towrah – guidance,” but then on how to live the most productive and enjoyable lives in the spiritual realm where our power will be unlimited. At this point, God’s towrah | instructions to His children will explain how to live life to the fullest in 4, 5, 6, and 7 dimensions.

There is a tendency to translate “kaleo as, “He will be called” “insignificant” as opposed to “he will be named” “Little and Lowly,” i.e., Paulos, in the kingdom of heaven. The former seems to imply that this insufficient individual is in heaven, but holds a lowly status, while the latter reveals the individual’s personal and proper name, as well as describing heaven’s utter disdain for Paulos. Not only is there no hierarchy, therefore, status among God’s children in heaven (at least apart from Dowd’s role as King), since we are family, it is obvious that Paul is not only excluded but also disparaged in Heaven. Therefore, it is the “lowly and little” definition of Paulos’ chosen name that is being addressed in the statement.

“Paulos” was likely chosen because it served as a blended transliteration of the name of the Greek god Apollo (Etruscan Apulu) and his Roman epithet, Poebos, meaning brilliant. This made it possible for Sha’uwl to shed the Hebrew name, which was synonymous with She’owl, just as Satan changed his identity from Adversary to Lord. Paul’s Roman moniker also served to put him on par with his presumed god, Iesous, because both myths were said to be the sons of theos and Zeus. Beyond this, Apollo was depicted as a wolf and as a shepherd, allowing Sha’uwl to project his Benjamite identity while replacing Dowd. Also, since the Greeks associated Apollo with destruction and reconstitution through ritual purification as part of a public ekklesia | assembly, Sha’uwl chose a name that defined his quest to openly destroy the Towrah, its God, and His people and replace them with his politicized and healing assembly. And while it may be happenstance, in the Macedonian dialect, Apollo means “stone,” enabling Paul to rob Peter of his epithet. Insightfully, the faithful believed that Apollo was the God of the Healing Message who could combat the deadliest plague.

From the opposing perspective, those who do the opposite of what Paulos said and did, who act upon the Towrah, and who, to the best of their ability, teach the Towrah, expounding upon it, their contribution to Yahowah’s Covenant family is called sensible, even important, albeit uncommon. It is not that those who expound on the Towrah’s guidance hold some sort of elevated status, but instead it is their willingness to engage with God and share His instructions which is seen as sensible and valuable.

It is also interesting to note that many, if not most, of the prophecies presented in the Towrah are yet unfulfilled. Yahowah has not yet returned with Dowd. Yisra’el and Yahuwdym have not yet been reconciled. The Millennial Shabat has not commenced. The Towrahless One has not yet risen to power. The Time of Ya’aqob’s Troubles, when Yisra’el is narrowed at the waist and jihadists flood into the vulnerable nation, is still on our horizon at the time of this writing – albeit not for long. The final Islamic assault to exterminate Jews and eliminate Israel is still a few years away. The promises associated with the final four Miqra’ey – the Shabuw’ah and Taruw’ah Harvests and the Dowd’s Homecoming on Kipurym to Sukah | Camp Out are events we will celebrate soon. Therefore, the point is that the Towrah could not have ended its useful life, even if such a thing were possible, 2,000 years ago. Paul is wrong on all accounts.



Returning to the anti-Towrah diatribe being promoted by the little and lowly one, his next statement is either confusing or indicting. We are required to speculate on who Sha’uwl is attempting to introduce as the “Middleman.” And based upon the most popular translations, I am not the first to wander down this winding road in search of answers.

“But now (de) the middleman (o mesites – mediator who intervenes and either reconciles an existing relationship or creates a new covenant (singular/masculine)), he is (estin – exists) not (ouk) of one (heis – of a single thing or lone individual), but (de) the God (o ΘΣ) he is (estin – he exists as) one (heis).” (Galatians 3:20)

This “middleman” exists, but he isn’t god. Since there is no place for God’s Son, our Messiah and Savior, in Paul’s Replacement Foolology, he cannot be Dowd or the Passover Lamb. And since he remains unnamed, it is looking all the more like my initial assessment was valid. Paul is presenting himself as the mediator, the one proposing to reconcile the relationship. He has become indistinguishable from his god.

The interlinear associated with the Nestle-Aland 27th Edition reads: “The but mediator one not is the but God one is.” In the King James Version, we find: “Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.” Jerome wrote the following in the Latin Vulgate: “Now a mediator is not of one, yet God is one.” The NLT suggests: “Now a mediator is helpful if more than one party must reach an agreement. But God, who is one, did not use a mediator when he gave his promise to Abraham.” The self-proclaimed literal New American Standard Bible published: “Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one.” To their credit, they used italics to indicate that “party only” and “only” were not written in the Greek text. The New International Version, an extremely popular paraphrase, conveys: “A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.”

Seeking to derive something sensible from this gibberish, even as Paul’s sentiments appear disingenuous, here is my best shot. I suppose Sha’uwl may be trying to say that as the “mediator and middleman,” he is creating a new covenant for the masses, unlike the “old” God who had “limited” his Covenant to one now-despised race. As such, Paul is the reconciler, the one who “may not exist as a diminished manifestation of God who is one,” because he is inseparable from the mythos of his god. Paul, as the mediator, and thus judge, was now parlaying a more accommodating and popular plan to Greeks and Romans.

While Paul’s last point was anything but clear, it is clearly inaccurate. But was that by design or ineptitude? Was there a reason Paulos left the identity of the middleman and the nature of his promise undisclosed – even leaving the identity of his god unknown? Or are we to attribute all of this to demons doing somersaults in his brain?

“Indeed (oun – therefore and consequently), the (o) Torah (nomos – that which has been assigned to nourish and provide an inheritance) accordingly is against (kata – is contrary to) the (tou) promises (epaggelia – the announcements (this time plural)) of the God (tou ΘU). Not may it become (me ginomai – it could but shouldn’t exist (the optative mood is used by a writer to portray an action as possible or to express a wish or desire)).” (Galatians 3:21 in part)

The Father of Lies has upped the ante, again. It would have been one thing to have dismissed Yahowah’s Towrah | Guidance by inappropriately distilling the entirety of Yahowah’s narrative into a singular promise, or now “epaggelia – promises.” But this declaration is in a different league. Rather than being congealed into a soundbite, the Middleman claims that God’s Towrah testimony is in opposition to the promise God made to Abraham.

However, that is insane, especially since the entire story from Bare’syth | In the Beginning to Mal’aky | My Messenger is predicated upon the development and restoration of this relationship – all of which is predicated on God’s promises to this man, and many others. So, to pit the Towrah, where the promises are made, against these promises, is to say that the word of God isn’t the word of God because the word of God negates the word of God thereby eliminating the word of God through the word of God. Under such a scenario, even God would be insane. His Covenant would be akin to a psychiatric ward in an asylum for schizophrenics. Or is that Christianity?

No matter how it is interpreted, this was an audacious claim, even for an egomaniac working for Satan. But this is good news in a way since it forges an insatiable bond between Sha’uwl and the demons controlling him.

The same fellow who was fixated on the asinine notion that “zera’ – seed” was singular, now can’t remember if there was one promise or many promises. And while “promises” is the correct answer, Paulos has shown a decided proclivity for “promise” singular, which is invalid. But either way, such inconsistencies on something lurking at the heart of his message are incriminating.

For those who may suggest that Paul is annulling his own conclusion that the Towrah is in opposition to its promises, by saying “Not may it become,” please note that the optative mood was deployed to convey one of two ideas, neither of which serve as a refutation of the preceding comment. Paul was either saying that “this opposition was distinctly possible,” or that “he wishes that this opposition wasn’t so.”

And yet what follows is far worse. Paulos is stating emphatically that no one can be righteous or vindicated in or by the Towrah because the Towrah does not have the ability or power to impart life.

Au contraire, it is only by observing and acting upon the Towrah’s guidance regarding Pesach and Matsah that we become righteous and live. The God of the Towrah, the Author of life, its Designer and Creator, is also the Father of our Savior. Our perfection and immortality are gifts that they have provided and are offering.

“For (gar) if (ei – perchance) had been given (didomi – had been produced, granted, allowed, and appointed) the Torah (nomos – the source of nourishment and inheritance) to be the one with the power and ability (o dynamai – the capacity and resources) to impart life (zoopoieo – to make alive), certainly (ontos – surely and truly) in (en) the Torah (nomos – that which has been assigned to nourish and provide an inheritance) would (an) be (en) the (o) righteous and vindicated (dikaiosyne – upright who are right and acceptable, approved in the correct relationship).” (Galatians 3:21)

While the more popular and recently compiled Greek manuscripts have ek, meaning “out of,” rather than en, conveying “in,” before the last reference to the Torah, as found in P46, it really doesn’t make much difference. Nonetheless, I am committed to full disclosure.

Cutting to the chase, this piece of excrement posing as a human being is declaring that Yahowah and His Towrah are impotent and inept. But isn’t this the same god responsible for authorizing Paul to be his lone apostle while inspiring him with his contrarian message? How is that possible?

In direct contradiction to God’s personal interactions and testimony, according to the Devil’s Advocate, Father and Son were unable to fulfill Passover and UnYeasted Bread, and thus could not deliver an extension on life or vindication. But if this were true, nothing was accomplished by the Lamb of God, rendering the crucifixion nothing more than a gruesome spectacle. And who knows why God even bothered with Matsah. I suppose He took the day off work, slumbering in a tomb as part of a short-term rental. But, wouldn’t that mean that he observed the Sabbath in conflict with Paul’s Sunday mantra? Moreover, in this case, why bother with the Gospels? Were they an afterthought?

If there were no power to prolong life or to facilitate righteousness in the Towrah, why did Yahowah promise these things to Abraham? Was God toying with him – and if so, why did Paul attribute salvation to him? Why save Noah and his family if they were going to die anyway? Why did God rescue His children from bondage in Egypt and drag these malcontents through the desert? Why was Dowd | David, declared “tsadaq – right and righteous, correct and vindicated?” And if Dowd is dead, how is he returning as king? And speaking of such things, where are Adam, Chawah, Noah, Enoch, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, his sons, Moses, Aaron, Samuel, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Elijah? Does Paul want Christians to believe that his god perpetrated a cruel hoax on everyone?

Or better question yet, suppose it were actually possible for man to kill God, how does God dying save man? Where did Gospel Jesus come from, where did he go, where is he now? Was it just a cosmic coincidence that Gospel Jesus’ alleged sacrifice happened to coincide perfectly with Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children in the Yowbel Year of 4000 Yah?

Who supposedly raised Gospel Jesus from the dead? Who was his father? Wouldn’t that be the same incompetent buffoon Paul was lampooning?

Might we also ask: If believing a promise to save was all one had to do to be saved, why was Iesou tortured by the Romans and killed? Or perhaps you prefer this question: If the God who authored the Towrah cannot be trusted, if He is incompetent and impotent, then why believe this man who claims to speak for Him while contradicting and demeaning Him?

Paul’s most recent diatribe is part of a long argument, one that started a number of verses ago. His is a disingenuous maneuver designed to bypass the Torah, moving directly from an undisclosed promise to salvation – with nothing in between, including an explanation of it, a reason for it, or a depiction of the plan. Paul’s purpose has been to put a wall around the Torah, telling his audience that they must discard it.

But then who is God? How does one come to know Him? And why attach the New Testament to the “Old Testament” if the “Old Testament” was unreliable and worthless?

This desperate leap of faith into the abyss of religion, this entire proposition requires a complete suppression of evidence and reason. And perhaps, just perhaps, that is what Paul and his spiritual advisor wanted.

In direct contradiction to the Instruction on the Mount, Sha’uwl is denying the Torah’s power to restore and prolong life. In direct contradiction to God’s Word, he is bluntly proclaiming that no one was saved from the time Adam was expelled from the Garden to the time he (Paul) intervened as the Middleman to resolve God’s problem.

For Paul to be right, however, Yahowah must be wrong. For Paul to be right, Moseh becomes a liar. If Paul is correct, the Exodus was a hoax – nothing but a cruel charade. Even Yahowah’s prophets were played.

To accept Paul’s assessment, Christians must discard the “Old Testament.” Based upon Paul’s mantra, tacking a revisionist plan on top of the failed one diminishes its credibility. But without the old plan, what is the justification for the “revised” one? Why quote the old one if it’s invalid?

Despite the representations of Paul’s previous statement in the King James Version, the Latin Vulgate, and the New Living Translation, God’s title does not appear in the Greek text more than once, not twice, and certainly not three times. Moreover, there is no basis for a question, much less an answer.

Therefore, so that you come to appreciate just how divergent these supposed “translations” are from the Greek text, let’s begin our review by considering the Nestle-Aland Interlinear: “The then law against the promises of the God. Not may it become. If for had been given law the one being able to make live really from law (not applicable) was the rightness.”

Now, compare that to the KJV: “Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.” Or the Latin Vulgate upon which it was based: “So then, was the law contrary to the promises of God? (Lex ergo adversus promissa Dei?) Let it not be so! For if a lex/law had been given, which was able to give life, truly justice would be of the lege/law.” And now, the New Living Translation which contradicts itself: “Is there a conflict, then, between God’s law and God’s promises? Absolutely not! If the law could give us new life, we could be made right with God by obeying it.” The fact that these three translations agree with one another and disagree with the Greek text demonstrates that they are revisions of one another. Publishers are businessmen and they know familiarity sells.

Struggling to make sense of what Paul was trying to portray to his audience has become exasperating, especially since his message has been so unGodly. Therefore, the time has come to introduce each subsequent statement by providing a scholarly frame of reference. We are going to use the Nestle-Aland 27th Edition McReynolds Interlinear – today’s most trusted textual resource – as a handrail in Paul’s inverted world. So please consider their rendition of Galatians 3:22: “But closed together the writing the all under sin that the promise from trust of Jesus Christ might be given to the ones trusting.”

I do not claim that this is any clearer, but it is more accurate and complete…

“To the contrary (alla – certainly and emphatically by way of a contrast), the (o) writing (graphe – usually used to designate the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms) imposed restrictions, trapping, and enclosing (sugkleio – being like fish caught in a net, restricted and confined, being locked up as prisoners, hemming them in on all sides, completely shutting down) of everything (ta pas) under (hupo – because of and under the control of) error and evil (hamartia – sin, disinheritance, wandering away from the path, missing the mark, and wrongdoing) in order that (hina) the (e) promise (epangelia (singular)) from (ek) the Faith (pistis – the Belief or Religion) of Iesou Christou (ΙΝΥ ΧΡΥ – placeholders used by early Christian scribes for Iesou and Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement) might at some time be passively given to (didomi – the possibility exists that it may be granted without the recipient engaging or without a plan, even without reference to time to (aorist passive subjunctive)) the believers (tois pisteuo – the faithful, i.e., the ones who believe Sha’uwl).” (Galatians 3:22)

Beyond his vacillation over “promises” in Galatians 3:21, there is just one “promise” here in 3:22, and there are six significant problems with this statement. First, sugkleio speaks of “netting fish,” and “trapping and imprisoning people, binding and tying them up.” It is from sun, “with,” and kleio, “to shut a door and withhold something, making access inaccessible.” To be sugkleio is “to be void of pity.” It speaks of “obstructing the entrance to heaven.”

Sha’uwl is saying: “the writing (a.k.a., the written Towrah) closes the door, blocking the entrance to heaven, making it inaccessible.” Therefore, God’s testimony “traps everyone in a net as if they were fish.” He is calling God’s Word “a method of entrapment and death.” And as bad as that is, he will connect sugkleio with “phroureo – held in custody as a prisoner” in the next verse, exacerbating this overt denunciation of Yahowah’s Towrah.

Second, while Paul is claiming that the Towrah “encircles and encloses” “evil,” its role is to protect us from evil, removing it from our souls, literally erasing the stain, while at the same time insulating us from its consequence. Third, since Paul has said that there is no correlation between the unspecified promise / promises and the Towrah, it is irrational to say that the same Towrah exists in order to provide the alleged promise or promises.

Fourth, there is no “faith of Iesou Christou.” He didn’t exist, and the man the myth robbed did not have or promote a religion. Dowd was, actually, Towrah-observant. He consistently affirmed what Yahowah had previously written.

Fifth, with complete knowledge and understanding, “faith” is nonsensical. Mythical Gospel Jesus cannot represent God and at the same time believe. If he requires faith, then he could not have been God.

Sixth, the problem with faith is that it is always uncertain, which is why “didomi – the possibility exists that it might be passively given to those who do nothing at some time without reference to a plan” was scribed in the aorist passive subjunctive. Who and what are the faithful to believe? And to whom and to what are the faithful being saved?

KJV: “But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.” LV: “But Scriptura/Scripture has enclosed everything under sin, so that the promise, by the faith of Iesu Christi, might be given to those who believe (ut promissio ex fide Iesu Christi daretur credentibus).”

Writing their own epistle, the NLT proposed: “But the Scriptures declare that we are all prisoners of sin, so we receive God’s promise of freedom only by believing in Jesus Christ.” While it is obvious that these renderings diverge somewhat from Paul’s script, the task of deciphering the wannabe Apostle is even more difficult than translating him. Even if we were to limit sugkleio to “enclose and restrict,” the Torah is not a vessel filled with “error or evil.”

Moving on, please consider the difficulty the Nestle-Aland Interlinear had with the following text before reading my attempt to decipher Paul’s subsequent message. “Before the but to come the trust under law we were being guarded being closed together for the being about trust to be uncovered.” While I am sympathetic to the etymological reasons why the most respected Greek textual resource consistently renders the term upon which the Galatians debate pivots, pistis, as “trust,” as opposed to “faith,” every word Paul writes dictates that this was not what he intended.

Sha’uwl’s derogatory statement speaks of the coming of faith, which is tantamount to the formation of his religion:

“But (de) before (pro) this (tou), coming (erchomai – to go, to move, to become, or to happen) to the (ten) Faith (pistis – Belief), under (hupo – by, because of, and under the control of) the Towrah (nomou – that which has been assigned to nourish and provide an inheritance (accusative case making it a direct object of the verb)), we were actually being held in custody as prisoners (phroureo – we were being kept as convicts, confined, strictly controlled, with guards in opposition to us (imperfect passive indicative)), restricted and trapped (sugkleio – bound and imprisoned, caught and confined, locked up and out) to (eis) the (ten) bringing about (mello – typically the intended or impending future expectation or hope, but this was scribed in the present tense) of the Faith (pistis – Belief, a.k.a., Religion) was revealed (apokalypto – uncovered, disclosed, and unveiled).” (Galatians 3:23)

Just when we thought it couldn’t get any worse, Paul becomes even more belligerent. I dare say, Satan shows more respect for God than does his Apostle.

To suggest that Sha’uwl and Yahowah did not see things the same way would be the understatement of the millennia. Phroureo is accurately translated as “we were actually being held in custody as prisoners.” Then, based upon the compound of “pro – before” and “horao – seeing,” Paul is implying that the Towrah’s prisoners were kept in the dark, but now, as a result of his “revelation,” the faithful are able to see what those incarcerated by God had missed.

There is no longer a rational rebuttal to the realization that Paul was slandering God, claiming that Yahowah was an abusive warden, and that all those who sought His company were prisoners. God’s claim to have liberated us from man’s religious and political schemes was an outright lie – according to Paul. The Towrah was God’s penitentiary.

But that is not all. According to this psychotic megalomaniac, it is Paul who is saving us, not from sin, but from God. Prior to his heroic intervention, and the conception of “Salvation by Faith,” the world was held hopelessly captive by God with no hope of release. The Earth was She’owl | Hell and the inmates were blinded by their jailer.

To believe Paul, he is mankind’s only hope. But where does his faith lead and to whom? Surely not back into the “clutches of that onerous and abusive” god he is slandering and ridiculing.

As the Devil’s Advocate, Sha’uwl knows that he will be eternally incarcerated in She’owl with his Lord. And while he knows that there is no escape – what’s the point of being delusional if not to dream big? And in this case, Paul is fantasizing about leading the ultimate prison break – out of Hell.

The overriding problem with all of this, beyond demeaning Yahowah and denouncing His Towrah, is that Paul never explains the basis of the unspecified promise. But when there are no conditions, no rules, no constraints, there can be no assurances and anarchy is the result. No person’s faith can be any better or worse than someone else’s\. So, should that be true, why was Paul denouncing his rivals and what is his purpose?

When faith is wholly ambiguous, what a person believes becomes irrelevant. With the “coming of faith,” there are no rules, no guidelines, no consequences, no right or wrong, no definitions of what is good or bad, and no absolutes or certainties. An individual’s conception of their god, their god’s purpose and will, even their god’s integrity becomes immaterial. What the promise might portend for those who believe such a nebulous thing, remains undisclosed and subject to each person’s interpretation, his or her hopes and aspirations.

Believers are able to construct their own deity, their own religion, their own definition of righteousness, and even project their own caveats upon what life with their deity might be like. With Paul’s faith, everyone is entitled to his or her own perceptions of god – unless, of course, it differs from Paul’s and then there is a dreadful curse. But if so, how is it that under such a scenario, he can be right and those who oppose him be wrong?

The answer to this question is actually obvious. Paul sees himself above the Almighty. He shares this perspective with Satan. In his mind, he is better than God – and has said so.

To know Paul is to know “the Mediator.” He is “the seed” and the basis and object of the Faith. He is the source of “the promise.” Everything comes to a full stop with Paul. That is why he prefers “promise” to “promises.” Yahowah has been emasculated and the Messiah has been castrated. We have been left with little more than: “But, I say...”

But alas, if only that were the entire essence of Paul’s letters. But unfortunately for the faithful, he did not craft his religion out of whole cloth but instead removed threads from Yahowah’s Towrah, dyed existing strands in new colors, and wove his own lies into the fabric of God’s testimony. It required more effort on Paul’s part, but without usurping God’s credibility, he did not have a leg to stand upon – nor did his Lord. As a result, the Christian religion was built upon the ruins of the Torah.

But why is Paul insistent on claiming “apokalypto – revelations” when he has yet to disclose anything? Ought there be some modicum of substance for a new religion?

Here are the Christian interpretations of Galatians 3:23. KJV: “But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.” LV: “But before the faith arrived, we were preserved by being enclosed under the lege/law, unto that faith which was to be revealed.” NLT: “Before the way of faith in Christ was available to us, we were placed under guard by the law. We were kept in protective custody, so to speak, until the way of faith was revealed.” In this case, the English translations are not nearly as harsh as the words Sha’uwl selected. But, based upon what has and will be said, this accommodation is not deserved. We are about to meet Paul’s “guardians and taskmasters.”

Even though the next verse is part of this same thought process (if we can be so kind), it began so long ago, a quick review is in order.

“Because if from the Towrah the inheritance is no longer from a promise, but to Abram by a promise he has favored the God. (Galatians 3:18)

Then, why the Towrah? Until the seed which might come to whom it has been promised having been commanded by messengers in the hand of a mediator and middleman. (Galatians 3:19)

But now the middleman, he is not of one, but the God, he is one. (Galatians 3:20)

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

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

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

This is all so foolish and unGodly, those beguiled by this demon deserve their fate. And that is why I am not campaigning to save them from Christianity but, instead, to save Jews from Christians. Rather than Jews killing the Christian god as Paul claimed, it was Paul and his fellow Christians who plotted and pursued the annihilation of Yahowah.



Before we press on, now that the text of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear is being provided as a handrail with considerable regularity, and typically in advance of the more complete and accurate amplified translations, I would like to explain the process I have consistently deployed in rendering Paul’s vitriol. First, I contemplate the text as it appears in a scholastic presentation like the Nestle-Aland 27th Edition. If there is a pre-Constantine codex, I compare the older version to the modern variation. Then I examine every word under an etymological microscope, even those with which I am familiar (so I do not become complacent), consulting a variety of lexicons and dictionaries in order that all possible shadings are considered, including tenses, voices, and moods. I will evaluate word order and the deployment of pronouns, conjunctions, articles, and prepositions. Then I will strive to develop a more fully amplified and accurate rendition of what Sha’uwl wrote, always sharing his choice of words so that curious readers can verify their etymological ancestry for themselves.

Next, I reorder some of the words as is required to transfer the thoughts they convey into the structure of English grammar, recognizing the subject-verb-object nature of English sentence structure and that verbs and nouns are preceded by their modifiers in English but not Greek. At this point, I check verb tenses and other grammatical references a second time and then complete the translation with an eye on the surrounding text. And as a rule, I render each additional statement so that it is as consistent as possible with the overall message being delineated.

If the etymology of a word exceeds what can comfortably be placed within the sentence itself, or even inside a parenthetical devoted to the word’s meanings, without the text being overly verbose and thus confusing, I will write a separate descriptive paragraph on the most interesting words. And then I strive to share whatever the Spirit reveals to me regarding the statement’s veracity and implications, adding those insights into my commentary. Lastly, when a statement is complete, I’ll go back and attempt to introduce it in such a way that the transitions are clear and the intent is readily evident.

While I have devoted more than two years of my life to assessing Paul’s statements and strategy as accurately and fairly as possible, Paul’s most recent propositions have been so antagonistic toward Yahowah’s Towrah, on my first pass through this material, I simply translated each statement and moved on, hoping that the next line would help modulate or modify the previous one. But nothing seemed to help. So, in my struggle to deal with writings this hostile to Yahowah, my beloved Father whom I respect, and dismissive of His Son, whom I serve, I decided that you were entitled to an independent witness.

Therefore, I have consistently provided interlinear translations so that you would not be dependent upon my translations alone. I have long ceased to be impartial. And this is why I have also provided additional English Bible renditions of each verse. I am happy to have the case against Paul made by those whom he has beguiled and/or enriched. I have taken sides – and so has God.

The bottom line is: I am very uncomfortable with what Sha’uwl is saying. Therefore, I’m lessening the burden this places on me by exposing you to the translations of others who are not bothered by him. For example, the Nestle-Aland Interlinear presentation of the next line in Galatians reads: “So that the law tutor of us has become to Christ that from trust we might be made right.”

In comparison to that, this almost seems sane:

“As a result (hoste – so then therefore), the (o) Towrah (nomos – the allotment which is parceled out to bestow and inheritance) has come to exist as (ginomai – has become) our (ego) disciplinarian and enslaving pedagogue (paidagogos – one who instructs in a particularly pedantic and dogmatic manner using strict, old-fashioned methods, with an overbearing demeanor as slave-trainer of adolescent boys, an enslaving guardian, a custodian who keeps trainees in custody, a harsh and arcane taskmaster, or controlling supervisor of little children, often of those who were enslaved, striking, smiting, and stinging them) extending until (eis – to the point of) Christon (ΧΡΝ – Divine Placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement to usurp the Septuagint’s credibility and infer Divinity) in order that (hina – so that as a result), by means of (ek – out of) the Faith (pistos – the Belief or Religion (in the singular genitive, this is a specific characterization of belief system, a.k.a., religion)) we might, at some point in time, while doing nothing ourselves, be justified (dikaioo – we have the possibility of someday being vindicated, declared innocent, and becoming righteous as a result of being influenced (aorist, passive, subjunctive)).” (Galatians 3:24)

The unflattering metaphor which lies at the heart of this sentence provides us with a window into Sha’uwl’s depraved mind. From his perspective, the Torah is a “paidagogos – tough disciplinarian lording over us as if we were slaves.” The concept, not surprisingly, was a loanword from rabbinic usage. The term carries a decidedly negative connotation. It is distinguished from a teacher in that the paidagogos is only responsible for mundane behaviors, such as the rules regulating conduct, some as trivial as table manners.

Up to this point, Sha’uwl has promoted his case for his Faith by misquoting, truncating, twisting, dismantling, dissolving, and demeaning the Towrah. There has been no reason to delve into the realm of rabbinical commentary, Greek or Roman society, or into the use of slaves. But since Paulos has now gone down this path, we are compelled to reveal pertinent failings.

In the rabbinical mindset, a paidagogos “directed the affairs of children.” It was used to describe “slaves who supervised and directed the lives and moral conduct of adolescent boys.” It is from pais and a repudiated form of ago. Pais means: “a child, especially a young boy or adolescent, who is often a servant and slave.” It is in turn derived from paio, meaning “to strike or smite, to wound and sting.” Ago and its cognate, agoge, mean “to conduct training and discipline, to be an attendant or servant, and to lead away,” even to “impel or force, influencing the mind.” This root speaks of “leading someone away to the magistrate at a criminal court.”

Therefore, considering the rabbinic baggage, paidagogos is in lockstep with Sha’uwl’s tortured perspective on the Towrah and its God, Yahowah. In his view, Yahowah is a “cruel taskmaster” and an “enslaving pedagogue. According to Sha’uwl, Yahowah “instructs in a particularly pedantic and dogmatic manner using strict, old-fashioned methods.” God displays an “overbearing demeanor and is ever ready to smite those He has enslaved if they dare step out of line.” Paul is then positioning himself, and his Faith, as less constraining and overbearing, as more modern, more compassionate, more tolerant, more generous, even liberating. Nothing is asked, nothing is expected, nothing is required; nothing except an acknowledgment that the Torah is wrong and that Paul is right.

If, as Paulos is asserting, Yahowah and His Towrah are antiquated and arcane, the logical extension would be to label His old-fashioned methods the “Old Testament.” And then through similar extrapolation, why not label Paul’s more modern, less judgmental, and more universally tolerant, politically correct and outcome-based approach a “New Testament.”

Then speaking of Paul’s influence in the conception of the Christian “New Testament,” a tome his letters dominate as a result of the faith-based salvation scheme he conceived, a belief system emerged where the initiates can only hope that at some undisclosed point in time there is the possibility that something favorable might happen to them. Pretending to step forward, the religious have been taken back to the myths and mysteries of old. It would be a leap of faith into obscurity, uncertainty, and ignorance.

To which Yahowah says, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowing and understanding. Because you have rejected knowledge and understanding, I reject you from being ministers for Me. Since you have forgotten the Towrah of your God, I also will forget your children.” (Howsha’ / Hosea 4:6)

The paidagogos were not associated with schools, or with learning, but instead with harsh discipline, so the KJV would be wrong with “schoolmaster.” “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” LV: “Itaque lex pædagogus noster fuit in Christo, ut ex fide iustificemur.” “And so the law was our guardian in Christ, in order that we might be justified by faith.” NLT: “Let me put it another way. The law was our guardian until Christ came; it protected us until we could be made right with God through faith.” There is no basis for “it protected us” in the Greek text.

Even if we were to deprive paidagogos of its arcane cultural baggage, we would be left to resolve a whole new set of issues raised in Sha’uwl’s next sentence. When you start with a bad metaphor, things go from bad to worse. Such is the case with this, “Having come but the trust no longer under tutor we are,” as it was rendered in the Nestle-Aland.

“But now (de) having come (erchomai – having happened and become, coming forth and arriving) the (tes) Faith (pistos – the system of belief or religion), no longer (ouketi – not any more) do we exist (eimi – are we placed) under (hypo – under the auspices of) an old-fashioned and strict disciplinarian (paidagogos – a pedagogue who instructs in a particularly pedantic and dogmatic manner using harsh, outdated methods, with an overbearing demeanor, an antiquated taskmaster enslaving children by striking, smiting, and stinging them).” (Galatians 3:25)

In other words, “believers have been liberated from the supervision, control, discipline, and even instruction of the God of the Towrah.” There are no rules, no requirements, and no directions, from God. He no longer cares what you think of Him, what you believe, how you act, or what you do. Since there is no longer a right way, there are no wrong ways. Every path, so long as it is nebulous and unrestrictive, now leads to Paul’s god.

In Sha’uwl’s religion, Yahowah’s Towrah “no longer exists” as a meaningful guide. In his Faith, man’s fate is no longer linked to the path that God provided. According to Sha’uwl, the Torah is passé; its dominion is over – it is an encumbering and hurtful icon of the past. Goodbye and good riddance.

Let’s see if the most influential Christian translations followed their leader down this unGodly dead end. KJV: “But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.” LV: “But now that faith has arrived, we are no longer under a guardian.” NLT: “And now that the way of faith has come, we no longer need the law as our guardian.”

Since the “schoolmaster and guardian” represent the Torah, according to Paulos, we are no longer living in God’s world. The Almighty is neither teacher nor instructor. There is nothing we can learn from His Towrah | Teaching. Since He is no longer guiding His children, we cannot follow Him. And because His example is now outdated, we cannot benefit from His work. Yahowah is no longer an influence in our lives. But if that is so, who is? Paul?

While there are many reasons to be troubled by Sha’uwl’s paidagogos metaphor, it isn’t one which helps Christendom either. Pastors and priests present themselves, as well as their churches, as if they were still the guardians, supervisors, and teachers of their flock, as opposed to Dowd | David having lived that role. All they have done is substitute themselves for the Torah, and thereby, they have become their own gods. It is exactly what Rabbi Akiba, the founder of Judaism, did when he empowered rabbis above an “unnamed” God. As was the case with Paul, so it was with Akiba. One replaced the Towrah with a “New Testament” comprised of his letters, while the other replaced the Towrah with a “Talmud” comprised of his arguments.

Mired in the midst of the third chapter of Galatians, we are discovering that almost nothing Paul has written has been true. And the remainder of what he has scribed is either incomprehensible or irrelevant. Therefore, one has to be ignorant of what Paul wrote, or irrational, to think of Galatians as being inspired by God. By claiming it as such, your god becomes an unknowable, vacillating, inconsistent, unreliable, and incomprehensible mirage.

Still clinging to the original meaning of pisteos, while committing identity theft, the NA reads: “All for sons of God you are through the trust in Christ Jesus.” More precisely and completely, this is what Sha’uwl wrote:

“For (gar – indeed because) everyone is (pas) a child (huios – children) of God (ΘΥ). You all exist (este – you all are) that way (dia – through and on account) by the (tes) Faith (pisteos – belief system or religion in the singular genitive specific characterization) in (en) Christo Iesou (ΧΡΥ ΙΗΥ – placeholders used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement and Iesou).” (Galatians 3:26)

This is not true either. We are not all God’s children. According to the Second Statement Yahowah etched in stone, as a result of the corrupting influence of religion, thousands among billions are counted among those adopted into the Covenant. That is just one in a million.

That same Statement which was scribed on the first of the two tablets explicitly states that the means to Yahowah’s mercy is through “shamar mitswah – closely examining and carefully considering the instructive conditions of the relationship agreement – a.k.a., the Covenant.” Therefore, the means to becoming a child of God is cerebral, not fanciful.

This, of course, begs the question. If Bikuwrym – Firstborn Children is rendered inoperative, if responding to the terms and conditions of the Covenant isn’t the means to be adopted into God’s family, what story are the Gospels telling?

Since Paul’s assessment has become the foundation of Christianity, the beguiled believe that they become God’s children through faith in “Christ Jesus” – the product of identity theft and replacement Foolology without an accurate title, name, identity, life, purpose, testimony, or achievements, someone they neither know, nor can know. And since they have substituted all of these things for a character who has more in common with Dionysus than Dowd, how is Paulos’ new faith any different than the belief systems of the Canaanites, Phoenicians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, or Romans?

By changing the order, and by rendering “pistis – faith,” the King James Version has captured Paul’s intended meaning: “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” However, that is not true. We are not all children of God. In fact, those who agreed with Paul’s preaching, and all of those who subsequently believed his letters, are specifically excluded from God’s Covenant family – victimized as many have been by this false prophet.

Our Spiritual Mother enables our adoption into our Heavenly Father’s family on “Bikuwrym – Firstborn Children.” She does so based upon our decision to engage in the Covenant relationship in accordance with Yahowah’s conditions, our willingness to answer God’s Invitations to Meet with Him, and our commitment to know and understand, then trust and rely upon, what He has done with His Son to facilitate the Towrah’s promises. But since we cannot love someone we do not know, cannot engage in a relationship when we are unaware of what is being offered, and cannot respond to Invitations we do not think pertain to us, what then? Are we to believe that faith based upon ignorance, or worse, denial, has merit?

It is common for people to place their faith in faulty propositions. The masses have believed in fictitious proposals throughout history. But if the promises regarding these things are unfounded, or worse, deceitful, destructive, deadly, and damning, a believer’s faith is as meritless as are their misconceptions.

In his attempt to convey Paul’s thoughts, Jerome missed this realization as well. LV: “For you are all sons of God, through the faith which is in Christo Iesu. (Omnes enim filii Dei estis per fidem, quæ est in Christo Iesu.)” NLT: “For you are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus.” It’s telling that each translation was arranged in the same order, one which flows in opposition to the Greek.

Having dismissed the Towrah and its Covenant, there is no longer any merit to circumcision, which Yahowah had stated was the everlasting sign of His eternal Covenant. And therefore, the NA states: “As many as for unto Christ were immersed Christ put on.”

Documented more comprehensively, this becomes…

“Because (gar – for indeed then) as many as (hosos – so long as) to (eis) Christon (ΧΡΝ), you all were actually at some point baptized (baptizomai – you all were dipped, immersed, and / or really submerged without process or plan by the actions of another (aorist, passive, indicative)), Christon (ΧΡΝ) you were all clothed or plunged (enduo – you all dress and put on; from en – in and duno – go into or sink into, being plunged (aorist (occurring at some point in time without regard to a plan or process) middle (the subject, you all, are being affected by your own actions) indicative (conveying action the writer wants his audience to believe is real which occurred in the past))).” (Galatians 3:27)

There is no purpose or benefit to baptism. According to God, and He ought to know, there is no association between baptism and participation in the Covenant, entry into Heaven, the remission of sin, or salvation. It is among the pagan practices Yahowah asked us to avoid.

As adept as Paul has become at misappropriating something Yahowah revealed, and then twisting it to support his agenda, if there had been something God had revealed even remotely akin to baptism, you can be assured that Sha’uwl would have cited it. But nada. This is the lone exception because there was nothing to pilfer. Baptism is not part of God’s plan.

If baptism had a counterpart in the Towrah, Naby’, wa Mizmowr, it would have had a Hebrew equivalent, but there is no such word or concept in the language God used to convey His message to the world. Yahowah asks us all to wash our hands, and while in the wilderness, He asked those entering His Tabernacle to wash their hands and feet. In the mode of a caring Father, He instructs us to wash our clothes at appropriate times, especially when around contagious individuals where He also encourages those infected to wear face masks. These references to cleansing are about hygiene and are never presented as a substitute for circumcision.

Baptism has become Christianity’s signature rite. It is used instead of circumcision to demonstrate admission and acceptance. And it was introduced into the religion for the first time with these words from Paul’s pen.

The Greek word “baptizo” was in common use when it was first penned by Paul in Galatians and thereafter by Mark, Paul’s associate – which is why it is never explained. But before we consider its religious and etymological history, I would like to demonstrate how Paul used Mark to promote his agenda, so that we properly credit baptism’s syncretism into Christianity to Paul and to Galatians 3:27.

Our quest to assess the relationships between Christendom’s founders, “John who was called ‘Mark’” is introduced in Acts 12:12. There, Shim’own Kephas / Peter is shown visiting with him after an angel allegedly freed the supposed disciple from Herod’s custody. However, shortly thereafter, Sha’uwl absconds with him in Acts 13:5, making Mark part of his posse by Acts 13:13. When next we hear of Mark, it is in Acts 15:37-39, where the aspiring “Gospel” writer was wavering and ready to take leave of Paul along with Barnabas. “But Paul kept insisting otherwise, that those who had deserted him not take him.” “And there arose such a sharp disagreement that they separated from one another, and Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed away.” Paul, however, did not handle abandonment well, especially since Mark and Peter, Paul’s nemesis, had once been friends.

The trail runs through Colossians 4:10-11, where we find that Paul prevailed and, once again, had Mark back in his clutches, wrenching him away from Peter and Barnabas. In his letter to the Colossians, we find Paul saying: “Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner sends you his greetings, and Barnabas’ cousin Mark, about whom you received instructions if he comes to you. Welcome him and Iesou, who is called ‘Justus.’ These are the only fellow workers for the kingdom of God who are from the circumcision, and they have proved to be an encouragement to me.”

In Philemon 24, Mark is listed along with Luke as “my fellow workers.” This leads to 2 Timothy 4:10-11, where in the last words Paul would write in his final letter: “alone, only Loukas | Luke is with me, Markon | Mark having been taken (analambano – carried off and led away). Bring (ago – lead, guide, and/or carry) him with you because (gar – indeed, used to provide an explanation and express a cause) he is to me useful (euchrestos – highly serviceable and very profitable, exceedingly easy to make use of) for the purpose of (eis – the intent and result of) my ministry (diakonia – to serve and support me, and to make my preparations following my commands).”

The word translated as “useful” is euchrestos, a compound of “eu – good, prosperous, and well as in to be well off, doing well, well done, and beneficial,” and “chrestos – suitable and eternally useful, fitted for service and beneficial.” Chrestos is a spelling variant of chrestus, the title the earliest texts use instead of christos or christianos. It was unappealing to Greeks and Romans because Chrestus was commonly used as a nickname for their slaves.

Diakonia, the word translated as “my ministry” is used 34 times in the Christian New Testament, all but one by Paul and his pals (in Luke once, by Luke in Acts 8 times, and then by Paul in Romans 4 times, 1 Corinthians twice, 2 Corinthians 12 times, Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Timothy, and Hebrews once each, and 2 Timothy, twice). It serves to encapsulate Sha’uwl’s mission and is synonymous with Pauline Doctrine. It is from “diakonos – raising dust” as in “moving around in a hurry.”

And indeed, Paul used Mark to kick up considerable dust, writing the “Gospel” according to Paul which is known as “Mark” and became the basis of Luke and Matthew. And that is why they are all anti-Semitic and reflect Paul’s sentiments. And it is why Paul did not quote from them, as Mark, then Luke, wrote their “Gospels” and the Acts of Paul per the charlatan’s directions. Matthew would follow by plagiarizing Mark and Luke some thirty years thereafter. (It is surprisingly common for men to swoon at the feet of psychopaths.)

Now that we know Mark’s Gospel was written a decade or two after Galatians, and at Paul’s insistence, let’s see if we can ascertain where he pilfered the concept of “baptizo – baptism.” That answer, while readily available, is embarrassing. It is used in the Sibylline Oracles, lines 160-166: “Ye miserable mortals, repent, baptize (baptizo) in living streams your entire frame with its burden of sin. Lift to heaven your hands in prayer for forgiveness and cure yourselves of the impiety by fear of God!”

This explains Mark’s spurious presentation of “John the Baptist,” in which his corruption reads similarly to the Sibylline Oracles’ account. Luke then begins his “Gospel” by embellishing Mark’s dubious story with the absurd claim that “John’s birth” was “miraculous” and even foretold by “the angel Gabriel to Zechariah” who claims that he will “come in the spirit and power of Elijah” to scold Yisra’elites. Then to buff the “divine” varnish, Zechariah’s wife, Elizabeth, is allegedly a “daughter of Aaron” and a “relative of Mary.” Both pregnant at the same time, “it came about that when Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. And she cried out with a loud voice, ‘Blessed among women, blessed is the fruit of your womb.’” (Luke 1:41-42) While continuing to wax poetic for a considerable time, when it finally comes to presenting the fanciful tale of “John the Baptist,” Luke cites the account Mark had written at Paul’s behest.

Matthew’s account is also derived from Mark. But when we turn to the Gospel bearing John’s name, after his infamous “in the beginning was the Word…and the Word was God,” he transitioned to saying that “John” “bore witness of him.” Curiously, however, there is no mention of “John” being a “Baptist” nor of him “baptizing” “Jesus.” The only use of baptizo is in the mouths of the Pharisees.

The reason for all the fuss, is that without the invention of “John the Baptist” baptizing “Jesus,” there is no justification for the Christian rite. Moreover, apart from this fabrication, there is no other reference to “Jesus” and a dove, which is incredulously perceived as the equivalent of being anointed. It is also the only time Gospel Jesus is referred to as the “son” by an invisible voice without witnesses.

Putting the concept of baptizo in the mouths of Jewish leaders is telling. Turns out that a Jewish sect may have composed the Sibylline Oracles, not only introducing the concept of baptism for the remission of sin, but also a plethora of other religious concepts that were incorporated into Paul’s letters. There is so much to them, and they are so incriminating of the Devil’s Advocate; we will detail the connection between the Sibylline Oracles, Jewish mysticism, Pauline Doctrine, and Christianity in Volume 4 of Twistianity.

For now, it is important that we recognize that Galatians 3:27 is the first time that the pagan practice of baptism was presented in conjunction with Christianity. Second, there is no basis for baptism in the Towrah, although the religious rite was widely known to Jews as a result of their Sibylline Oracles – which were exceedingly popular at this time. Third, there is no eyewitness corroboration of Gospel Jesus being baptized. Fourth, the legend of “John the Baptist” was composed by Luke and is a fairytale. Fifth, Gospel Jesus never baptized anyone – including the disciples. Sixth, apart from the Gospel bearing John’s name attributing the concept of baptizo to religious Jews, something the Sibylline Oracles affirm, every other mention of baptism in the Christian New Testament was instigated by Paul, beginning with his associate, Mark, and then Luke. And seventh, the Sibylline Oracles were instrumental to Paul as he sought to distinguish his new Faith from Yahowah’s Towrah.

And in this regard, baptism is just the first of many pagan rites incorporated into the new religion. When comparing the Gospels to the Oracles, there are so many common threads, even I was shocked.

Even if we were sufficiently ignorant to accept baptizo | baptism as Godly and correct, and it is neither, Paul would still be wrong attributing it to his Christon. If you recall, he wrote: “Because (gar) as many as (hosos) to (eis) Christon (ΧΡΝ), you all were actually at some point baptized (baptizomai – you all were dipped, immersed, and / or really submerged without process or plan by the actions of another (aorist, passive, indicative)), Christon (ΧΡΝ) you were all clothed or plunged (enduo – you were all dressed and put clothing on; from en – in and duno – go into or sink into, being plunged (aorist (occurring at some point in time without regard to a plan or process) middle (the subject, you all, are being affected by your own actions) indicative (conveying action the writer wants his audience to believe is real which occurred in the past))).” (Galatians 3:27)

That is hard to reconcile with the realization that Gospel Jesus never baptized anyone. Nevertheless, according to Paul, he baptized everyone.

Also interesting, enduo, scribed as enedusasoe, and rendered as “you were all clothed or plunged,” as a compound of en and duno, literally means: “you all should believe that you have at some point in time really taken a plunge and actually sunk in.” That is insightful, especially considering the leap of faith Sha’uwl is advocating.

Duno was most commonly used in reference to the “setting sun.” In that Satan’s name is Halal ben Shachar, which conveys “the self-exalting son of the sun,” associating Gospel Jesus with this demonic reference is a bad idea. Further, it is troubling because the souls of those advocating Sha’uwl’s scheme “sink into” “She’owl – the pit where deceased souls await questioning” and thus judgment.

As has been noted, the verb, enedusasoe, was written in the second person, plural, aorist, middle, indicative. The aorist indicative indicates something which the writer wants his audience to believe has actually happened in the past, but something which was not part of any discernible process or plan. And the middle voice signifies that the subjects of this verb will have been affected by their own actions – which is taking the plunge into Pauline mythology. Also, since enduo sometimes conveys the idea of “having clothed and dressed oneself,” in this way too, it would be opposed to having the Set-Apart Spirit adorn us in Her Garment of Light.

This may be material because everything up to this point has been decidedly passive, with everything happening to and being done for the faithful, making this change significant. The inference then may be that those who are “immersed into” Sha’uwl’s “faith in Christon (a name which speaks of “the application of drugs”) “have taken the plunge and have clothed themselves” in his religion.

Sha’uwl has already disparaged circumcision in this letter, saying that it was not required, only to associate it with Peter, who he condemned. But he was just getting warmed up. Sha’uwl’s animosity toward circumcision will become the dominant theme in this letter. And here, baptism is being positioned as a replacement for circumcision, as the rite of passage into Paul’s Faith.

But let us not forget, according to God when He condemned Sha’uwl by name in Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:16, Yahowah warned us, saying that Sha’uwl’s aversion to circumcision would be part of the false prophet’s poisonous brew.

“Woe to the one who causes and allows his neighbors and companions to become intoxicated, thereby associating them with his venomous wrath, but also causing them to be inebriated for the purpose of observing their genitals.

You will get your fill of shame and infamy instead of honor and glory. Inebriated, you also show yourself unacceptable, going roundabout over the lack of circumcision.

Upon you is the binding cup of Yahowah’s right hand (a metaphor for judgment). Therefore, public humiliation and indignity will be your status and reward.” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:15-16)

Nothing cuts through the fog of lies better than God’s prophetic testimony. Therefore, we will continue to remind ourselves that Yahowah despises this man and his hideous ploys.

Ever in the dark, and never striving to exonerate themselves from Paul’s delusions, the King James Version published: “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” We do not “wear ‘Christ,’” and common words like “baptizomai” should be translated, not transliterated. But again, demonstrating the KJV was simply an updated version of the Roman Catholic text, and not Paul’s Greek, we find the same wording in Jerome’s Vulgate: “For as many of you as have been baptizati/baptized in Christo have become clothed with Christum.”

There is no reference to “united” or “new” in the Greek text, and yet the authors of the New Living Translation wrote: “And all who have been united with Christ in baptism have put on Christ, like putting on new clothes.” And how did the NLT dream team come up with “new” in the etymology of the verb, enedusasoe?

While we can and should be adorned in the Set-Apart Spirit’s Garment of Light, we cannot and should not attempt to “put on ‘Christ’.” As a corporeal being, this would be flesh wearing a second skin.

If there were a baptism of Christon, why didn’t their shining example baptize anyone, including his disciples? That is quite a conundrum for Christians.



No longer surprised by anything he claims, Sha’uwl’s next statement is not accurate either. By way of preview, the NA reads: “Not there is Judean but not Greek not there is slave but not free not there is male and female all for you one are in Christ Jesus.”

That is hilarious coming from the fellow who was so insistent on dividing the world between Jew and Gentile, limiting the disciples to Jews while claiming the rest of the world for himself. But now that Sha’uwl has declared war on them, he has reneged on the declarations that he, himself, made at the beginning of this letter. And of course, part of the reason that he is claiming that there is no longer any distinction between Ioudaios and Hellen is because he had used circumcision to differentiate between them – something he is now replacing with baptizo.

“No longer (ouketi) is there (eni – there exists) Yahuwd (Ioudaios – Jew; a transliteration of the Hebrew name Yahuwd meaning Related to Yahowah) nor (oude) Greek (Hellen), no longer (ouketi) is there (eni – there exists) slave (doulos) nor (oude) free (eleutheros – freeborn), no longer (ouketi) is there (eni – there exists) male (arsen) and (kai) female (thelys), because then (gar) all (pas) of you (sy) exist as (este) one (heis) in (en) Christo (ΧΡΩ) Iesou (ΙΗΥ).” (Galatians 3:28)

The man who never knew the love of a woman, preferring Timothy’s adoration, was now promoting a very odd perspective on sexual orientation. He may have preferred boys, but I can attest that there is a tremendous difference between men and women – and the distinction is as delightful as it is beneficial. But, then again, since circumcision was strictly for men, by annulling the distinction Yahowah conceived and blessed, Paul was striking out at God – likely as a result of his own frustrations.

Always the duplicitous one, Paul will go on to demean women, subjecting them to be lorded over by men, something that negates his current rant. He is even responsible for Christianity’s abhorrence of homosexuality, which can no longer be an issue if we are genderless.

And if we are androgenous, why did Yahowah tell Dowd that He was his Father? Why also is the Ruwach Qodesh – Set-Apart Spirit depicted as Maternal? Why are we encouraged to value our Father and Mother as the Second Instruction on the Second of Two Tablets Yahowah etched in stone? How does the Covenant materialize and grow without the unique contributions of males and females? Why did Yahowah ask Abraham, but not Sarah, to be circumcised?

While it is hard not to laugh at Paul’s hypocrisy, the “no longer Jew or Greek” statement is diametrically opposed to the Towrah and all of the Prophets. Yisra’elites are the Chosen People, and no matter how badly Paul and Christians want to replace them, this reality is never going to change. To say otherwise is to contradict Yahowah and to disregard everything He has said. Consistent to the very end, moments before He returns, Yahowah’s focus remains on Yahuwdym and Yisra’elites. Gowym only matter when we align ourselves with what Yahowah intended for His people.

We must ask ourselves, if there are no longer Yahuwdym, why has Yahowah promised to reconcile Yahuwdah and Yisra’el in Yirma’yah / Jeremiah 31 in the process of restoring His Covenant on Yowm Kipurym | the Day of Reconciliations in year 6000 Yah (2033 CE)?

Just because something rolls off the tongue and sounds sweet, even Politically Correct because it is accepting and tolerant, does not make it so. Yahowah said no such thing, and in fact, He says the opposite.

Paul wrote this to undermine the value of Yahuwdym and Yisra’el in Yahowah’s ongoing story. He no longer wanted to share any part of the world with the disciples. But more than this, if Yahuwdym were equivalent to Greeks, one could be replaced with the other – and therein is the most sinister aspect of Paul’s latest scheme. This is the seed that would spawn Replacement Theology – the spurious notion that all of God’s promises to His people were transferred to Gentiles and their Church while His Son’s accolades and achievements were pilfered to create the myth of Christ.

Ironically, after saying that there is no distinction between free and slave, in the next chapter, Sha’uwl will contradict himself and protest that those who observe the Towrah are still enslaved by it. And if that were not enough, the duplicitous one introduces himself as “Paulos, a slave of Christ,” in his letter to the Romans. But that is actually his point. Paul is implying that we are no longer slaves to the Towrah but are, instead, beholden to his new religion.

The familiar prose of the King James Bible has come to resonate in religious circles: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” But to the contrary, according to Yahowah, there are still Yahuwdym, Yisra’el endures, we are decidedly male and female, and most people remain ensnared by their religion.

Jerome’s Latin Vulgate reads similarly: “There is neither Iudæus nor Græcus; there is neither servant nor free; there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christo Iesu.” Recognizing the popularity of Paul’s prose as promoted by the King James, and knowing that familiarity sells, even the adventurous New Living Translation left this lie alone: “There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Yet, to their credit, apart from butchering the Savior’s name and title, all three translations accurately presented the words Paul wrote. Now if only Paul’s words had been accurate.

For those who feel that I am being too critical, and that Paul’s last statement was just a figure of speech, a bit of soaring oratory, then I would suggest that you may want to consider the consequences of Replacement Theology and the devastating impact it has had on God’s people. If Paul’s current diatribe was that of a politician, and if Galatians was nothing more than political puffery, that would be one thing, but it is not. Paul’s initial letter serves as the underlying treatise on a new faith-based religion. And he claimed to speak for God. The standard for such is perfection, not balderdash.

Moving from a lack of discernment to a lack of consistency, Sha’uwl concludes his current line of “reasoning” by contradicting his initial point. If you recall, previously he said that “seed was singular” because it spoke not of Abraham’s descendants (those pesky Jews), but instead just of Iesou Christou (who was Jewish until Paulos gave him a Greek name). But now, according to Sha’uwl, we “all exist as Abraham’s seed.”

This is not something to be dismissed. The singular nature of the seed became the genesis of Paulos’ faith-based religion. The singular connotation of one seed at the absolute exclusion of many descendants is how this all began. It was how Paul differentiated between the “promise” and the Torah. While his reasoning has been flawed from the beginning, even if it were valid, he is about to harpoon his own rationale.

His initial clause obviously needs a verb, but the Nestle-Aland was not inclined to speculate on the kind of action Sha’uwl was recommending: “If but you of Christ then of the Abram seed you are by promise inheritors.”

The stakes could not be higher. With each new lie, Paul is setting the stage for the cornerstone of his mythology: Replacement Theology. Since the faithful in Christou are now “Abram’s seed,” Christians have replaced Jews. The Gentile church, should you believe the Father of Lies, is now the heir to all of God’s promises. All you have to do is believe and you can have it all…

“But (de – then and now) if (ei – conditionally) you all (sy) Christou (ΧΡΥ), then (ara – consequently) of the (tou) Abram (Abraam – transliteration of the name ‘Abram, meaning Enriching Father) seed (sperma – descendant or offspring) you exist (este – you all are) with respect to (kata – down from, against, or according to) promise (epaggelia – agreement and announcement (singular)) heirs (kleronomos – with an inheritance).” (Galatians 3:29)

As we have previously surmised, kleronomos, translated as “heirs,” is a compound of kleros and nomos, therefore affirming that the “nomos – Towrah” is where we find “the allotment which is parceled out to bestow an inheritance.” Interesting, especially in this regard, kleros speaks of a game of chance. It refers to “a lot or stone with a person’s name inscribed on it which, along with other names on other stones, was tossed into a jar, shaken, and then selected purely by random as a result of which stone fell to the ground first.” The addition of kleros, therefore, corrupts the realization that our adoption into Yahowah’s Covenant family is predicated upon a thoughtful choice rather than random chance. God’s family is not selected by casting of lots, which is akin to divination, something Yahowah says is an abomination.

But the problem is actually much bigger. Since the crux of Paul’s argument continues to be a contrived contrast between the Towrah and the promise made to Abram, selecting a word for “heir” based upon nomos defeats the purpose and demonstrates a complete disregard for the intelligence of his audience.

And yet Paul took this risk for a reason. His religion would have been stillborn had he not been able to transfer everything God declared and promised away from Jews and to Gentiles. This statement is another plank in the diabolical edifice of Replacement Foolology.

And it is far worse than just the inappropriate negation of Jews and affirmation of Gentiles – to God’s chagrin – Paul went a giant leap beyond. He would continue to viciously attack his own people, demeaning and demonizing them. He created the conditions under which Christians would feel justified, even heroic, in their nearly two-thousand-year assault on Yahuwdym. They would follow in Sha’uwl’s footsteps.

The KJV managed to turn a statement into a question: “And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise?” Jerome was a smart fellow, so I am convinced he recognized that Paul had just contradicted himself. LV: “And if you are Christi, then are you the offspring of Abraham, heirs according to the promise.”

There is nothing akin to “and now that you belong to” in the Greek text, so why is it in the NLT: “And now that you belong to Christ, you are the true children of Abraham. You are his heirs, and God's promise to Abraham belongs to you.” In addition, there is also no justification for “the, true, children, of, you, are, his, and, God’s, to, (the second) Abraham, belongs, to, or you.”

Since this is redundant and repulsive, if you have had enough, you may want to jump down to the chapter summary and then pick up Paul’s trail again as he opens the fourth chapter of Galatians.

“I have come to realize (albeit without investigation or evidence) that by no means whatsoever is any man made right or vindicated by means of acting upon or engaging in the Towrah if not by belief and faith in Iesou Christou.

And we of Christon Iesoun, ourselves believed in order for us to have become righteous, we have to have been acquitted and vindicated out of faith in Christou, and not by means of acting upon or engaging in the Towrah, because by means of engaging in and acting upon the Towrah not any flesh will be acquitted or vindicated, nor be made righteous. (Galatians 2:16)

But if by seeking to be made righteous and innocent in Christo, we were found ourselves also to be social outcasts and sinners, shouldn’t we be anxious that Christos becomes a guilty, errant, and misled, servant of sin?

Not may it exist, (Galatians 2:17) because if that which I have torn down and dissolved, dismantled and invalidated, abolishing and discarding, this on the other hand I restore or reconstruct, promoting this edifice, I myself bring into existence and recommend transgression and disobedience. (Galatians 2:18)

I then, because of the Towrah’s allotment and law, myself, genuinely died and was separated in order that to Theos I might currently live. In Christo I have actually been crucified together with. (Galatians 2:19)

I live, but no longer I. He lives then in me, Christos. This because now I live in the flesh. In faith I live of the Theos and Christou, the one having loved me and surrendered for me, entrusting authority to me, yielding and handing over to me the power to control, influence, and instruct exclusively of himself because of me. (Galatians 2:20)

I do not reject the Charis | Grace of the Theos because if by the Torah we achieve righteousness then, as a result, Christos for no reason or cause, without benefit and in vain, he died. (Galatians 2:21)

O ignorant and irrational, unintelligent and unreasonable, Galatians. Who bewitched and deceived you, and who are you slandering, bringing this evil upon you, seducing yourselves? (Galatians 3:1)

This alone I want to learn from you: out of accomplishments of the Towrah was the spirit received by you or alternatively out of hearing and belief – listening to the religious faith? (3:2) In this way you are ignorant and irrational, lacking in knowledge and unable to think logically. Having begun with the spirit, now in flesh are you completing? (Galatians 3:3)

So much and for so long you have suffered these things, vexed and annoyed without reason or result, chaotically without a plan. If indeed this really happened and you were so thoughtless, achieving nothing, being without reason or result. (Galatians 3:4)

The one therefore then supplying you with the spirit and causing it to function, was this operation of powers in you by acting upon and engaging in the tasks delineated in the Torah or out of hearing faith? (Galatians 3:5)

Just as and to the degree that Abram believed and had faith in the Theos so it was reasoned and accounted to him as righteousness. (Galatians 3:6) You know as a result that the ones out of faith, these are the sons of Abram. (Galatians 3:7)

Having seen beforehand by contrast in the writing that out of faith makes right the people from different races and places, the Theos, He before beneficial messenger acted on behalf of Abram so that they would in time be spoken of sympathetically in you to all the races. (Galatians 3:8) As a result, the ones out of faith, we are spoken of favorably, even praised together with the faithful Abram. (Galatians 3:9)

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

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

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

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

As a result, to the people from different races, the beneficial word of Abram might become in Christo Iesou that the promise of the spirit we might take hold, being possessed through faith. (Galatians 3:14)

Brothers, according to man I say nevertheless a man having been validated with an agreement; no one rejects or actually accepts added provisions. (3:15) But to Abram these promises were said, ‘And to the offspring of him.’ It does not say: ‘And to the seeds,’ like upon many. But to the contrary, as upon one, and to the seed of you which is Christos. (Galatians 3:16)

But this I say, ‘A promised covenant agreement having been ratified beforehand by the God, this after four hundred and thirty years, having become Towrah does not revoke it so as to invalidate the promise.’ (Galatians 3:17)

Because if from the Towrah the inheritance is no longer from a promise, but to Abram by a promise he has favored the God. (Galatians 3:18)

Then, why the Towrah? Until the seed which might come to whom it has been promised having been commanded by messengers in the hand of a mediator and middleman. (Galatians 3:19)

But now the middleman, he is not of one, but the God, he is one. (Galatians 3:20)

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

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

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

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

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

Because everyone is a child of God. You all exist that way out of Faith in Christo Iesou. (Galatians 3:26)

Indeed, then, as many as to Christon, you all were actually at some point baptized. To Christon you were all clothed or plunged. (Galatians 3:27)

No longer is there Yahuwd | Jew nor Hellen | Greek. No longer is there slave nor free. No longer is there male and female. This is because now all of you exist as one in Christo | Christ Iesou | Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)

So then, if you all are Christou | ‘Christian,’ then consequently, you are Abram’s seed. You exist representing promise as heirs, receiving the inheritance.” (Galatians 3:29)

It is as breathtaking in its arrogance as it is irrational in its inception.



While there have been a few isolated moments of lucidity, confusion has been more prevalent. While we have read things that have not been completely wrong, most of what we have read has been errant and misleading.

In order to set all of this in perspective, based upon Yahowah’s own presentation of His nature, His purpose and plan in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, here is how I would categorize the first seventy-four Galatians verses.

Completely Accurate (0%): (none)

Irrelevant (8%): 1.2, 1.13, 1.14, 1.19, 1.21, 2.15

Insufficient (3%): 1.18, 3.1

Half Truths (5%): 3.8, 3.16, 3.17, 3.26

Unintelligible (4%): 1.7, 2.14, 3.20

Inaccurate (80%): 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, 1.15, 1.16, 1.17, 1.20, 1.22, 1.23, 1.24, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 2.16, 2.17, 2.18, 2.19, 2.20, 2.21, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15, 3.18, 3.19, 3.21, 3.22, 3.23, 3.24, 3.25, 3.27, 3.28, 3.29

Therefore, not one of the seventy-four passages presented in the first half of Galatians represents a completely accurate depiction of our potential to form a relationship with God. And just 5% were partly accurate, but not sufficient to advance understanding. So, it would be fair to say that nothing that Paul has written thus far in Galatians has been helpful.

While a modicum of all verses was unrelated to our relationship with Yahowah, that is only a problem in that Paul has been overly concerned with promoting himself and establishing his unassailable credentials as an Apostle. And while a partially accurate statement is acceptable in an ordinary letter, such cannot be construed as the Word of God.

Prior to having scrutinized Paul’s every word, I was inclined to believe that most of the difficult issues associated with Galatians were the result of an inadequate resolution between the Towrah and Talmud. But upon closer evaluation, there can be no doubt that Sha’uwl’s intent has been to dissolve and dismantle Yahowah’s Towrah. He has left no other option in this regard.

It is surprising to find that so much of Galatians is unintelligible. The phrasing is often insufficient to register a cogent thought and many statements are simply incomprehensible. But the fact that 59 of the 74 passages, more than three out of every four statements, nearly 80%, are wrong (that is to say they are in conflict with Yahowah’s testimony) is devastating to Paul’s credibility and to the veracity of this, the foundational document of the Christian religion.

And when it comes to evaluating the veracity of a letter considered to be “Scripture” by billions, we must also add insufficient and irrelevant to this total, increasing that which is unintelligible or useless to 15% of the total.

But in this case, we cannot pin the blame on scribal error or careless transmission. There are no older or more reliable Greek manuscripts than Papyrus 46, in which we find copies of Paul’s epistles, including Galatians. Recovered alongside the oldest manuscript copy of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, in addition to Acts, in Papyrus 45, both codices are the product of professional scribes. Moreover, the most comprehensive dating evaluation concluded that P46 may have been scribed between 135 and 175 CE.

Moreover, Papyrus 46 is more consistent with modern manuscripts than most others which are based upon majority texts. At least apart from the absence of placeholders in younger manuscripts, Papyrus 46 corresponds to the NA27 (Nestle-Aland 27th Edition) most of the time. So, if we cannot trust the textual accuracy of Galatians, the rest of the “New Testament” becomes highly suspect.

Based upon the evidence before us and recognizing that we are still in the midst of Paul’s letter, we are in a position to make some preliminary conclusions about the epistle to the Galatians. It would be fair to say that nothing Paul has written in Galatians has been completely accurate or useful. Not a word has added to our understanding of Yahowah’s name, nature, Towrah, Beryth, Miqra’ey, or Mashyach. Fully 96% of what we have read has been inaccurate, incomprehensible, or irrelevant.

But to be fair, Galatians is widely considered to be Paul’s worst letter. Although I do not think that is so. There are others which are considerably less cogent, such as 2nd Corinthians. If it had not contained Paul’s personal history, if it had not been used to insist that we should no longer observe the Torah, and if it had not formed the foundation of Replacement Theology, it probably would have vanished along with Paul’s letter to the Laodiceans. (Listed in Colossians 4:16) If only…



Twistianity

Devil’s Advocate

…Plague of Death

4

Stoicheion | Mythology

Hard to Believe…

The third chapter of Galatians came to an abysmal conclusion, going well beyond where Satan had dared. Paul’s animosity toward God, His Torah, Covenant, and People knew no bounds. He disavowed his calling and annoyed the Almighty in so many ways it behooves us to provide a brief, albeit cynical, accounting.

Sha’uwl began this rather unappealing chapter by calling his audience, those who had rejected him and his preaching, ignorant, irrational, and unreasonable. He claimed that they were seduced and bewitched, and as a result, they were now slandering him.

The issue was the Towrah. The Galatians recognized that it was vastly more credible than any of Paul’s duplicitous rants. In rebuttal, Paul told them that his religious faith was now the sole means to acquire the spirit – although he neglected to tell them that it would be from Satan. Simultaneously, he denigrated the Towrah in Gnostic fashion, besmirching it as “of the flesh.”

According to the Father of Lies, Yahowah’s Teaching and Guidance was vexing and annoying. His was a chaotic plan, even an unremitting source of suffering. Anyone sufficiently foolish to respond to the Towrah by acting upon God’s instructions was unnecessarily torturing themselves.

The entirety of Yahowah’s witness regarding the formation of the Covenant, and its conditions and benefits, was dismissed. That history was replaced with a single word: “Faith.” It became synonymous with Paul’s new religion – about which he rambled incoherently. As a result, rather than Yisra’elites being the sons of Abraham, the torch was passed to Christians. Replacement Foolology became the rage.

Around the 10th verse of the 3rd chapter of Galatians Sha’uwl goes beyond the pale. Yahowah’s Towrah | Teaching was said to curse all who act upon what God has committed to writing on mankind’s behalf. Paul had the audacity to claim that, “with the Torah, no one is vindicated or saved.” This is evidently because, if we do one thing God asks, we have to do everything He commands, or we will die – according to the Devil’s Advocate. That, of course, would be news to God. Then straining credulity, Paul’s answer is faith in the undisclosed and unspecified. And to prove it, he misquotes the Torah.

Digging himself into the pit of She’owl | Hell, the self-proclaimed Apostle would have Christians believe that they mythical Christos “bought us back from the evil and malicious curse of the Towrah.” The fact that the Messiah opened the Door to Life on Passover in harmony with the Towrah was replaced by having Iesou die to rid believers of God’s “evil and hateful influence” in their lives. Somehow, I do not suspect that Yahowah sees the humor in this claim. But alas, Paul once again misappropriated something God said to “validate” his assertion.

While I do not follow the logic, this somehow meant that Gentiles would be healed, not by the Word of God, but instead by the “beneficial word of Abram” which “becomes in Christo Iesou the promise of the spirit” and is “possessed by faith.” Got it?

The Galatians Paul had claimed were morons were now addressed as “brothers according to man.” I suppose we should turn the other cheek and let bygones be a thing of the past unless we are assailing God’s credibility. Then… “Nonetheless, I say a man having been validated with an agreement, no one accepts added provisions,” which is, of course, what Paul is doing.

This leads to the great “seed” caper. Bypassing what was being sown, its germination, taking root, and growing, then bearing fruit, Paul’s proposition goes from one lie to the next, tossing out the Towrah which provided the seeds and told us how to plant them. “Nonetheless,” to cite the Father of Lies, thanks to Sha’uwl believers could now dispense with all of the prophets from Moseh to Shamuw‘el and from Dowd to Mal’aky, because nothing of merit occurred in the ensuing 2,000 years between Abraham and the birth of Gospel Jesus. Therefore, it goes without saying, believers should invalidate the 500 years that transpired between Abraham and the liberation of the Children of Yisra’el. And that means that they, at Paul’s insistence, can dispense with the revelation of the Towrah through the introduction of the Miqra’ey – not that they were relevant to Sha’uwl’s story, anyway. This is “because if from the Towrah the inheritance is no longer from a promise, but to Abram by a promise he has favored the God,” or some such nonsense.

Should you wonder why Yahowah bothered with the Towrah, even the liberation of the Children of Yisra’el from slavery, Paul generously provides the answer: “until the seed which might come to whom it has been promised, even commanded by messengers in the hands of the middleman.” However, “but now the middleman, he is not of one, but the God, he is one,” which might mean something to someone. Otherwise, we may have all been confused.

Having arrived at the 21st verse, we are surprised to learn that “indeed, the Torah is against the promises of God. Or, maybe not.” But at least believers have the assurance that if the Towrah could vindicate, there would be some who were vindicated.

But all that confusing nonsense was now a thing of the past. Paul cleaned up his own mess by “bringing of the Faith.” Based upon his irrational and unsubstantiated assurances, he claims to have freed the faithful from the many nasty Towrah entanglements, God’s incompetence, and the Almighty’s mean-spirited restrictions – or so he says. And the people shouted, “Hallelujah! Free at last, praise Paul Almighty we are free at last.” Free from God, of course, but let’s not sweat the details.

And good thing because, according to the Devil’s Advocate, “the Towrah had become an enslaving pedagogue, pedantic and dogmatic with its strict, old-fashioned methods and overbearing demeanor.” Moses, the Great Liberator, must have become like the cruel taskmaster he had killed for tormenting his people. Nevertheless, Paul rose above Moses, revealing his Faith to free Greeks and Romans. The most wanton enslavers would be free. Thanks to Paul, the incarcerating and pedantic, overbearing nature of the Towrah was now resolved by “doing nothing” and “being justified” nevertheless. With the advent of this religion, believers could now ditch that unsavory habit of listening to God. We could roleplay as Moses and shatter those pesky Tablets the “old god” had etched in stone. In the future, he’d scribble his musings in pencil and have an eraser handy, or Paul on speed dial, so that his messaging remained fresh and appealing to pagans, particularly Greeks and Romans, since they were better than Jews – but isn’t everybody? The new cop in town was breaking all the rules.

Then all of a sudden, the “old god’s” promise was valid again, albeit with a caveat. In a senior moment, he forgot what it was and who he was talking to, but lucky for him, Paul resolved these problems by revealing that Gentiles were now the real Jews. They were heirs to the Covenant that, well, no longer existed.

This assessment catapults us into the 21st century, a time of multiculturalism and gender ambiguity. Freed of all reality, Paul would have his church believe that they are all Abraham’s seed. But, how is that possible if there was only one of them? But I digress, let’s not look too closely at the man behind the curtain. It will tarnish the illusion.

With the 3rd chapter of Galatians behind us, nothing changed. Paul remained committed to denouncing the Torah. Word by word, Paul would build his case for Faith. It would be so simple; it would appeal to a pagan child. It was so bad, Paul almost looked good by comparison.

“So (de – but) I say (lego), as long as (epi – upon / hosos – as much / chromos – time) the (o) heir (kleronomos – one who receives an inheritance by lot) exists as (estin) a small child (nepios – an infant or baby, childish, immature, uneducated, and undisciplined), he is no different than (oudeis diaphero – he is no more valuable than) a slave (doulos), belonging to (on – being) the lord and master (kurios – the ruler and owner, one who controls and has possession) of everyone and everything (pas – of all).” (Galatians 4:1)

Say what? Slaves are owned and, thus, they do not own. And in that slaves are subject to lords, they cannot act as lords. Therefore, they cannot render on as “belonging to” or “being.” And yet as we shall soon discover, almost every English Bible translation, conflicted over the concept of the “Lord,” opted to advance an oxymoron.

By contrast, those who speak for God write: “Yahowah said....” Those advancing their own agenda in opposition to Him offer: “But I say.” And those who speak for Him don’t suggest that His Torah enslaves, or that God acts like a “lord, controlling everyone.”

Inspiring the political slogan that swept Barack Obama into power, Paul has laid his foundation for “Change we can believe in.” Too bad the wannabe apostle and president sought to lord over everyone, leading them in the wrong direction.

Realizing also that this statement is an adjunct to what we have just considered, Sha’uwl is attempting to say that while the “small child is an heir” to the promise there is “no benefit” “so long as the child remains” “enslaved” to the “Lord” of the Torah. He is implying that if believers were to reject the Torah and accept his “Promise” on faith they would be free to grow. And yet since the terms and conditions associated with our growth are delineated in only one place, the Towrah’s depiction of the Covenant remains indispensable to those who want to be with God and indefensible to those who prefer Paul.

In the end, it all comes down to a simple choice: do you believe Paul, or do you trust Yahowah? God tells us to cling to His Towrah as if our lives depended upon it, and Sha’uwl has insisted that we discard it so that we might be free of God’s abuse. If Yahowah is trustworthy, Paul is not. If Yahowah is reliable, Paul is His adversary.

Most Christians would interpret this “verse” as demarking the change between “being held in bondage to the Law” and the “freedom given to those who place their faith in the Gospel of Grace.” For them, it denotes the transition from the “Old Testament” to their “New Testament,” with the latter being vastly superior, less demanding, and infinitely more accommodating.

Christian apologists would also say that Paul’s letters provide the nourishment “New Testament” children need to grow once they are free of the Torah and its mean-spirited Lord. But in reality, Paul never provides anything of value, which is required to grow, preferring instead to dish out his own personal brand of poison. Truth is upended and inverted. According to Yah, His Towrah’s pivotal story is the liberation of His children from bondage so that those who accept His Covenant might become His heirs.

Paul’s Greek was so lacking that a handful of words had to be added to resolve the grammatical deficiencies in this sentence. For example, in the Nestle-Aland, we find: “I say but on as much as time the inheritor infant is nothing he differs of slave master of all being.” Yet since the King James Version was a translation of the Latin Vulgate, these deficiencies were irrelevant. It reads: “Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all.” Even as Yahowah’s child, we are not “lord of all.” Moreover, being Yahowah’s “servant” is something to aspire to, not disdain. However, it is evident that Jerome’s Vulgate inspired the English Bible: “As long as the heir is a child, he differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all.”

As if they felt authorized to write their own letter, the New Living Translation magically transformed Paul’s meager, inadequate, and errant suggestion into: “Think of it this way. If a father dies and leaves an inheritance for his young children, those children are not much better off than slaves until they grow up, even though they actually own everything their father had.”

This may have been exactly what Paul intended. If so, it is the antithesis of what we experience as children in Yahowah’s Covenant. Paul’s deception is fostered by the implication that Yahowah acts like a “Lord,” when it is the Adversary who seeks to lord over mankind while God strives to be our Father. It is as if Paul is gazing into “a mirror, dimly.” Everything is backward and obscure.

Before we move on to Paul’s next point, there is something curious about kurios. It was translated as “the lord and master” in this passage because that is the word’s primary meaning. It could have also been rendered as “owner” which, while accurate, would have been an uncommon depiction. Kurios is from kuros, which means “supremacy in the sense of being powerful, strong, and authoritative.”

Since Sha’uwl’s Greek remains wanting, let’s continue to reach out to the Nestle-Aland for help. “But under governors he is and managers until the purpose of the father.” Considering this synopsis, it appears as if Paulos is attempting to combine his first two codicils. According to the wannabe apostle: those who observe the Torah are subservient to a taskmaster, therefore the Torah which imposed this condition was designed for obsolescence. Then if we are to believe the Nestle-Aland, “the purpose of the father” wasn’t expressed by His earlier contrivances, even though God clearly authored those arrangements. So why, if we are to take this translation of Paul seriously, would our Heavenly Father conceive a plan that was opposed to His will?

“Certainly (alla – but yet and by contrast with an adversarial implication), he is (eimi) under the auspices of (hypo) foremen who control the workers (epitropos – the manager or governor in charge over laborers (plural)) and (kai) administrators (oikonomos – managers of an estate who have legal authority over an inheritance; from oikos, household, and nomos, a nourishing allotment to become an heir (plural)) until (achri) the (o) previously appointed time set (prothesmia – the period prearranged, established, and fixed beforehand; from pro, before, and tithemi, to arrange and set in place) of the (tou) Father (ΠΡΣ).” (Galatians 4:2)

The intent is now obvious, albeit incredulous. There is only one God, one Author of the Towrah. He cannot be both the foreman and the Father, at one point mean and the other kind.

Epitropos, rendered as “foremen who control the workers,” is a compound of epi, “by,” and tropos: “a manner, way, or fashion.” It speaks of “those who are in control,” whether they are “managers, foremen, political officials, or even governors.” It is another way of saying that the God of the Torah is authoritarian and controlling, and that His approach is burdensome and laborious. These mischaracterizations are designed to make Paul and his Faith appear preferable. The tactic is known as a Straw Man.

Sha’uwl continues to deploy one derogatory metaphor after another to besmirch the Towrah and its Author. Since he first foisted paidagogos, “enslaved leader of boys” or “taskmaster,” in Galatians 3:24, this approach has become blasphemous, to say the least.

Positioning God, who is an advocate of freewill, liberty, and empowerment in this manner, and depicting Him as controlling while stunting the growth of His children, puts Sha’uwl in a demonstrably adversarial position. In his tortured attempt to make the Towrah appear passé, the principal architect and author of the Christian New Testament was steadfastly undermining his dubious credentials.

Even in this sentence, the epitropos, “foremen,” and oikonomos, “estate administrators,” are strange bedfellows. The first reference is to those who, on behalf of a political authority, direct and control common laborers. The second describes property and money managers hired by a homeowner. They are incompatible concepts, and neither is appropriate in reference to the Torah, even when trying to belittle it.

Especially troubling, Paul was attempting to say that the Torah was a temporary administrator, but both epitropos and oikonomos are plurals. And yet there is only one Torah, so this was clearly a gaffe in reasoning. And while there is more than one source of Rabbinic Law, we can’t use this as an excuse because the “foremen” and “managers” are working on behalf of the “Father” at the end of the passage, and religious Jews seldom refer to God as Father.

To their credit, the New American Standard Bible accurately conveyed Paul’s message, but unfortunately, the resulting rendering promotes the idea that the Father appointed a time in which His initial foremen and managers would become obsolete. NASB: “But he is under guardians and managers until the date set by the father.” The only rational, although inaccurate, conclusion is that Paul was saying that God planned for the Torah to be outmoded and superseded. But if that’s true, then neither Yahowah, the Torah, nor Dowd can be trusted because they said that every aspect of the Torah would remain in effect for as long as the universe exists. Therefore, this statement once again pits Paul against God and against reason. It is becoming increasingly difficult for an informed and rational person to believe him.

The KJV rendition of this passage mistranslated “epitropos – foremen” and “oikonomos – household managers”: “But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father.” And they did so because the Authorized King James Bible is nothing more than an English translation of the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate: “But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed by the father.”

Since there is no basis for “they have to obey their” or “until they reach whatever” in the Greek text, the NLT is little more than a flight into the realm of fantasy. “They have to obey their guardians until they reach whatever age their father set.” Further, “Father” was rendered with a Placeholder, meaning that ΠΡΣ was meant to be capitalized and represent our Heavenly “Father.”

Moving on, we find Paul’s word choices in this next statement deteriorating appreciably, becoming far more damaging than in the previous ones. Therefore, let’s begin our review with the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear. “Thusly also we when we were infants under the elements the world we were having been enslaved.” As we have seen, while slavishly accurate grammatically, they have taken great liberty in their renderings of the words, themselves. Translating stoicheion (pronounced stoy·khi·on) as “elements,” completely subverts its intent.

To be fair, almost every Pauline advocate is stumped by the selection of stoicheion, rendered stoicheia here in the accusative plural. And that is perhaps why it was timidly and inadequately translated as “elements” in the NA interlinear. The provocative term was often acknowledged in Plato’s writings and is common in the philosophy and cosmology of Greek antiquity, especially among the Stoics. Specifically, stoicheion was used to “differentiate between the various cults associated with the earth, water, air, and fire, as well as the celestial bodies, all of which were worshiped as deities through Hellenistic syncretism.” Stoicheion is, therefore, a pagan religious concept, and would have been read as such by enlightened Greeks, especially when deployed in conjunction with “kosmos” in a religious text.

This is a problem of considerable magnitude because Paul is using it to describe, or more specifically, to mischaracterize Yahowah’s Towrah – a book that universally denounces religion, especially the worship of the physical world and celestial bodies. But now Sha’uwl wants us to believe God’s Towrah is advocating what it condemns. This is not unlike his claim in Romans 7 that the Towrah was the source of his personal perversions.

In that stoicheion is the most dishonest and disdainful criticism Paul has wielded against God’s Word, and especially His Towrah, since he implied that God’s “Old System” was “malicious” in Galatians 1:4, before we consider an amplified translation of Galatians 4:3, we must come to terms with why this word was selected and what it actually meant. Toward this goal, let’s turn to the lexicons at our disposal.

The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, as the name implies, is a Christian publication. They are, therefore, committed to defending Paul even if they have to incriminate themselves in the process. After conveying the perspective I have already presented, they opined: “It is much disputed whether stoicheia (Galatians 4:3 and 4:9) is to be understood within this syncretistic context [of pagan mythology], and resolution of the question depends on whether Paul has picked up a catchword used by his Galatian adversaries. If this is the case, then the false teachers demonstrate not only a Judaizing tendency (Galatians 5:1-4), but also a Hellenistic syncretistic tendency that included worship of the cosmic elements and observance (Galatians 4:10) of the special dates and festivals.”

That is rubbish. There is no such thing as a “Judaizer,” and yet nonetheless, rather than hold Paul accountable for saying something that is wildly inappropriate, his mistake is blamed on his imaginary foes. And yet if that were the case, then how does one pretend that the one who is confused is speaking for God?

In that it is uncommonly used, should you be curious, syncretism is defined as the “amalgamation and combination of different forms of belief, intermixing and commingling religious myths.” In this context, it refers to the “incorporation of pagan mythology into Christianity” by the Roman Catholic Church “to make the subsequent religion more popular and appealing.” All three so-called “Abrahamic religions,” Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, are guilty of syncretism, but Christianity and Islam are nothing but syncretistic – little more than an amalgamation of prior religious myths.

Although Christianity and Islam run afoul of their monotheistic claims with their Trinity and Satanic Verses, the biggest concern is the festivals, religious rites, and symbols of the Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek, and Roman mythologies that were incorporated into the more modern religions, allowing the myths associated with many gods to reside along with their one god.

Also, as I will continue to affirm, “Judaizers” were invented by Paul. They are as mythical as today’s “Palestinians.” There is no mention of them anywhere in history. Apart from the psychotic recesses of this man’s mind, and in the minds of those he beguiled, there has never been a “Judaizer.”

More twisted still, “Judaizing” is a complete misrepresentation of what it means to be Torah observant. We are asked to closely examine and carefully consider the Towrah for our own edification. God’s instructions ought to be reflected in our lives and families. We are not told to share Yahowah’s message or encouraged to compel anyone to His way of thinking. If someone says something erroneous about God in our presence, we will typically offer a correction. The misguided can accept or reject God’s advice on their own recognizance.

For example, it is not my business to tell you how you respond to this assessment of Paul’s letter. And yet it is appropriate for me to explain my response. You can accept it or reject it. Books are easier to put down than they are to pick up.

My goal remains to help those seeking it. If you have questions, I’m happy to provide Yahowah’s answers. But if you believe that Paul wrote the inerrant word of God and that the Torah was enslaving and has been replaced, then please just go away. While it is unlikely that such an individual actually read the first two volumes of Twistianity and is now well into volume three, but if so, there is nothing I can or want to do for them.

In reality, Judaizer is a straw man, a debate fallacy whereby the presenter, rather than refuting the merits of his opponent’s case, creates an imaginary foe who is easier to defeat. But all that proves is that the presenter, in this case Paul, is both incompetent and deceptive. Paul has the market cornered on straw men, producing them in rapid fashion.

Also, if it is true that “Paul picked up a catchword used by his Galatian adversaries” then he was not inspired by God, thereby, once again undermining the foundation of the Christian religion. Further, if historians were to define religious Jews with a single word, their designation would be “monotheistic.” The last thing an informed and rational individual would ascribe to Yahuwdym would be the idea of deifying the physical world, the earth, sun, moon, planets, and stars. And yet, these Christian scholars are proposing to justify the inappropriate incorporation of stoicheion into Paul’s letter.

To their credit, and to their religion’s shame, the Christian theologians who contributed to the Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament acknowledged that Paul was using stoicheion to renounce the Torah. And in doing so, they showed their bias for many of Sha’uwl’s most egregious mischaracterizations, writing: “More likely Paul uses this term, known to him from (Stoic) popular philosophy, on his own initiative to designate collectively both the Jewish Torah, which the false teachers understood as a path to salvation and advised the Galatians to follow at least in part (Galatians 5:3), and the previous Gentile piety of the Galatians (4:3 and 4:8). He considered both to be manifestations of that power presently enslaving human beings (4:3, 4:5, 4:8), a power that nonetheless appears “beggarly” compared to the huiothesia [adoption] of verse 5, such power was the basis of human religious existence before Christ.” If this assessment is accurate, God is a liar.

This is as good a time as any to affirm that Christian theologians readily acknowledge that Paul was attacking the Torah, just as they are doing here. And they view such denunciations as valid, even though it means repudiating the testimony of the God Paul claims inspired him. So, like Paul, they perpetuate the myth of a “Jewish Torah,” using “Jewish” as a pejorative term, because accurately labeling it “Yahowah’s Towrah” would make it obvious that their religion was in opposition to God and His Word. In an informed and rational world, this argument alone would be sufficient to negate the veracity of the religion.

But even in the midst of their religious chicanery, there is a nugget of truth. The “teachers” Sha’uwl has been opposing, “understood” that “the Torah” represented the “path to salvation.” They “advised the Galatians to follow” the Towrah’s teaching and guidance. It is what Yahowah said, it is what Moseh and Dowd taught, so we should not be surprised that it is what those who listened conveyed. They were singing the same song to the exclusion of Sha’uwl. And this means that in Paul’s world, a “false teacher” was anyone who shared God’s Word and therefore undermined His words.

Then affirming that depravity haunts the soul of Christendom, the lexicon refers to Yahowah as “that power presently enslaving human beings,” a “power that nevertheless appears ‘beggarly’ compared to adoption” into Paul’s religion. They have ingested the poison and it has rendered these theologians as averse to God as was their mentor.

These same Christian clerics, after admitting that Paul wrote stoicheia to besmirch the Torah, calling it the “essence of pagan religious philosophy,” translate the word again to present the “elemental spirits” in Colossians 2:8 and 2:20. These evil spirits “undoubtedly make use of the terminology of the false teachers in Colossae, in whose mystery-oriented philosophy such spirits might have played a significant role.” To which they conclude speaking of stoicheion, “according to Stoic doctrine, the elements will perish in the final conflagration,” signifying Paul’s ultimate triumph over God, I suppose.

Now that we know that stoicheia was used in Greece to describe the “religious pagan cults that grew out of the ‘elements’ of earth, water, air, and fire as they interacted with the deified celestial bodies,” and that Paul equates it with “mystery spirits,” let’s examine the text of Galatians 4:3...

“And also (kai), in this way, it follows that (outos – thus) when (ote – as long as and while) we (ego) were (emen – existed as) infants (nepios – small children and babies) under (upo) the (ta) elementary teachings and rudimentary principles of religious mythology (stoicheion – simplistic and basic initial precepts of the supernatural powers associated with the cults of the earth, water, air, and fire, and the deification of the sun, moon, planets, and stars) of the (tou) universal system (kosmos – worldly order, global disposition, arranged structure, or government constitution of that arrangement), we were (emeoa) subservient slaves (doulos – controlled, enslaved, and subject to obligations).” (Galatians 4:3)

Sha’uwl unleashed his “children” metaphor way back in Galatians 3:7. He is now exploiting “as a result of the Faith, we can come to exist as Abram’s children.” This was in opposition to becoming Yahowah’s children by responding to His Covenant. The proposition was advanced again with the first of several references to an “inheritance” beginning in Galatians 3:21-23: “Indeed, the Torah accordingly is against the promises of the God. Not may it become. For it had been given to the Torah to be the one with the power and ability to impart life, certainly in the Torah would be the righteous and vindicated. (3:21) To the contrary, the writing imposed restrictions, trapping, and enclosing everything under the control of error and evil, missing the way in order that the promise could be from the Faith of Iesou Christou might at some time be passively given to the believers. (3:22) But before this coming to the Faith, under the control of the Towrah we were actually being held in custody as prisoners, confined and strictly controlled, restricted and trapped until the bringing about of the Faith was revealed.” (Galatians 3:23)

It was then that Sha’uwl introduced the first of his four Towrah substitutes, beginning in Galatians 3:24-25: “As a result, therefore, the Towrah had become our disciplinarian and enslaving pedagogue, pedantic and dogmatic with its strict, old-fashioned methods and overbearing demeanor, a taskmaster, extending until Christon in order that, by means of the Faith we might, at some point in time, while doing nothing ourselves, be justified. (3:24) But now having come forth and arrived the Faith, this belief system and religion, no longer do we exist under the auspices of an old fashioned and strict disciplinarian, this pedagogue who instructs in a particularly pedantic and dogmatic manner using harsh, old-dated methods.” (Galatians 3:25)

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

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

In this context, as these passages flow out of Galatians three and into the fourth chapter with its jarring climax, we have only one viable alternative with regard to the “paidagogos – disciplinarians,” “kurios – the lord and master,” “epitropos – the controlling foremen,” and “oikonomos – the administrators of the inheritance” relative to the “stoicheion – rudimentary principles of religious mythology.” Paul has deployed them to describe and demean Yahowah and His Towrah.

This known, in Galatians 4:3, kosmos sounds familiar because it has been transliterated from Greek to become the English word “cosmos.” So while it is often translated as “universe, earth, or world,” kosmos more accurately represents things as different as: “an arranged constitution, a decorated adornment, an estranged people who are hostile to God, and a new world order, speaking of a system of political or religious governance.” It can be translated as “universal system or global dispensation.” Kosmos is from komeo which conveys the idea of “administrative control and the disposition of power” – which speaks to Paul’s intentions. Beyond this, some lexicons state that komeo is “a temperamental, self-absorbed personality intent on transferring custody or possession of individuals, carrying them away from one person to another.” It even describes the idea of “trying to take back and recover something which was previously thought to be one’s own.” So lurking under the surface there are a plethora of Satanic notions associated with kosmos—a word which appeared innocent at first blush.

And as we now know, there is nothing innocent associated with Paul’s use of stoicheion (pronounced stoy·khi·on). No matter how it is translated, it is very, very troubling when associated with Yahowah’s Towrah | Guidance. I say that for six very specific reasons.

First, stoicheion, translated as “elementary teachings and rudimentary principles of religious mythology” in Galatians 4:3, is used again in Colossians 2:20. There, the New Living Translation says that “Christ” “has set you free from the supernatural powers (stoicheion) of this world,” thereby making the stoicheion “demonic spirits.” And in this Colossians passage, Paul then asks, “So why do you keep on following the rules of the world as such?” Therefore, by juxtaposing his use of stoicheion in his first letter with his last epistle, it becomes rather obvious that Paul wants the faithful to believe that the Torah is comprised of “demonic religious mythology.”

But that’s not the end of the disparaging associations. Stoicheion also indicates that Paul wants Christians to believe that the Torah may have been nothing more than a derivative of the “initial rudimentary and natural elements which comprised the universe,” and was therefore “of the world,” as opposed to being from God. Another belittling connotation of stoicheion suggests that Paul was implying that the Torah’s usefulness had come to an end, in that it was just “the first step,” and a “primitive, underdeveloped and childish” step at that. This is in conflict, however, with the fact that Yahowah and His Prophets say that Passover is the first step toward inheriting eternal life, and that each of the remaining six steps travels through the Towrah. It is also at odds with Yirma’yah / Jeremiah 31, whereupon concurrent with His return, Yahowah promises to write a copy of His Towrah inside of us.

Yet another unflattering definition of stoicheion is derived from its root. Stoicheo speaks of “soldiers marching off (as in away from the Torah) from one place to another (as in from the “Old Testament” to the “New Testament”). Stoicheo is somewhat reminiscent of Yahowah’s depiction of His “mal’ak – spiritual messengers” being “tsaba – organized into a command-and-control regimen where they follow His orders.” In this light, stoicheo describes “soldiers in orderly ranks, with each combatant simply following the leader, and with everyone moving in a structured line.” It conveys the idea of “existing in conformity” with the instructions they have been given. There is no hint of freewill in stoicheion, thereby undermining the purpose of creating humankind or of providing us with the Torah, which was to provide the information we would require to choose to engage in a relationship with Yahowah.

However, as a fallen spiritual messenger, stoicheion accurately describes the only condition Satan knows—the one he rebelled against. So now Yahowah’s Adversary is having his messenger ascribe the condition he despised to the Torah, hoping that believers will swallow Sha’uwl’s poison and, like lemmings, plunge to their deaths. In this regard, the root meaning of kosmos may come into play. Remember komeo conveys the idea of “administrative control and the disposition of power,” speaking of “a temperamental, self-absorbed personality intent on transferring custody or possession of individuals, carrying them away from one person to another.” More telling still, it describes the idea of “trying to take back and recover something which was previously thought to be one’s own.” Therefore, it is beginning to look like someone has let their guard down, letting us peek behind the veil.

But there are more disparaging connotations. When we investigate stoicheion’s etymological history, we find that it is akin to sustoicheo, meaning “to march in a line, one person following the other, all acting and looking the same.” Paul will use this very word, translated as “corresponds to,” in Galatians 4:25, to associate Yaruwshalaim with the Torah in a derogatory fashion, stating that both enslave.

Words which share a common root with stoicheion describe Sha’uwl’s nature and tactics and include: “sustasiastes – one who revolts and joins an insurrection,” “sustatikos – introduce something,” “sustauroo – to crucify someone or something,” “sustello – to abridge, diminish, shorten, and enshroud so as to terminate or conceal,” “sustenazo – to audibly express suffering,” “sustratiotes – to be a soldier,” “sustrepho – to twist something so as to change its intended meaning,” and “sustrophe – to be a disorderly and rebellious individual acting in a coalition or conspiracy inappropriately blending things together in a poorly disclosed and hidden combination” so as to get people to: “suschematizo – conform, following the example set by another, and thereby change their mind, attitude, and perspective.” In a word, we have Sha’uwl.

As we learned a moment ago, Greek philosophers used stoicheion to describe what they considered to be the four rudimentary and essential elements which comprised the universe: earth, water, air, and fire. As such, the Complete Word Study Dictionary, New Testament states the inescapable: “In Galatians 4:3, Paul calls the ceremonial ordinances of the Mosaic Law worldly elements.” And in truth, we must strike “ceremonial ordinances” from this conclusion, because there is no such distinction being made by Paul, leaving us with the stark reality that the man who claimed to be speaking for God was alleging that the book the Messiah said defined his life was of the world, and therefore not of God.

Paul’s use of stoicheion in Colossians eliminates any chance we might otherwise have to strip the Greek word of its derogatory mythological and religious connotations. While it can convey “fundamental teachings,” and “elementary doctrines,” this definition simply transfers the problem we are wrestling with to the Colossians epistle. If stoicheion conveyed as “a fundamental teaching,” we’d have to ask ourselves why we are told by Paul in Colossians that his Iesou wanted to lead us away from it. And if stoicheion was the Torah’s “elementary doctrine,” why would such enlightenment be considered as a source of authoritarian control that stunts our growth here in Galatians?

What I don’t understand is how Christians have come to accept Paul’s inverted portrayal of the Torah. God’s Word describes our Heavenly Father’s relationship with us, details the liberation of God’s children, and articulates the path to Yahowah’s Home. So how do they construe this to be about “enslaving” us? As unbelievable, inaccurate and counterintuitive as Sha’uwl’s upside-down and revisionist world has become, it’s hard to understand why billions of people believe that his perspective is correct.

But we do know that the most important early catalyst for Pauline deception occurred when Marcion inappropriately elevated Paul’s epistles to “Scriptural” status, and as a result, this troubled man’s letters were ultimately included in the Latin Vulgate. And here with regard to Galatians 4:3, Jerome provided a somewhat faithful, albeit grossly inadequate, translation of Paul’s errant statement: “So we also, when we were children, were serving under the elements of the world.” The KJV copied them with: “Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:” Based upon this context, it is highly unlikely that Paul used stoicheion to convey “elements.”

From this, the NLT extrapolated: “And that’s the way it was with us before Christ came. We were like children; we were slaves to the basic spiritual principles of this world.” The liberty these translators have taken with Paul’s text is breathtaking. Compare this to: “And also in this way, it follows that when we were small children under the universal arranged constitution of religious mythology, we were slaves.” They have fanned the flames of Paul’s blasphemy.

However, while the words were grossly mistranslated, especially “and that’s the way it was with us before Christ came,” and their “basic spiritual principles,” the message was not misrepresented. Based upon the evidence, the Christian Church has correctly interpreted these passages to say that Paul thought that the Torah was elementary and childish, a crude first step, and a cruel taskmaster which oppressed and enslaved all those who observed it.

According to Paul, and thus the Church he fathered, the Torah was poorly conceived, and it had a negative influence on people’s lives. Apart from ignorance, there is no escaping this unGodly conclusion, one which puts Paul and the Church in direct opposition to God. Yet since the religious institution and its founding father claim to have derived their authority from God, if God cannot be trusted, they are unreliable.

If the Torah had been designed to last for a limited and preordained time, why did God tell His children to observe it forever? If the Torah no longer mattered after the arrival of the Passover Lamb, why did Dowd, as the Pesach ‘Ayil, quote it so often and say otherwise? Was it merely a coincidence that Dowd, as the Messiah, played his part in fulfilling the Miqra’ey of Pesach in the precise manner described in the Towrah and on the days established by Yahowah? Or if it became obsolete after his sacrifice in 33 CE, why did he tell us that not one “jot or tittle” of the Torah would be passed by until it was entirely fulfilled?

Have you ever considered Gospel Jesus’ (or more likely Dowd’s misappropriated) farewell message to his people?

“Now he said to them (de lego pros autos), ‘These words of mine (outos o logos) which I spoke to you while (ego os laleo pros ou) I was with you (on sun su), because (hoti – namely by way of identification or explanation) it is necessary to (dei – inevitable and logical, beneficial and proper, as part of the plan to) completely fulfill (plerooenai – carry out fully, totally perform, accomplish, proclaim, giving true meaning to, realizing the prophetic promises of) everything (pas – all) that is written (ta grapho) in (en – in unison with and with regard to) the Towrah (to nomo) of Moseh (Mouseos – a transliteration of the Hebrew Moseh, meaning to draw out, altered to conform to Greek grammar by a scribe), the Prophets (propetais – those who proclaimed and foretold God’s message), and the Psalms (psalmois) about (peri – because of, with regard to, on behalf of, and concerning) me.’” (Luke 24:44) Why isn’t anyone listening?

“Then he fully opened their minds (dianoigo nous – he explained and enabled the proper attitude and way of thinking, completely facilitating reasoning) so that they would be intelligent and have the capacity to understand (syniemi – to bring things together and make the proper connections to be enlightened, clearly perceive, gain insight, and comprehend) the Writings (graphas).” (Luke 24:45) And these are the Writings Sha’uwl is misappropriating and negating.

The Messiah opened minds and directed our attention to the Writings – the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms – knowing that this was the only place where Yahowah could become known and what He was offering understood. In context, this confirms something I have long realized and professed: our opportunity to know and understand Yahowah is as good, if not considerably better, as anyone has had at any time, including the Yisra’elites during the Exodus.

The Messiah and Son of God, Dowd | David is the one who declared in his Mizmowr / Psalm 19…“Yahowah’s Towrah is complete and entirely perfect, returning and restoring the soul. Yahowah’s testimony is trustworthy and reliable, making understanding and obtaining wisdom simple for the open-minded.” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:7)

And while the following was miscast and placed on the lips of Gospel Jesus, it, too, was likely spoken by Dowd…

“He said to them, ‘Because (hoti – namely by way of explanation) in this way (houto – thus it follows), it is written (grapho) that the Messiah (ΧΝ) must undergo and experience suffering (pascho – be afflicted because it is sensible) and rise up amidst (anistemai – to establish by taking stand in one’s midst; a compound of histemi, to stand and establish, and ana, into the midst, amidst, among, and between) out of (ek) lifeless separation (nekros) the third day.” (Luke 24:46)

He was speaking of his role in the fulfillment of the Miqra’ey of Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym – the three most important days in human history. This is the way to God that Sha’uwl is demeaning.

So that you are not misled by this statement, the Hebrew word translated nekros was previously defined as “separation” from the father in the parable of the prodigal son, which is recorded in Luke 15:11-32. Therefore, it was signifying reunification with the Father on “Bikuwrym – Firstborn Children,” not a bodily resurrection from a corpse. In this light, anistamai speaks of his soul “rising up” from She’owl and “into the midst” of the living.

After explaining that his life and sacrifice could only be understood from the perspective of considering what was written in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms with an open mind, the Messiah said...

“And it should be announced publicly (kerysso – proclaimed in a convincing manner to persuade and warn, to herald, publish, and pronounce with authority) upon (epi) His (autos – His [not “my,” and thus in Yahowah’s]) name (onoma), ‘Change your perspective, attitude and thinking (metanoeo) to be released and pardoned from (aphesis – to be liberated from) wandering from the path and missing one’s inheritance (hamartia – the consequence of being mistaken; from a, not and meros, being assigned an allotment with regard to one’s destiny),’ to all (pas) nations, races, and places (ethnos – ethnicities), commencing and leading (archomai – first beginning) from (apo) Yaruwshalaim (‘Ierousalem – a transliteration of the Hebrew name Yaruwshalaim, the Source of Instruction on Reconciliation).” (Luke 24:47)

“Metanoeo – change your perspective, attitude, and thinking,” a translation of the Hebrew shuwb, is an important concept. Unless and until we are willing to reject religion, and view the Messiah and Son of God, Dowd, as the Passover Lamb from the perspective of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, thinking differently by making the appropriate connections, there is no way to extend our lives, much less understand the path to God.

One thousand years before these words were spoken, our Shepherd and returning King, presented his life such that it could be understood from the perspective of fulfilling the Towrah’s. The truth would be made available to “pas ethnos – every ethnicity, to every race and nation,” by reading the Mizmowr, thereby undermining Paul’s principal claim.

“You are witnesses to (martys – those with firsthand experience and knowledge who can testify to ascertainable facts regarding) these things (houtos).” (Luke 24:48)

The Jews in his audience were privy to information and experiences which, when viewed from the Towrah’s perspective, lead to understanding. And since neither Abraham nor faith have been mentioned, but God the Father and His Towrah have been the focus of this explanation, the Messiah is affirming that Yahowah’s promises can be found in the place Paul is attempting to demean and discard.

The Son of God may well have affirmed…

“And behold (kai idou – now pay attention), I, myself, have prepared and sent you off as Apostles to convey the message (ego apostello – I have equipped you to deliver the word, sent forth) of my Father’s (mou ΠΡΣ) promise (epaggelia – a vow and an agreement to do something beneficial which leads to the assurance of approval and reconciliation) upon you (epi su).

But now (de), you remain (su kathizo) in the city (en te polis) until the time when (heos os) you are clothed (enduo – dressed [speaking of the Spirit’s Garment of Light) in power and ability (dynamis) from (ek) above (hypsos – heaven on high).’” (Luke 24:49)

While I suspect that it did not occur, under the right circumstances, the Set-Apart Spirit could have descended upon a beneficiary of Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym in Yaruwshalaim – enriching and empowering them. This would be as Yahowah instructed in Qara’ | Called Out, the central book of His Towrah | Teaching. However, for this to have occurred, there would have had to have been someone who was sufficiently aware of what was occurring to capitalize upon what Father and Son were accomplishing for the Covenant Family.

Those who answer Yahowah’s Invitation to be Called Out and Meet on “Pesach – Passover” become immortal. The beneficiaries of “Matsah – UnYeasted Bread” are perfected and considered right in our Heavenly Father’s eyes. This leads to “Bikuwrym – Firstborn Children” where God’s now immortal and innocent sons and daughters are adopted into His Covenant Family. Then because He wants us to grow, and because He wants us to share what we have come to know, we are enriched and empowered by the Set-Apart Spirit. This is Yahowah’s message to Yisra’elites and Gowym. It is the reason the Towrah was written.

Since Paul’s position is ludicrous in light of this testimony, we have but two options relative to his letter to the Galatians. If what we are reading is what Paul actually wrote, if the text of his letter has been faithfully preserved, then Paul is to be condemned for leading billions of people away from God and for turning Gowym against Yahuwdym. His words and God’s Word are diametrically opposed. However, if what we are reading has been corrupted in transmission, if every early copy of Paul’s letter differs substantially from what he actually said, then the Christian New Testament must be tossed out and thrown away because it is not only unreliable, but also infused with a malignant message. For the Christian religion, that is a lose-lose proposition.



Twistianity

Devil’s Advocate

…Plague of Death

5

Ptochos | Belittling

On the Other Hand…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Twistianity

Devil’s Advocate

…Plague of Death

6

Echthros | Despised

Without Reason…

Finally, Paul changes gears. We find him momentarily tabling his animosity against the Torah in favor of promoting himself while demeaning his audience. While these verses have no value spiritually, they are revealing, in that they paint a troubling picture of a tormented and psychotic individual.

The Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear rendition of Galatians 4:11 reads: “I fear you not perhaps without cause have labored in you.” More comprehensively translated (and recognizing that Papyrus 46 corrects the perfect “kopiao – have labored” to the aorist “ekopiasa – had labored”), I think he was trying to say:

“I am afraid and fear (poboumai – I am alarmed, frightened, and concerned) for you (umas) that maybe (me – perhaps expecting a negative outcome) somehow (pos – in some way) without reason (eike – without purpose or result in vain and for nothing) I have grown tired struggling and laboring (kopiao – I have grown weary, emotionally fatigued, and discouraged showing effort) toward you (eis umas).” (Galatians 4:11)

The Galatians had rejected him, so Paul was desperate to reassert his control. They were his initial audience, his first “converts,” and he would not let go of his prize. He was trying to manipulate them back into the fold. He wanted them to believe that only he could save them and that they were on the verge of being disenfranchised.

Paul had become god, savior, and saint. In his dysregulated mind, there would be hell to pay if they did not capitulate. And now he was lambasting them for the fourth time. He had called them traitors, idiots, slaves, and nincompoops, lashing out against them in bouts of psychotic rage. He had also placed a little honey in the trap in an effort to endear them to him. It was “You know I love you, but I have every reason to hate you! Please don’t leave me, because if you dare reject me, I’ll make you pay, crushing and condemning you!”

Having victimized the Galatians with his delusional claims regarding himself and God, Paul was now playing the victim, pretending that those he had and was abusing were somehow taking advantage of him. Since Paul viewed himself as perfect, they had to be wrong. He had become a crazymaker with his toxicity. Those who have had the great displeasure of enduring an antisocial and histrionic personality disorder up close and personal understand what I am sharing.

Even if we were to ignore the obvious signs of mental illness, as is the case with most annoying habits, Sha’uwl has misspoken once again. Those who faithfully present Yahowah’s message never labor in vain. Even when God’s Word is rejected, our witness serves a purpose – even if it just leaves people without excuse.

And there is nothing to fear. Souls who ignore or reject God’s invitation to participate in His Covenant are not punished as Christian mythology portends. There is great joy when someone comes to know Yahowah, but we are not anguished even when a thousand choose otherwise.

Our job is to prepare ourselves by studying Yahowah’s Word so that we can accurately convey His message. How God’s testimony is received by others is not our responsibility. Therefore, Sha’uwl’s lament is inappropriate and self-centered. He is once again wrong.

The KJV’s take on this passage is peculiar: “I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.” Albeit their misrepresentation should not be surprising since it is readily apparent that they translated the Latin Vulgate: “I am afraid of you, lest perhaps I have laboured in vain among you.” While the NLT is not accurate, it’s less inaccurate: “I fear for you. Perhaps all my hard work with you was for nothing.” That is a bingo. They got it right. Paul’s accusation was a covert threat.

In the words which follow, Paul issues a command that would not have been appropriate even if he were God. Every statement he has made thus far has been inaccurate and injurious, and some the delusional product of a dysregulated mind. As a result of doing so while claiming to speak for God, Paul has burst through the normal confines of a narcissist and has become a psychopath – something Yahowah will confirm through Chabaquwq | Habakkuk.

While history is littered with their carnage, Sha’uwl | Paul became the first psychopath to assail God. He was not fighting to plunder the world but, instead, to rise above the God he had demeaned.

No matter how you may choose to evaluate this psychotic soul, there is no longer any question that his demands have become counterproductive to the point of being suicidal. And this is not the worst of it. After protesting that he cannot lie, he will compound his megalomania with a claim of perfection.

Through his own words, by reading his perceptions of himself and of those with whom he interacted, his mischaracterization of Dowd and his assault against the Almighty, bears witness to a personal tragedy of universal proportions. Never has one man done so much to harm so many.

We have watched – actually witnessed – Sha’uwl / Paul transform before our eyes from the pathetic malcontent bludgeoning his rivals to a monstrous beast beyond Satan’s control. I say this because, in the Garden, Yahowah revealed that the Adversary was exceptionally subtle and clever, but what we are reading here is belligerent and crude. (Compare Bare’syth / Genesis 3 to Galatians 3 and 4)

Paul’s Machiavellian vendetta against Yahowah, His Towrah, Beryth, Miqra’ey, ‘Am Yisra’el, and Mashyach has reached epic proportions. And as a consequence of people being too ill-informed and irrational to reject him, Paul would fundamentally change the course of human history – all for the worse, and especially for Jews.

The Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear presents the command and proclamation as follows: “Become as I that also as you brothers I beg you. Nothing me you did unright.” But this rendition is inadequate and incomplete, failing to convey much of what was actually scribed by Sha’uwl.

The following command and egotistical self-appraisal are outrageous. So, let’s be especially deliberate in our analysis and consider and convey the implications of every tense, mood, voice, case, and particle. More completely and accurately recounted, Paul wrote:

“You all must become (ginomai (scribed ginesthe) – you are all presently commanded to come to be, continuing to exist (in the present tense the action must commence at once and continue into the future, in the middle passive, the reader is being acted upon and will be affected and influenced by his response, in the imperative this is a command, and in the second-person plural this is directed at everyone reading this letter)) like (os – the same as (conjunction (making a connection) adverbial (functioning like an adverb elaborating on the verb must become to reveal the purpose and the result) comparative)) me (ego – myself (the nominative singular tells the readers that they are to become and be like the writer)).

Then I (oti kago – because also I namely by way of explanation (adverbial causal emphatic demonstrating the basis or grounds for an active and demonstrative prioritization and response to turn a direct assertion into an indirect claim)) as a result like (os – the same as (conjunction (making a connection) adverbial (functioning like an adverb elaborating on the verb must become to reveal the purpose and the result) comparative)) you all become (umeis – all of you becoming (nominative plural conveying you all to be)) called brothers in the faith (adelphoi – fellow believers (in the vocative this indicates that they will being directly addressed as religious brothers)), the means I want to compel, to bind, and to control (deomai – the way I ask to possess, so I beg and plead to have supernatural power over and imprison, and I desire and want to throw into chains and restrict, wishing to forcibly obligate; from deo – to bind, tie, and fasten, to restrict, chain, and imprison, speaking of satanic demon-possession through a controlling messenger, and to make ill and obligate to the authority of another (present (now and in the future) middle passive (the writer is being influenced by someone else and is being affected by his own desire to control) indicative (the mood of reality and assertion) first-person singular)) you all (umon – all of you (in the genitive case the pronoun is being restricted to a specific characterization and marks a possessive relationship)).

In no way (ouden – in not even one thing at all (adjective accusative modifying a noun which is a direct object of a verb)) were you wronged, harmed, or treated unjustly as a result of fraud (adikeo – were you violated, mistreated, or injured, were you deceived in a wicked, destructive, or sinful manner; from adikos – to violate and treat unjustly through fraud and deceit (aorist active indicative – at a point in time in the past as a result of something done)) by me (me – with myself (in the accusative the writer is the direct object of the verb)).” (Galatians 4:12)

Bereft of the Greek terminology and amplifications, Paul conveyed: “You all must become, and are actually commanded, to exist like me. Then I as an emphatic priority and as a result, like you, all become brothers and fellow believers. This means I want to compel, to bind, and to control you all. In no way were you wronged, harmed, or treated unjustly as a result of fraud by me.” (4:12)

A psychopath, lost in his own delusions, views himself as more evolved and more enlightened than everyone else. In his mind, Paul was doing them a favor. He was offering to control those he believed were incapable of managing themselves.

The outward aura Paul was crudely and transparently formulating was that of a lord, the master of their lives, the one in charge, controlling them. Inwardly, he was enraged, having lost control of himself and everyone around him. He was afraid that the mask had fallen off and that he was about to be discovered for who he really was: a pathetic piece of $#!+ propped up by a hideous demon. And so, this was Sha’uwl’s smokescreen, his new costume. The beast was now wearing a more suited pelt, having become the wolf in sheep’s clothing.

According to the Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, when ginomai “speaks of persons,” as it is doing here, they are being asked to “be born and appear” in a certain way – in this case, to appear like Paul. They are born of the same spirit that possessed Paul.

Not only would the choice to be like Paul be destructive, deadly, and damning, replacement Paul-ology, establishes Paul as the paradigm of virtue and the oracle of god. This was scribed in the imperative mood, making it a command. In the second-person plural, it is for “you all” and thus for everyone. The middle voice signifies that the subject, who in this case would be the reader, is being affected, influencing himself, by his response. And the passive voice reminds us that the reader is being acted upon in this situation. This voice is used by Paul as the “divine passive” to suggest that he is the operative agent of his god, if not a god, himself.

Very few people are sufficiently impressed with a projected image of themselves to suggest that others should obey their commands and acquiesce to their control, as Paul is proposing here. In so doing, he has crossed the line from pretending to speak for his invented man-god to pretending to be a god.

Even Dowd’s second of three lives was not something we should model ours after. He was the Passover Lamb. We should capitalize on the life he provided and not on a gruesome spectacle.

As an interesting aside, based upon some of the emails I have received, those who tell me to “behave more like Jesus” and be more accepting have no concept of what the Messiah and King Dowd was like. For example, those doing so would have to be Towrah-observant to follow his example – something I relish but they would disdain. Further, he, like Yahowah, was decidedly intolerant with a sharp and blunt tongue. He was one of many who overtly warned us about the dangers of Sha’uwl’s / Paul’s plague.

Paul’s emphatic priority at this point in his revisionist narrative was to win back the souls who had listened to him and then rejected him. They had become an affront to his credibility, a kink in his fanciful armor. He needs them to become his “brothers” in the sense of “fellow believers.” As the founder and sole advocate of the Faith, Paul would have absolute control over them.

By writing “deomai umon – the means I desire to compel, possess, and control you all,” Sha’uwl left no doubt as to his purpose in promoting his Faith. Based on “deo – to bind and tie (which is the basis of the Latin and English word “religion”), to fasten and restrict, to throw into chains and thereby to forcibly control and obligate,” deomai simply adds “desire” to this end. If all Paul wanted to convey were his will in this regard, he would have used thelo, because it does not carry any of the oppressive religious baggage.

Should you think that admitting his desire to restrict and control these people is too bold, even for a psychopath, then perhaps you have not experienced the less severe forms of this psychopathy. While I am happy for you, the inability to see what is really going on behind these words has cost billions their souls. To be impartial would be immoral. Paul’s plague was and remains devastating.

As a consequence of his delusional thinking, Sha’uwl also claimed that he did nothing wrong, writing: “In no way whatsoever were you wronged or treated unjustly as a result of fraud by me.” But had he proclaimed: “I have said nothing right,” it would have been much closer to the truth – making his remarks delusional and disingenuous in the extreme.

In actuality, the Plague of Death was trying to convince those he had infected with the most viral pandemic in human history, one far more lethal than the Black Death, that he was there to cure them of the curse of God’s Torah. He would have them believe that his fraudulent rhetoric was the remedy, the antivenom, for his own toxicity. Having infected them, Sha’uwl was offering the Galatians another dose, a second injection of the disease, rather than a vaccine.

Even setting his treacherous betrayal of everyone aside, with the previous two statements, the wannabe Apostle is sounding ever more like a wannabe god. He felt no compunction telling his readers that his faith was superior to Yahowah’s plan. While not as subtle or clever, Sha’uwl is continuing to mimic Satan’s desires.

It should also be noted that in between these egotistical pontifications, Sha’uwl’s positioning is duplicitous. As a chameleon, he was always willing to change his colors based on what he thought would win the favor of his audience. He had a mask for every ethnicity and culture. If these folks were Gentiles, as is suspected, then apart from his new religion, he was lying with “we will all become brothers,” but if they were Jews, who were Paul’s adversaries in this community?

The Catholic and Protestant religious renderings of this passage read: “Be ye as I, because I also am as you brethren, I beseech you. You have not injured me at all.” (LV) And: “Brethren, I beseech you, be as I am; for I am as ye are: ye have not injured me at all.” (KJV)

The King James’ take on Paul’s retort may also be accurate. Paul may have been so intoxicated with his own delusions that he was writing off the Galatians – telling them that their rebuke would do nothing to tarnish the stellar reputation he was burnishing for himself.

To help demonstrate the inaccuracy of the New Living Translation, here, once again, is the Nestle-Aland rendering of this repulsive proposition: “Become as I that also as you brothers I beg you. Nothing me you did unright.” Allegedly rendering their translation from the same base text, the New Living Translation published: “Dear brothers and sisters, I plead with you to live as I do in freedom from these things, for I have become like you Gentiles—free from those laws. You did not mistreat me when I first preached to you.” There is almost no correlation between Paul’s Greek and the words found in the NLT. That said, Team NLT correctly assessed the bane of Paul’s existence: that pesky Towrah whose words were like fingernails scraped across a blackboard.

The more challenging Sha’uwl’s message is to decipher, the more comfortable I am with the idea of introducing you to his terminology by way of the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear. This is not because I think that their translation is particularly accurate, but instead, their grammatically literal, albeit simplistic, approach to the Greek text helps reinforce just how difficult the task of translating Galatians has become. Therefore, the NAMI reads: “You know but that through weakness of the flesh I told good message to you the former.”

The one advantage of this proclamation is that it affirms that Sha’uwl, himself, is to blame for the deficiencies in this letter that make it so difficult to translate.

“But (de) you realize (oida – you recognize and acknowledge) that (hoti) because of (dia – by way of and through) an incapacity, weakness, and limitation (astheneia – an illness and timidity, a lack of strength and frailty, an infirmity and ailment, a lack of insight and feeling of inadequacy) in the flesh (tes sarx – of the physical body or human nature), I announced the profitable messenger and good message (euangelizo) to you all (umin) this (to) previously (proteros – before, formerly, or earlier in the first place).” (Galatians 4:13)

Since Sha’uwl revealed precisely what was causing his “timidity, incapacity, and limitation in the flesh” in his letter to Corinth, it is again pertinent here.

“Because (gar) if (ean) I might want (thelo) to brag (dauchaomai), truthfully (aletheia), I would not be (ouk esomai) foolish or imprudent (aphron).

For then (gar) I will say (ero) I am presently abstaining (pheidomai). But (de) someone (tis) not (un) approaching (eis) me (eme) might ponder (logizomai) beyond (hyper) what (o) he sees (blepo) in me (me), or (e) something (ti) he hears (akouo) from (ek) me (emou), (12:6) and of the (kai te) superiority of the hyperbole in these extraordinary (hyperbole ton) revelations (apokalypsis).

Therefore (dio), in order that (hina) I not become overly proud and be lifted up (me hyperairomai), there was given to me (didomi ego) a sharp goad and troubling thorn (skolops) in the body (te sarx), a spiritual messenger (aggelos) of Satan (Satan), in order to (hina) strike and restrain me (kolaphizo).

As a result (hina), at the present time there is the possibility that I might not be conceited, currently exalting myself beyond what would be justified, so as not to be insolent or audacious (me hyperairomai).” (2 Corinthians 12:6-7)

Can you even imagine the extent of Sha’uwl’s hyperbole should he not have been restrained by the maestro of subtle, shrewd, and crafty conflict? That notwithstanding, Paul’s statement is troubling, especially in this context.

If we can get beyond the issues associated with demonic possession, his letter continues to be more about Paul and his vendetta against Yahowah than the nature of the Faith he was advocating. We get it already. Repeat the chorus: “Paul is perfect, God was menacing, we are nincompoops, Faith prevails, and the Towrah sucks.” But what is one to believe, other than repeat the chorus?

Other than to demean and dismiss his enemies – Yahowah’s prophets, all rivals, and the entirety of Galatia – Paul’s epistles are focused on his own delusional claims regarding his superiority and invincibility. Yahowah’s testimony and Dowd’s narrative and sacrifice are of no value or interest to the Devil’s Advocate. He doesn’t even care about what Gospel Jesus had to say. Although to be fair, since Gospel Jesus would not exist in any narrative for another three to five decades after Galatians was written, he would have been difficult to cite.

But Moseh preceded Paul by 1,500 years, so in this regard, he was without excuse. And thus far, Paul has not accurately quoted a single statement from the Towrah or Prophets, nor has he conveyed anything that would help anyone understand Yahowah’s plan or Dowd’s purpose. The few mostly accurate statements he has pilfered and misappropriated have contributed nothing to advance anyone’s understanding. And the preponderance of what he has written has been deplorably inaccurate and incomprehensible.

No matter which standard one deploys, whether it is Yahowah’s Dabarym / Deuteronomy 13 or 18 tests or just the overall inconsistency with God’s Word, whether it is the writing quality, the plethora of internal contradictions, or the onslaught of logical fallacies, a person would have to be as Paul describes the Galatians to consider this epistle inspired by God. It isn’t even remotely rational.

Worse, even as one man’s opinion, Galatians is a one-way ticket to She’owl | Hell. This letter has been overwhelmingly counterproductive. Its only value has been to wrongly present Paul as God’s Apostle. And in that light, the verdict is dire for Christians.

The Christian renderings of this latest proclamation are as follows. The Catholic Latin Vulgate reads: “And you know how, through infirmity of the flesh, I preached the evangelizavi to you heretofore: and your temptation in my flesh.” The Protestant Authorized King James says: “Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first.” And the Evangelical New Living Translation published: “Surely you remember that I was sick when I first brought you the Good News.”

This next sentence is difficult to understand, not only because it is awkwardly written, but because we do not know what occurred during Sha’uwl’s last visit with these people, nor do we know what has transpired since. So as hard as this letter is to translate, it is even harder to interpret.

Also relevant, Papyrus 46 replaces the initial umon with mou, changing “you” to “me” in the initial clause. Further, it excludes oude ekptuo, “nor reject” in the middle of the sentence, leaving us with the NAMI unwilling to acknowledge the oldest manuscript, preferring the majority rendering instead. They published: “And the pressure of you in the flesh of me not you despised but not you spit out but as messenger of God you welcomed me as Christ Jesus.”

Continuing to project his delusions, according to the oldest extant codex, Sha’uwl scribed:

“And (kai) my temptation to prove my integrity (mou peirasmos – my submission to another, my examination and test regarding consistency, fidelity, and virtue, my enticement which serves as the means to learn the true nature of my character of the reason for trying to prove myself; from peirazo – to try to see if something can be done, to attempt and endeavor to make a trial or test to reveal one’s thinking regarding the other side) in (en) my (mou) flesh (sarx – physical body or human nature), you did not ridicule, despise, or reject (ou exoutheneo – you did not disdain, look down upon, make light of, treat with contempt, or disregard) [nor (oude) reject (ekptuo – scorn, spurn or loathe)].

To the contrary (alla – certainly and by contrast) like (os – because as in such a way or in the same way) a spiritual messenger (aggelos – a divine representative and heavenly envoy who was sent with a message) of god (ΘΥ), you received and believed (dechomai – you welcomed, entertained, and accepted) me (me) as (os – one who is like) Christon ‘Iesoun (ΧΝ ΙΝ – placeholders used by early Christian scribes for Christon | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement and Iesoun).” (Galatians 4:14)

There are a plethora of problems with this statement, and yet since even the most grotesque errors contribute to our understanding of the man named after the place where he has led billions of souls, let’s consider them. First, it ought not to be our integrity which matters but, instead, Yahowah’s veracity. Unless translating and explaining His testimony, there is no reason for us to present ourselves as trustworthy because it is God’s virtue and honesty that matter. Our words cannot save, but Yahowah’s can and do. Therefore, our mission should be to present God’s words as accurately and completely as possible.

Second, Sha’uwl continues to be fixated on himself. It would be one thing for him to say that he was unqualified for this mission, as that would be honest, relevant, and useful. But there is nothing to be gained by wallowing in one’s own temptations, especially when they reveal demon possession, insanity, violent hostility, and sexual decadence. But I suppose that it is Paul’s way of saying that his suffering was more important than the Messiah’s ordeal.

If there were prophecies affirming Paul’s role, as there are hundreds explaining mine, he would have been right to have pointed them out. But he is only mentioned as a plague and liar, as a menace to God’s Son and people.

In this regard, peirasmos is yet another in a long list of terms indicting Sha’uwl and his Christian audience. As is often the case with Satan’s messengers, they are so enamored with their perceived superiority and so dismissive of humanity’s lack of mental acuity that they flaunt their ability to beguile the faithful. In this case, Sha’uwl is tempting readers because he knows that most will be unwilling to examine the evidence against him or to highlight his lack of consistency.

Exoutheneo sets a very low bar. It is hard to imagine the founder of a religion, arguably the most infamous man who ever lived, telling the Galatians that they “did not ridicule or reject him, neither despising nor disdaining” him. Considering his propensity for ad hominem attacks on his opponents, that is almost funny.

Third, aggelos is a loaded word, especially in this context. It implies that Paul was “a heavenly messenger, a divine representative, and spiritual envoy sent by God,” all of which was blatantly untrue. Aggelos was used in Luke 1:26 to describe a misrepresentation of Gabriel when Dowd was erroneously presented as a spiritual envoy allegedly visiting with his mythical mother “Miryam | Mary.” It was used in Mark 1:2 to speak of the fabled “divine and prophetic” witness of the imaginary “John the Baptist.” And it was used in Matthew 25:41 in the context of the judgment awaiting those estranged from God along with the other “spiritual messengers – aggelos” who were in league with Satan during the Time of Troubles (which Christians call the Tribulation).

Fourth, as we have just discussed, in a direct reference to Satan’s “aggelos – spiritual messengers and representatives,” Sha’uwl explained in his second letter to the Corinthians that the trial he endured in the flesh was a sharp-pointed stick (a goad used to control animals) which was wielded by one of Satan’s “aggelos – demons.” And in actuality, the evidence Sha’uwl personally provides in his letters confirms that he was Satan’s implement, not Yahowah’s. So, the Galatians should have been repulsed by this, and as a result, they should have rejected Sha’uwl. Fortunately, most did.

And fifth, Sha’uwl’s use of os, translated as “even as” before “Christon Iesoun,” is arrogant and inappropriate, because by using os, Paul is “comparing” himself to his man-god myth. This notion is reinforced by the fact that the Greek word ος (spelled omicron sigma) is based upon “ως” (this time spelled omega sigma) which means “who.” Therefore, by using os, Paul has called himself: “a spiritual representative and heavenly messenger from God who is like (os) Christon Iesoun.” So even if Paul had not otherwise incriminated himself, the hubris associated with making such a statement is grotesque.

In his Latin Vulgate, Jerome wrote the following for his pope, recognizing that the religious potentate viewed himself similarly to Paul: “You despised not, nor rejected: but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.” Serving an equally deceived and egotistical political master, the KJV penned: “And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.”

While this is not a translation of the Greek text, the NLT is rendered as Paul intended, which is one of many reasons we should be so critical of him. “But even though my condition tempted you to reject me, you did not despise me or turn me away. No, you took me in and cared for me as though I were an angel from God or even Christ Jesus himself.” And yet according to a manuscript written 1,900 years earlier than either the Nestle-Aland or the New Living Translation, it is obvious that Sha’uwl said that the temptation was his trial, not a test for the Galatians.

The best face we can put on this discussion is that it was misguided, and it is irrelevant to our understanding of God or the path to Him. The message remains as deficient as the writing. But do not take my word for it; consider the NAMI’s: “Where then the fortunateness of you I testify for to you that if power the eyes of you having dug out you gave to me.” If that is the inspired word of Sha’uwl’s god through his spiritual messenger, I opt for the God who created the universe, conceived DNA, and authored the Towrah. And it just gets worse the closer we look...

“Where (pou), therefore (oun – accordingly and consequently then), the (o) declaration of blessedness (makarismos – the pronouncement of happiness and joy) of yours (umon)? I witness and testify (martyreo – I declare based upon firsthand knowledge and confirm through eyewitness experience) because (gar) of you (umin) that (oti) if (ei) possible (dynatos – able and competent), the eyes (tous ophthalmos) of you (umon) having dug out (exorysso – having torn, gouged, and plucked out) you gave (didomi – you produced and assigned) to me (moi).” (Galatians 4:15)

Since Paul has twice called the Galatians ignorant and irrational, slaves and traitors, how is it that he is expecting them to “proclaim how blessed” they feel? More curious still, how is it that Paul equates “joy” to “plucking out one’s eyes?” Why would the living give their eyes to someone who can already see, unless it was to keep them unaware, and thus blind?

But all of the ugliness vanishes when seen through the rose-colored glasses worn by the NLT: “Where is that joyful and grateful spirit you felt then? I am sure you would have taken out your own eyes and given them to me if it had been possible.”

Their predecessors were more literal. LV: “Where is then your blessedness? For I bear you witness that, if it could be done, you would have plucked out your own eyes and would have given them to me.” KJV: “Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me.”

Now that this has gone from demonic to sadistic, it is becoming ever more difficult to share Paul’s words without grimacing. But we are committed to seeing this through, right to the bitter end. With our goal in sight, the next step into the valley of death is presented in the NAMI as: “So that hostile of you I have become telling truth to you.” So from brothers to victims and now to foes, this is painful to read…

“So as a result (hoste), a hostile and despised adversary (echthros – hated enemy and odious foe) of yours (umon) I have become (ginomai) telling the truth (aletheuo – speaking no lies) to you (umin).” (Galatians 4:16)

Paul had become what the Galatians had implied, but not for the reason he suggested. Like the Adversary, Paul had lied to them.

With each new line, Galatians reads more like the Quran, both in tone and style. The Meccan surahs include a never-ending argument between Muhammad and his neighbors, with Allah’s Messenger constantly protesting that his verses were proof when never written. So, with all of the promises to torture disbelievers forever in hell, Muhammad’s kin recognized that he was demon-possessed and crazy as a loon. But in all fairness, the Quran’s rants are easier to read because, in Muhammad’s recital, the arguments on both sides are presented. With Paul, all we have is his response. But like the Quran, Paul’s letters are peppered with the names of Hebrew personages for credibility’s sake, even though the narrative is otherwise self-serving, self-aggrandizing, and argumentative.

The comparison of demonic doctrines noted, here are the translations for your consideration. LV: “Am I then become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?” KJV: “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?” NLT: “Have I now become your enemy because I am telling you the truth?”

Yes, Paul was their adversary. His lies were satanic. There is no likelihood that his preaching would have been materially different from the delusional drivel we have been reading.

As we approach this next statement, we do not know who was stirring the people up or even what they were promoting. Christian theologians will tell you that they were “Judaizers,” but Jews have seldom, if ever, proselytized anyone. Therefore, beyond acknowledging that Paul was paranoid and delusional, it is almost certain that his opponents were Yahowah’s proponents – those who loved Yahowah’s name and His Towrah.

Since this was poorly written, even by Paul’s deplorable standards, let’s consider the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear: “They are jealous you not well but to close out you they want that them you might be jealous.”

While it requires altering the order of the words, this appears to be what Sha’uwl was trying to convey...

“They are jealous (zeloo – they are deeply concerned and envious, coveting) of you (umas), not (ou) rightly (kalos – good, morally, attractively, healthily, or commendably), but to the contrary (alla), they want (thelo – they desire and propose) to exclude and separate (ekkleio) you (umas), in order that (hina) you might be jealous (zeloo – envious or deeply committed, coveting and desiring) of them (autous).” (Galatians 4:17)

This is the worst form of the ad hominem fallacy because the foe is not identified. Unaware of what has transpired, or who has done what to whom, it is impossible to objectively ascribe meaning to this criticism. As such, none of this has any value outside of a context which is absent – meaning that at the very least, this should have been stricken from his retort before pretending that the rest of his letter held merit.

Moreover, since Paul’s opponents were promoting the Torah, they would have been trying to unify their audience with Yahowah, not separate them. Therefore, it was Paul’s domineering nature which was being exposed. He was afraid that he was losing his control over these people. And he was perplexed: should he browbeat them into submission or disenfranchise and belittle them?

Beyond the idiocy of this insult, those who observe the Torah never share its wisdom in hopes that others will be jealous of them. We do it because we want people to be zealous for Yahowah and His Word.

In this case, Jerome’s Latin Vulgate is as incomprehensible as Paul’s Greek: “They are zealous in your regard not well: but they would exclude you, that you might be zealous for them.” KJV: “They zealously affect you, but not well; yea, they would exclude you, that ye might affect them.” This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Excluding someone does not make them zealous or cause them to be “affected.”

Putting kosher makeup on this mythical pig, the NLT would have you believe Paul said: “Those false teachers are so eager to win your favor, but their intentions are not good. They are trying to shut you off from me so that you will pay attention only to them.” To their credit, I also see this as Paul’s desperate attempt to retain his influence over the rebellious Galatians. It is one of the many symptoms of insecurity. And had this been what Paul was saying, then we could close the book on Galatians and return to the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. Separation from Paul is irrelevant. Separation from Yahowah is death. If Paul was trying to garner a following, he should not be followed.

After condemning jealousness, Paul is now advocating it…

“But (de – now) good and right (kalos – moral, attractive, healthy, and commendable) to be jealous (zeloo – to be deeply concerned and envious, coveting) in (en) good and right (kalos – morality and attractiveness) at all times (pantote – always and forever). And (kai) not (un) only (monon – alone) in (en) my (me) presence (to pareimi – to be present) with (pros – toward, against, or among) you (umas).” (Galatians 4:18)

Therefore, according to Paul, what is bad for them is good for you. It is little wonder virtually everyone who knew him rejected him prior to his death.

This has become akin to a campaign speech in which the audience is asked to “believe” the candidate. And like them, Paul has consistently deployed the dreaded negative advertising strategy that plagues most elections. It is as if demeaning his opponents elevated his candidacy.

Directly from the Greek, the NAMI conveys: “Good but to be jealous in good always and not alone in the to be present me toward you.” Jerome penned this in his LV: “But be zealous for that which is good in a good thing always: and not only when I am present with you.” Parroting what the Catholic wrote, the KJV repeats: “But it is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing, and not only when I am present with you.” And in their own world, the NLT authored: “If someone is eager to do good things for you, that’s all right; but let them do it all the time, not just when I’m with you.”

If Paul’s message had been about coming to know Yahowah, instead of following Paul, then his continued presence would have been unnecessary. It is the influence of Yahowah’s Word which should have motivated the Galatians to be passionate, not this man’s cult of personality. But Sha’uwl was a self-promoter, so in his mind, his presence was more important than anything.

This continues to be about Paul, not God. The Galatians were now “children of mine,” not our Heavenly Father’s sons and daughters. Even his mention of his Christos caricature in this context is misleading because it circumvents the role of the Set-Apart Spirit.

But alas, there is another benefit for those who are paying attention. I promise to share it with you momentarily so that we might all benefit from Yahowah’s advice regarding Sha’uwl.

“Children (teknon) of mine (mou) whom (hos) also (palin – furthermore and again) I have birth pangs (odino – I have engaged in the labor of childbirth) as far as (mechri – to the degree or until) that which (hos) might be formed (morphoo – may be fashioned) becoming Christos (ΧΡΣ – placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Christos | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement to usurp the Septuagint’s credibility and imply divinity) in (en) you all (umin).” (Galatians 4:19)

And now for that insight. Yahowah predicted: “They do not ask questions, any of them, about him. Terse references to the Word they lift up as taunts to ridicule, along with allusive sayings, simplistic and contrived equivalencies, and mocking interpretations, controlling through comparison, counterfeit and clichés, along with derisive words arrogantly conveyed. There are hard and perplexing questions that need to be asked of him, and double-dealings to be known regarding him. And so they should say, ‘Woe to the one who claims to be great so as to increase his offspring, acting like a rabbi, when neither applies to him.’ For how long will they make pledges based upon his significance, becoming burdened by his testimony?” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:6)

While Sha’uwl is claiming to have suffered birth pangs as if a woman, conceiving children of his own on his own, and thus asexually. But since asexual reproduction is not possible in humans, even among hermaphrodites like Paul, we are back to the Devil’s Apostle claiming super-human characteristics.

Those who have been adopted into our Heavenly Father’s Covenant family have been reborn spiritually as a result of Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym. Our adoption also necessitates accepting the terms and conditions of the Covenant relationship. Those who do receive the Covenant’s blessings of eternal life, perfection, adoption, enrichment, and empowerment. There are few aspects of Yahowah’s Towrah Teaching more important than this.

In Yahowah’s family, there is no pain associated with childbirth. And yet the anguish and sorrow of being estranged from God will be all that Paul’s children, known as Christians, will ultimately experience.

By claiming to have “suffered birth pangs” for “my children” Sha’uwl has once again portrayed himself as a twisted surrogate for God. He has established himself as the mother of his Faith. While it was progressive and gender-fluid of him, these things are wrong, too.

Nonetheless, it is deeply troubling that the Nestle-Aland, after claiming that their 27th edition manuscript was a near-perfect representation of the original autographs, ignored the placeholders found in all the originals and then perpetuated the myth that Iesou was “Christ.” NAMI: “Children of me whom again I have birth pains until that might be formed Christ in you.”

But 1,700 years of religious tradition was too much to buck and still make a buck. After all, Catholicism’s Latin Vulgate reads: “My little children, of whom I am in labour again, until Christus be formed in you.” Of which the King James translated to produce their Authorized Version: “My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you.” These translations actually say that Paul served as a surrogate mother “until Christ” who was the “Son” (i.e., male), fulfilled that role. The wannabe Apostle was wrong on both accounts.

Since these mistakes are ridiculous, one must ask: why would Sha’uwl write something this divergent from God’s symbolism and from human nature? Did he suffer from gender identity issues, as the evidence suggests and Yahowah’s testimony affirms? Was this why he was opposed to marriage, and does it explain why he was demeaning toward women? Is it why he expressed his love for Timothy – a man he personally circumcised even though he was belligerently opposed to circumcision? Even celibacy, which Paul promoted, is a perversion of Yahowah’s marriage and parental symbolism.

Apart from his animosity toward God’s symbols of the Covenant, which are marriage and family, and the specific roles God assigned to the Spirit and Son, Paul’s sexual orientation is irrelevant, albeit with a couple of caveats. According to Daniel’s prophecy, Satan’s Messenger will be a homosexual and Yahowah told us that Sha’uwl would be fascinated by male genitalia. (Chabaquwq / Habakkuk 2:15: “Woe to the one who causes his companions and countrymen to become intoxicated, thereby associating them with this antagonizing venom, but also for the purpose of inebriation to look at the male genitalia.”)

Swallowing Paul’s repositioning, and regurgitating his delusion, the New Living Translation affirms that he was the “mother of the faithful,” compounding the author’s vanity, and affirming that this man gave birth to the religion of Christianity. “Oh, my dear children! I feel as if I’m going through labor pains for you again, and they will continue until Christ is fully developed in your lives.” This is the essence of Pauline Doctrine.

A mother yearns to be with her children, to comfort and nurture them, just as a father longs to support them, but these are our Spiritual Mother’s and Heavenly Father’s roles in our lives, not Paul’s. And just a moment ago, Sha’uwl was demeaning these same individuals. He said that he had wasted his time with them. But now feeling motherly...

“But (de – now) I would purpose (thelo – I would desire and want) to be present (pareimi – to arrive and to come) with (pros – to against, toward, or among) you (umas) now (arti – immediately) and (kai) to change (allasso – to cause a difference by altering the nature or character, exchanging or substituting, transforming) my (mou) voice (ten phone – the sound or tone of speech or the language) because (hoti) I am at a loss (aporeo – I am perplexed and puzzled, doubting and embarrassed, uncertain and don’t know what to do, even disturbed) in (en) you (umin).” (Galatians 4:20)

Paul would indeed change his tone, and he would deploy a different tactic. His second and third letters, which were written to the Thessalonians, were sickeningly syrupy and sweet, except for his ongoing hatred of his own race.

And yet, had he been telling the truth, the tone of Sha’uwl’s voice, his style, would have been irrelevant. But deceivers deceive by pretending to be the opposite of who they really are. The Towrahless One, known as the “Antichrist,” is not going to burst onto the scene by announcing that he is Satan’s envoy, but instead will endear himself by pretending to be the world’s savior. Even in the end, when the charade is no longer necessary, Satan’s ambassador is going to present the fallen spirit who inspires him as “God,” rather than the “Adversary.” We are witnessing similar duplicity in Sha’uwl’s testimony. In fact, the “Antichrist” will be a modern adaptation of Paul, with a little Muhammad tossed in for spice.

Paul doesn’t know what to do, what to say, or how to react because he does not know Yahowah. When it comes to introducing souls to our Heavenly Father and then to nurturing His children on His Word, those who know God are never at a loss because He provided instructions regarding what we should say and guidance on what we should do.

But with Paul, it is much worse than just being befuddled. Silently, he is distraught and embarrassed. He knows that he has ruined their lives, even as they have exposed him for the fraud that he had become. It is why Paul would die alone, without a single supporter. And yet, the only Christian resurrection that actually matters is Paul’s. Dead, buried, and discredited, he rose like a phoenix out of the ashes of his own self-immolation.

One of the many problems associated with “faith” is that it blossoms and fades in relation to the source of the inspiration. The unthinking become particularly susceptible to cults of personality. Religious sects also succeed by insulating the participants, surrounding them with other “believers,” and isolating them from skeptics. With this in mind, the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear translation attests that Paul’s faith was wavering as a result of his failures in Galatia: “I would want but to be present to you now and to change the sound of me because I doubt in you.”

Recognizing that such honesty would be bad for business, the Roman Catholic Jerome penned the following for his pope: “And I would willingly be present with you now and change my voice: because I am ashamed for you.” In support of their potentate, the KJV published: “I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you.”

Always there for Paul, and thus willing to elevate him to the status of an eloquent and sympathetic spokesperson for God, if not a manifestation of God Himself, the NLT proposes that their Apostle actually said: “I wish I were with you right now so I could change my tone. But at this distance I don't know how else to help you.” But alas, if Paul were speaking for God, and not for himself, he would have known what to write. So much for the claim that this was “inspired by God.”

Paul’s emotional interlude is now over. But during it, he used “I” and “me” seventeen times over the course of nine “verses” to say:

“I am afraid and fear for you that maybe somehow, without reason and for nothing, I have grown tired and become discouraged, struggling to demonstrate additional effort toward you. (Galatians 4:11)

You all must become like me because I am actually commanding it. Then I, as an emphatic priority as a result, like you, we all become brothers and fellow believers. This is the means I want to compel, to bind, and to control you all.

In no way were you wronged, harmed, or treated unjustly as a result of fraud by me. (Galatians 4:12)

But you realize that because of an incapacity and limitation in the flesh, I announced this profitable messenger and good message to you all previously. (Galatians 4:13)

My temptation to prove my integrity and my submission to another, my true nature, in my flesh, you did not ridicule, despise, or reject. To the contrary like a spiritual messenger of god you received and believed me as Christon Iesoun. (Galatians 4:14)

Consequently then, the declaration of blessedness and the pronouncement of happiness is yours. I witnessed and testified because of you that, if possible and competent, your eyes having gouged and plucked out, you gave them to me. (Galatians 4:15)

So as a result, a hostile and despised adversary of yours I have become by telling the truth to you. (Galatians 4:16)

They are jealous of you, not rightly, but to the contrary, they want to exclude and separate you, in order that you might be jealous of them. (Galatians 4:17)

But it is good and right to be jealous while good and right at all times. And not only alone in my presence with you. (Galatians 4:18)

Children of mine, whom also I have birth pangs, having engaged in the labor of childbirth as far as that which might be formed becoming Christos in you all. (Galatians 4:19)

But I would purpose to be present, to arrive and to come with you now and to change, altering the nature and character of my voice and language because I am at a loss, perplexed and puzzled, doubting and embarrassed, and I don’t know what to do with you.” (Galatians 4:20)

If you believe God inspired these words, your god is less capable than a deranged and psychotic man.



Twistianity

Devil’s Advocate

…Plague of Death

7

Allegoreo | Allegorically

Return to Submission…

Paul is now Public Enemy Number One! The crime against Yahowah’s Towrah is Identity Theft and it occurs in Sha’uwl’s letter to the Galatians. So, do we observe the Towrah or put our faith in Foolology? I suppose it depends upon whom you ask.

This extraordinarily strange man is within four verses of his crescendo – the ultimate objective of his life’s work. We are on the cusp of witnessing the most vulgar message ever spoken in the name of God, er, well, in the name of Paulos.

But before we consider the wannabe Apostle’s crowning achievement, since it is based upon the myth that there are two covenants, with the Devil’s Advocate having established the second through faith, let’s consider the truth in this regard. According to Yahowah, His one and only Covenant has not yet been renewed. And when He, Himself, restores it, His affirmation will be predicated upon the integration of His Towrah in our lives – not its repudiation.

Since there is nothing more foundational to knowing God than understanding His Covenant and the role His Towrah plays in our lives, let’s let God speak for Himself on this critical matter. For if there is but one Covenant, one familial relationship which can be formed between God and humankind, and if its renewal and reaffirmation is predicated upon our acceptance of His Towrah, we are precluded from accepting the myth of a “New Testament.” And should that be the case, we can toss Paul’s letters, and the entire New Testament, to the wind.

Yahowah, speaking for Himself, said...

“‘Behold (hineh – look up, take this all in and pay especially close attention to the details), a time is coming (yowmym bow’ – days are approaching and will arrive (qal participle plural – literally and actually, dramatically and emphatically, for the benefit of the relationship)),’ Yahowah (Yahowah – God’s one and only name transliterated as guided by His towrah – instructions on His hayah – existence and His role in our shalowm – reconciliation as ‘elowah – Almighty God) reveals, well in advance of it occurring (na’um – prophetically declares), ‘when I will enter into and cut with (wa karat ‘eth – when I will establish through separation a set-apart agreement on behalf of) the Family of Yisra’el (Beyth Yisra’el – the Home and Household of those who Engage and Endure with God, Israel) and with (wa ‘eth – also together with and through) the Family of Yahuwdah (Beyth Yahuwdah – the Household and Home of those Beloved by Yah and Related to Yah, Jews) a restored and renewed (chadash – a repaired and reaffirmed; from chadash – to renew and repair, to restore and reaffirm) Covenant (Beryth – Family-Oriented Relationship).’” (Yirma’yah / I Rise Up and Live in Yah’s Shelter / Jeremiah 31:31)

The part of this astounding prophetic declaration from God which Christians, desperate to justify their “New Testament” miss, is that the renewal and restoration of the “Beryth – Covenant” is not with Gentiles, and thus cannot be with the Church of the Uncircumcised. It is, instead, with Yahuwdah and Yisra’el | Jews and Israel. This promise, therefore, cannot apply to Christianity. Replacement Theology is torn asunder. It is game over. Paul was wrong – dead wrong!

And further aggravating the devastating problem Christians face, this reconciliation has not yet transpired. Therefore a “Renewed Covenant” is premature, and a “New Testament” will never occur.

As a result, the only question worth debating is whether chadash should be translated as “new” or “renewed,” as both are etymologically acceptable. Is God going to renew and restore, reaffirm and repair the Covenant presented in the Towrah with Yisra’el and Yahuwdah, or is He going to scrap the Towrah’s definition of this relationship and create an entirely new agreement?

To put this question to rest, you should know that the primary meaning of chadash is “to renew, to restore, to repair, and to reaffirm.” Of the ten times this verb is scribed in the Towrah, Prophets, and Psalms, it is correctly translated: “restore and reaffirm” in 1 Samuel 11:14, “renewed and repaired” in 2 Chronicles 15:8, “to repair” in 2 Chronicles 24:4, “to repair and mend” in 2 Chronicles 24:12, “renewed” in Job 10:7, “renew” in Psalm 51:12, “renewed” in Psalm 103:5, again as “renewed” in Psalm 104:30, “repair” in Isaiah 61:4, and “renew and restore” in Lamentations 5:21.

As a further affirmation of “renewed and restored” being the most appropriate translation of chadash in this context, we find that within the prophetic writings of Yirma’yah / Jerimiah and Yasha’yah / Isaiah, each time Yahowah inspired either man to scribe chadash, by rendering it “renewed,” or especially “restored,” we achieve a substantially more enlightening result than translating this word “new.” Further, chadash’s primary meaning is derived from its use as “month,” where it is the renewing of reflected light on the moon’s surface which denotes its beginning.

These things known, the next statement in Yahowah’s end-days prophecy seems to suggest that there will be a different Covenant – distinct from the one whose terms and conditions were delineated in the Towrah. But is this even possible? Could God do such a thing without seriously contradicting other statements He has made and, in so doing, rendering Himself capricious, and His Word unreliable?

“‘It will differ somewhat from (lo’ ka – it won’t be exactly like) the Covenant (ha Beryth – the Family-Oriented Relationship Agreement) which, to reveal the way to the benefits of the relationship (‘asher – which provides directions showing the steps to walk which are correct and yet restrictive and give meaning to life, providing encouragement and joy to those who are properly led and guided that (qal perfect)), I entered into (karat – I established by setting apart when I cut) with their fathers (‘eth ‘ab hem) on the day (ba yowm – during the time) I firmly took them by the hand, and with inspiring intent, overpowered the situation (chazaq ‘any ba yad – I showed an intense resolve and was inflexible in My influence over them, even overpowering them due to the urgent need for them to prevail (hifil infinitive construct – I caused this to occur with them, influencing them such that they would be active participants associated with Me)) to bring them out (la yatsa’ min hem – to draw them away from and bring them close, descending and extending Myself to serve by removing them from (hifil infinitive construct)) of the realm of the Crucibles of Oppression in Egypt (‘erets Mitsraym – the place of subjugation associated with religious coercion and political tyranny, the land of military domination and economic cruelty; from a compound of my – to question and tsarym – troubling, confining, and adversarial situations).

Relationally, they broke (‘asher hem parar ‘eth – they sought to nullify that relationship by thwarting its intent and by disassociating from the correct path, thereby revoking the benefits by splitting into two parts (read: creating the Talmud to nullify the Towrah or a New Testament to contradict and revoke God’s testimony) (hifil perfect)) My Covenant (‘eth beryth ‘any – My Family-Oriented Relationship Agreement) although for a time I acted as a husband with them (wa ‘anoky ba’al ba hem – even though I acted as a husband, even a leader in a position of authority (qal perfect – genuinely and only for a limited duration)),’ Yahowah (Yahowah – God’s name transliterated as directed by His towrah – instructions on His hayah – existence and His role in our shalowm – reconciliation) reveals through this prophet (na’um – prophetically declares).” (Yirma’yah / I Rise Up and Live in Yah’s Shelter / Jeremiah 31:32)

The key to appreciating the difference between what occurred 3,500 years ago during the process of leaving Egypt and what will transpire 9 years from now in Yaruwshalaim, Yahuwdah, Yisra’el (on Yowm Kipurym | the Day of Reconciliation, October 2nd, 2033, which is year 6000 Yah) can be found in the verbal clause: “chazaq ‘any ba yad – I took them firmly by the hand with overwhelming intent, and overpowering the situation, I showed such an intense resolve, becoming inflexible in My influence due to the urgent need to prevail.” At that moment in time, to save the Children of Yisra’el from being annihilated by the Egyptians, there was the urgency to liberate a reluctant and ignorant audience who were enslaved, people who knew little of Yahowah and nothing of His Towrah or Covenant. They had only just been introduced to Pesach and Matsah and were unaware of anything beyond. It would be seven weeks before they would be given access to Yahowah’s Towrah Guidance and, with it, an explanation of the Conditions of the Covenant.

I would also like to affirm what most miss because this comparison isn’t with the original conditions of the Covenant established with ‘Abraham and Sarah in 1968 BCE. It is instead with the process of extracting the Children of Yisra’el out of slavery in the most powerful country, politically and religiously, of the time. So the message here is that God saved his people from human oppression in a mass exodus, most kicking and screaming, but He will not do that again. When the Covenant is restored with Yisra’el it will be on a one-on-One basis and as an expression of freewill.

In the previous situation 3,500 years ago, to get Yisra’el’s attention and bring His people home, Yahowah had to intervene with overwhelming conviction. Without having done so, He would not have been able to achieve what He knew was needed to honor the promises He had made to ‘Abraham, Yitschaq, and Ya’aqob. His people had to be freed from human oppression after 400 years of estrangement and slavery (40 years for each of the 10 brothers who sold Joseph into subjugation), for there to be an opportunity for them and us to respond to the original Covenant. They would have received the Towrah explaining the Covenant and then survive another 400 years such that Dowd could be anointed, unify them, establish Jerusalem as the heart of Yisra’el, and then write prophetically of his intent to fulfill the Miqra’ey which deliver the benefits of the Beryth.

Sadly, the Chosen People wouldn’t last a week before they chose to break the Covenant. They would be estranged from God, even in His presence. And as a result, they would be ravaged by invaders, be dispersed throughout the world, and suffer systematic religious and political abuse as a quid pro quo.

All of that, however, would set the stage for this day in 2033 where, by contrast, the Israelites and Jews experiencing the renewal and restoration of their relationship with God will all know Yahowah because they will have chosen to be Towrah-observant. Every celebrant will have decided to accept the conditions of the Covenant and attend the Miqra’ey. They will not come kicking and screaming this time, but of their own freewill. They will have made an informed and rational decision to be part of Yahowah’s Family. Yada Yahowah was composed for this purpose.

Between the bad times and good, God chose parar to explain that His people proved unreliable. Yisra’el first, then Yahuwdah, sought to nullify the Covenant relationship in preference for their religious and political agendas. They would create the competition – their own convoluted and contradictory texts which would be known over time as the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmud, the Mishnah and Zohar.

Yahowah, through His prophets, beginning with Moseh, has long reminded us that Jews have been their own worst enemy. Sha’uwl | Saul / now Paul, a rebellious rabbi, would write the New Testament’s first 14 books, then inspire the next four, thereby establishing the religion. Even Muhammad, a wannabe Jewish Messiah, bastardized the Babylonian Talmud with the help of rabbis to satiate his lust for sex, power, and money – creating the Quran in the process. With both religions, Jews would not only parar the Covenant, they conceived demonic cults bent upon destroying everything God holds dear.

The “beryth – covenant” presented in this declaration is a “family relationship” whereby something is required of every member. Yahowah promises to liberate us from ourselves, our guilt, and from all forms of human oppression. To benefit, however, we must honor our side of the bargain and observe God’s instructions, distance ourselves from human institutions, and respect Yahowah’s ability to lead us home – even appreciate the role the Son of God and Messiah played to make all of this possible.

The question then becomes: how is God going to renew and reaffirm His Covenant without contradicting Himself? The answer to that question is a solution that is not only marvelous in its implications, but also one which completely destroys the Christian religion generally and Paul’s testimony specifically. Yahowah said:

“‘Accordingly and as a consequence (ky – because of this, yes, indeed, truthfully, and instead by contrast), this is (zo’th – specifically) the Covenant (ha beryth – the Family-Oriented Relationship Agreement) which, to enjoy the benefits of the relationship (‘asher – to lead to the correct path to walk to get the most out of life), I will cut (karat – I will create through separation, making and establishing (qal imperfect – with ongoing benefits over time)) with (‘eth – alongside and on behalf of) the House of Yisra’el (Beyth Yisra’el – the Home of those who Engage and Endure with God) much later after those days (‘achar ha yowm hem ha hem – during a subsequent period and in a different time, specifically in the latter days),’ prophetically declares (na’um – announces in advance of it occurring) Yahowah (Yahowah – God’s personal name pronounced as guided by His towrah – instructions on His hayah – existence for our shalowm – reconciliation as our ‘elowah – God):

‘I will provide, placing (nathan – I will literally give and actually ascribe, producing, offering, and bestowing at this moment in time (qal perfect)), accordingly (‘eth – the mark and message of our association), My towrah | guidance (towrah ‘any – My teaching, instruction, and directions) within them (ba qereb hem – inside of them, in their core being such that it is part of their inner person, part of their thought process and psychology, influencing their conscience and animating their lives).

And integrated into their inclinations and ability to exercise good judgment (wa ‘al leb hem – then upon their preferences and disposition, their character and thinking, their hearts and minds), I will write it (kathab hy’ – I will inscribe and engrave it (qal imperfect energic nun – literally and emphatically with ongoing implications throughout time)).

Then, I will (wa hayah – and I shall (qal perfect)) approach them as their God (la hem la ‘elohym – I will draw near as a Ram shepherding His sheep). And they shall be My Family (wa hem hayah la ‘any la ‘am – and they will exist near Me as My People (qal imperfect)).’” (Yirma’yah / I Rise Up and Live in Yah’s Shelter / Jeremiah 31:33)

With this statement, the basis of Christianity and the fulcrum of Paul’s argument disintegrate. It would be irrational for Yahowah to establish His Towrah, then annul His Towrah, replacing it with a “New Testament,” only to go right back to His Towrah. So if you are a Christian, now would be a good time to wave goodbye to Paul and to your faith. It was over long before it began.

This is among the most profoundly exciting announcements in the whole of the prophets. It destroys the credibility of the “Abrahamic” religions because the only actual and proven God is not only returning to His people, Yisra’el | Israel, and therefore not to Roman Catholics, Arab Muslims, American Mormons, or a Gentile Church. He is inscribing His towrah | guidance inside of the Covenant’s participants which completely negates the inclusion or appropriateness of any religious text. Since the Towrah is the ultimate answer, the means to restore the relationship, the notion it was superseded by a Talmud, New Testament, or Quran becomes ludicrous. And, of course, this means that Paul was wrong when he claimed that the Towrah was obsolete and that he had replaced it.

Second, God’s proclamation explains how the Covenant’s children will live in the hereafter. Having had the opportunity to observe the Towrah or be oblivious to it, having lived our lives under the auspices of freewill so as to be given the opportunity to accept or reject Yahowah and His Covenant, having been in the position where we have to work for understanding if we want to know God, a time will come when that will change. While we will retain freewill, having chosen to be with Yahowah and to be part of His Covenant Family, our Heavenly Father will be in a position to give us the guidance we will need to operate safely in four, five, six, and seven dimensions and throughout the cosmos. And that is why I have written towrah | guidance in lowercase, suggesting that this will comprise God’s teaching for living among the stars.

While this may be hard to fathom at this point, especially if you have not yet read Yada Yahowah, Observations, or Coming Home, there are dimensions beyond the three to which we are accustomed, and it is Yahowah’s intent to enable us to experience them all.

When it comes to understanding how to get the most out of living in six and seven dimensions, we will not have to translate Yahowah’s future instructions, search for the most accurate text, or seek to interpret the message because His words will be integrated into the fabric of our lives. This is something God cannot do at this time because mankind must retain the ability, no matter how foolish, to disregard the Towrah. And that becomes impossible when it is written inside of us. But in eternity, to keep us safe, it will be essential for us to have the Creator’s guidance on how to engage and what to avoid, especially when it comes to the magnitude of the forces at play throughout the universe.

While I would like the towrah even more completely integrated into my life now rather than later, it would not be appropriate, even with Covenant members. Yah is not going to supplant our freewill by imposing Himself on us. This is our time to choose, when we have the opportunity to respond to Yahowah’s calling. We can spend as much or as little time with God as we would like.

We live in an era of discovery where we can capitalize upon what we have been given to embark on the adventure of a lifetime. Today we have the opportunity to work with God to do something that will endure time. We can encourage others to closely examine and carefully consider Yahowah’s Towrah so that they receive the Covenant’s benefits. We can contribute to the size of God’s Family while Yahowah enhances our lives.

On this day in the summer of 2024, as has been the case for nearly 23 years, I have done my utmost to encourage all who are interested, especially Yisra’el and Yahuwdah, to “Yada Yahowah – to choose of their own accord to become familiar with, know, and understand Yahowah.” It has been and continues to be a labor of love, and the most rewarding and enjoyable opportunity of my life and of the Covenant members who support this work on behalf of God’s people.

God could have avoided religious competition long ago, and mankind’s woes would have been nonexistent. But this could not have occurred without a consequence so severe, it would have negated the very purpose of our very existence. And so Yah’s plan plays out in a manner wholly consistent with freewill.

Therefore, the reason Yahowah hasn’t yet placed His Towrah inside of us, or written His instructions on our hearts, is because freewill is sacrosanct. Today, everyone has the ability to choose to know, to love, and to trust God, to ignore God, to reject Him, or to replace Him with a divinity of man’s making. If the Torah had been mandated, had it been unrivaled, had it been incorporated into our personalities, there would have been no possible way for any religious alternative to have emerged. And without options, there would have been no choice. Without choice, loving relationships cannot exist. Therefore, while the Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship and Yahowah’s Towrah Teachings are inseparable, it remains possible for us to separate ourselves from them.

This option, which is the choice to reject Yahowah’s instructions and to disassociate from Him, has to end for eternal life with God to begin. So once all who will choose to know and respect Yahowah have decided to do so, once all who remain alive on this planet are part of Yahowah’s family, there is no need for the bane or pain of religion. And yet, even once all who remain have been adopted by Him, even when we have all become eternal and are empowered and enriched by our Heavenly Father, then, more than ever, His Guidance is essential. The universe becomes ours, as does all of God’s power and authority. So, it will be especially important that we understand how to exercise these gifts and wield our power wisely. By giving us His “towrah – guidance,” by placing all of it within us, by writing it upon our hearts, we will be equipped with the knowledge we will require to exercise our newfound freedom appropriately. And that is wonderful, landscape-changing, news. It explains how we will retain freewill throughout eternity yet keep from doing something foolish.

Therefore, Yirma’yah / Jeremiah 31 explains what will occur upon Yahowah’s return during “Yowm Kipurym – the Day of Reconciliations” at the end of the Time of Ya’aqob’s Troubles. It illustrates how God will fulfill His Towrah promise to reconcile His relationship with Yisra’el and with Yahuwdym. And it tells us when the Covenant will be renewed because that is the only day in all of human history in which this transformation and restoration can occur in harmony with God’s previous testimony.

This prophetic announcement also affirms the role of the Towrah in our choice to spend eternity with God. It unifies the Towrah and Covenant as the most essential elements of being included in God’s family. And reading between the lines, it reveals how Yahowah’s Towrah will continue to guide us during the Millennial Shabat and beyond into eternity. It even explains that the purpose of the Covenant is to establish God’s family so that we can live with our Heavenly Father as His children.

And yet, with all of these affirmations, it is astonishing that Christians routinely mistranslate this passage, truncate it, and remove it from its context, to justify Paul’s proclamation of a “new covenant,” one based upon faith, one unrelated to the Towrah or its God. I dare say, the Christian misinterpretation of this passage ranks among the most debilitating crimes ever perpetrated in the name of religion.

Speaking of this and other crimes, Yahowah revealed the benefit of making His Towrah our undisputed and unrivaled instruction manual:

“‘No longer shall anyone impart information or teach (wa lo’ lamad ‘owd – no one will continue to instruct or learn from, nor will anyone encourage the acceptance of (piel imperfect – the recipients of this instruction will never be exposed to)) other individuals in association with an evil and outspoken world (‘ysh ‘eth rea’ huw’ – their immoral companions, friends, and errant countrymen among humankind, each of his troublesome neighbors or his loudmouthed associates in an attempt to reason with them) or (wa) even those with familial affinity (‘ysh ‘eth ‘ach huw’ – with regard to blood relatives and closely associated individuals such as family members, and in this context: Yisra’el and Yahuwdah) so as to say (la ‘amar – approaching to declare), “Yada Yahowah | We have chosen of our own accord to know Yahowah (yada’ Yahowah – decide to recognize and acknowledge Yah, and show some desire to become familiar with and understand Yahowah (qal imperative))!” because (ky – truthfully and by contrast, at this time) everyone will know Me (kol hem yada’ eth ‘any – all of them, without exception, will actually be aware of and genuinely acknowledge Me, and they will continually recognize and literally understand Me (qal imperfect)), from the youngest (la min qatan hem – regarding the approach of the most recent arrival among them) and up to the enduring witness of the most important and oldest (wa ‘ad gadowl hem – including those of the longest duration, the earliest arrivals whose eternal testimony remains the most significant, those who arrived a time long ago),’ prophetically reveals (na’um – announces in advance of it occurring) Yahowah (Yahowah – God’s personal name pronounced as guided by His towrah – instructions on His hayah – existence for our shalowm – reconciliation as our ‘elowah – God).” (Yirma’yah / I Rise Up and Live in Yah’s Shelter / Jeremiah 31:34)

Yada Yahowah. It is the most empowering declaration in the universe, the most enlightening, liberating, and enriching. It has served as the title of this series of books since the first word was written twenty-three years ago. Today, it highlights the entire collection of amplified translations, insights, and commentary on the Word of God.

Written in the qal imperative, Yada Yahowah encourages you to “choose of your own initiative to come to actually know Yahowah, to recognize and acknowledge God as He has revealed Himself, and to genuinely understand Yahowah, such that you develop an unencumbered relationship with Him.” This remains the sole intent of Yada Yahowah.

Yes, a day will come when every living soul will Yada Yahowah. It is poetic in a special way. The words that inspired the seven million which would follow throughout Yada Yahowah will be rendered obsolete. There will no longer be a need for my translations or insights because they will be vastly inferior to what Yahowah will supply. Perhaps you will be among those at my retirement party.

Before we return to Paul’s twisted repudiation of Yahowah’s Covenant, all so that he can promote a second covenant of his own, let’s see if we can learn something additional about Yahowah’s most important title by observing it in the language of revelation using the ancient Hebrew pictographic depictions. The first letter of “Beryth – Covenant” is Beyth , contracted from beyth, the Hebrew word for “family and home.” This letter was drawn depicting the floor plan of a house with a single entrance from above.

The second letter, Rosh , was drawn to reveal the head of an individual. As is the case with the word re’sh today, the ancient character was symbolic of being the first, best, and foremost, as well as leadership and birth. We are therefore born into the first and foremost family. The human head also focuses our attention on our eyes and ears as the means to observe and listen, and our brains as the means to understand.

Turning to the third letter, we find a Yad , today’s Yowd, pictured by way of an arm reaching down and out to us with an open hand. It conveys the idea of engaging productively to accomplish something worthwhile. As the first letter in Yah’s name, it reveals His willingness to reach out to us and lift us up.

The final character in beryth is either a Theth  or Taw , as these letters were originally one. If Theth, the pictograph was of a woven container, which was used to communicate being surrounded and enclosed, and thus valued and protected, as well as being transported from one place to another. And if Taw, the character was drawn as an upright pole with a horizontal beam. It spoke of a doorway, of foundational support, and of a sign and a signature – particularly in its Paleo Hebrew form: t.

Bringing all of these images together, the picture they paint of the “beryth – Covenant” is of a singular doorway into the protected and sheltered home of the first and foremost family, and of God reaching out to those of us who observe and listen to His inscription on His signed invitation.



Cognizant of Yahowah’s thoughts and promises regarding His Towrah and its centerpiece, the Covenant, we are better prepared to consider Paul’s contrarian view. He wrote:

“Speak (lego – say) to me (ego) those (oi) under (hypo – subject to the control of and submissive to) Towrah (nomon – nourishing allocation and allotment which leads to an inheritance; consistently used throughout the Septuagint to translate towrah) proposing and deciding (thelo – wanting and desiring, wishing and intending) to exist (eimi – to be), the (ton) Towrah (nomon – the source from which instruction and teaching, direction and guidance flow) do you not hear (ouk akouo – not you listen)?” (Galatians 4:21)

That was gibberish, so before I rearrange the order of the words in the opening clause so that they read more as Sha’uwl intended, let’s try to make sense of the verbal phrase, ouk akouo, literally translated as “not you hear.” It was scribed in the second-person plural (you all or all of you), present (the action is current and ongoing) active (the subject, or Torah, is performing the action) indicative (the author is indicating this situation is real). In conjunction with ouk, which is both a negative particle, annulling the action, and an interrogative, raising a question, the concluding phrase might read: “can’t you hear the Towrah?” or “the Towrah cannot hear you.”

As for the opening clause, it seems to flow better with the words reordered to read: “Speak to me those proposing and deciding to exist under the control of Towrah,...” If that is correct, it is being used to taunt Paul’s adversaries. After all, Paul has never demonstrated the inclination to listen to anyone, much less his foes – not even to God. Therefore, Paul is either questioning the Towrah-observant, suggesting that they do not listen to the Towrah, thereby suggesting that his knowledge is superior to theirs, or he is saying that the Towrah is unable to hear, thereby indicating that, since he has that capacity, he is again superior to God’s Word. And even though both approaches are invalid, that is the best I can do with this.

If Paul were writing for God, which he obviously was not, he would not have said, “speak to me.” Nor would he have begun by suggesting that the Towrah-observant are “hypo – controlled and submissive.” The Towrah was not designed to listen to us, but for us to listen to what God has to say through it. When we “qara’ – read and recite” the “towrah – teaching” of Yahowah, we “shamar – observe” and “shama’ – listen to” the Word of God. So once again, Paul had this all wrong.

Therefore, the problem is much deeper than the deplorable writing quality. Affirming this, the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear conveys: “Say to me the under law wanting to be the law not you hear.”

Jerome ignored what Paul wrote, hoping not to destroy the wannabe apostle’s credibility. The Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate therefore says: “Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, have you not read the law?”

The Authorized, and thus official, Protestant version of the “New Testament” proposed this unique spin in the King James: “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?”

Unable to improve on the KJV’s corruption, the English Standard Version copied it: “Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law?” The “literal” New American Standard Bible could do no better, also claiming Paul wrote: “Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law?”

So when all hope of understanding is lost, we can always turn to the New Living Translation for a novel accounting: “Tell me, you who want to live under the law, do you know what the law actually says?” And therein lies the problem. Most Christians don’t know what the Torah says. Therefore, they don’t understand God’s Word, they don’t appreciate Dowd’s contribution to the Covenant Family, and they don’t understand that Paul despised and tried to discredit both.

Not long ago, we considered a number of statements Yahowah made about listening which conveyed exactly the opposite message. If you recall, God said: “Listen (shama’) children to the correct instruction of the Father and pay attention so as to know and understand. For indeed, such teaching and learning are good, beneficial, and helpful. For this reason, I have given you My Towrah. You should not forsake it, neglect it, or reject it.... Closely examine and carefully consider (shamar – focus upon and thoroughly evaluate) My terms and conditions and live, being restored to life.” (Mashal / Word Pictures / Proverb 4:1-2, 4)

Further assailing Paul’s credibility, Dowd | David announced on behalf of Yahowah: “The one who turns away his ear from hearing (suwr ‘owzen min shama’ – the one who avoids listening and paying attention to) the Towrah (Towrah – the source of instruction and direction, guidance and teaching), his prayers and requests (taphilah – his pleas and petitions for intervention) also (gam) will be considered detestable (tow’ebah – will be seen as a disgusting abomination).” (Mashal / Word Pictures / Proverb 28:9)

Now that Paul has taken yet another lame swipe at Yahowah’s Towrah, he is ready to commence his most diabolical attack – demeaning the Covenant. He begins with a half-truth, with a citation which is somewhat accurate. But by framing his assault using a corruption of the Towrah, Paul has again affirmed that the text which he claims “cannot hear” and to which the Galatians were “enslaved” was Yahowah’s Towrah | Teaching. Listen to one of the most successful schemers of all time twist the truth: “It has been written for Abraham two sons had one from the servant girl and one from the free.”

“For indeed (gar – because), it has been written (grapho – it has been inscribed and engraved) that (hoti) Abram (Abraam – a truncated transliteration of the pre-Covenant Hebrew name ‘Abraham, meaning Merciful and Enriching Father) two (duo) sons (huios) had (echo – possessed), one (heis) from (ek) the slave girl (tes paidiske) and (kai) one (eis) from (ek) the free and independent (tes eleutheros – freeborn person, unbound, and exempt).” (Galatians 4:22)

In actuality, it is not “written Abram had two sons,” because, from Yahowah’s perspective, Abraham only had one son. That is why God asked Abraham in Bare’syth / Genesis 22:2 to “take your son, your only son, whom you love, Yitschaq, and go to the land of Mowryah…”

Ishmael was expressly excluded from the Covenant and demonstrably banished from the Promised Land. Therefore, the “son of the slave girl” should only have been mentioned if Sha’uwl had been illustrating these facts – which we shall soon discover is the opposite of his intended purpose.

There are few individuals as important to Yahowah and His Covenant as Sarah or her son, Yitschaq. And yet Sha’uwl doesn’t even bother to mention them by name. Moreover, Sarah’s status as an “eleutheros – independent and freeborn individual” was extraneous to her role in the Covenant. She mattered because she was Abraham’s wife and Yitschaq’s mother. She was so important to the Covenant, when she and Abraham differed on a matter, Yahowah told Abraham to listen to his wife and do what she said. And by contrast, when Abraham asked Yahowah to make an exception on behalf of Ishmael, God said absolutely not. When Sarah laughed at something Yahowah said, God joined in, telling Sarah to name her son Laughter, which is Yitschaq in Hebrew.

Sarah’s relevance goes well beyond this. Just look at Yahowah’s name written using the ancient Hebrew pictographic letters and reading from right to left –  – whereby the final three letters following Yahowah’s outstretched hand represent “Abraham and Sarah,” with the Hebrew letter conveying the conjunction “wa – and” between them. Yahowah was thereby telling them, and us through them, that they individually as well as their family would be increased and that their home would grow and become secure. Yahowah’s favorite place on Earth, Yisra’el, is based upon Sarah’s name which means: “Individuals who Engage and Endure with God.” Therefore, being married, which is the antithesis of being “eleutheros – independent and unbound,” is why Sarah matters to the “beryth – marriage covenant and family-oriented relationship.”

But let’s remember, Paul’s affections were never directed at women. He would not know or understand the joys of marriage or of raising children. And perhaps that is why Paul imagined those he had beguiled into the Faith became his children, for whom he endured birth pangs.

Paul has reprised his “for indeed it has been written,” introductory line to deceive his audience into believing that God had an ongoing relationship with Hagar’s son. He is doing this so that he can deceive readers into believing that there were two covenants. But there aren’t, which is why Paul did not cite any portion of the story which begins in Bare’syth / Genesis 17 and is advanced through the 21st chapter. And because God did not say what Paul wanted, he made something up and tried to pass it off as if it were a citation from the Towrah.

This was not the only time he would foist this fable. He parades it out again in Romans 9 where he boasted “I am not lying,” there are multiple “covenants,” with one yielding “children of the flesh,” while the other begets “children according to the promise.”

The reason for Paul’s duplicity in Galatians, as well as in Romans, is that Pauline Doctrine is built upon the following precepts: 1) God established two covenants, not one (untrue). 2) The covenant memorialized in the Torah on Mount Sinai was formed with Hagar and Ishmael rather than with Sarah and Yitschaq (untrue). 3) The covenant depicted in the Torah enslaves those who observe it (untrue). 4) The verbal promises made to Abraham bypass the Torah (untrue). 5) There is no relationship between the Messiah and the Torah unless it is to free the faithful from the Towrah (untrue). 6) Christians become God’s children by way of the verbal promise, not through the Covenant or the Towrah (untrue). And 7) Believing the promise necessitates rejecting the Torah (that’s true but a horrible choice).

Sha’uwl’s entire argument is erroneous and preposterous, but yet it serves as the foundation of Christianity – a religion set apart from the Torah and its God. He was as Yahowah called him – the plague of death.

Promoting this deadly deception to Evangelical Christians, the New Living Translation lied and said: “The Scriptures say that Abraham had two sons, one from his slave wife and one from his freeborn wife.” The authors of this sentence knew that there was no basis for “wife” in the Greek text once, much less twice, but that did not stop them from copyediting something they were passing off as “Scripture,” doing so in order to artificially elevate Abraham’s morality. The reason they are assisting in this way is that Pauline Doctrine is based upon Abram, at the expense, and thus exclusion, of the Torah. It is like Islam in this way.

As for the older Christian witnesses, the Protestants simply copied the Catholics. The Latin Vulgate reads: “For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman and the other by a free woman.” So the KJV wrote: “For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.”

Paul’s case against the Torah hinges upon the faulty notion that the conversation Yahowah enjoyed with Abraham at the initiation of the Covenant was completely different than the Towrah’s commemoration of it, creating a contrived distinction between the promises God discussed, none of which Paul has bothered to convey, and the occasion of Yahowah asking Moseh to write them down so that the terms and benefits of His Covenant could be known to everyone (except to Paul and those he misled).

After foisting this lie, Paul reinforces it before returning to his central ploy. His religion would be based upon a promise God never made and Paul never explained. Therefore, Christianity is based on a fable wholly disassociated with Yahowah and His Towrah. Beyond this, to posture his new religious covenant, Paul would play Allah and pervert the life of a central character in Yahowah’s story. In this version of Replacement Foolology, rather than having ‘Abraham walk away from the babel | confusing intermixing of religion and politics to engage in a relationship with Yahowah, Christians would walk away from a relationship with Yahowah to become religious and confused babel | with the Lord.

Continuing to press his case, Paul was evidently learning to write while learning to lie. So, while I recognize that this statement lacks fluidity, it isn’t my fault. Consider the Nestle-Aland’s Interlinear: “But the indeed from the servant girl by flesh has been born the but from the free by promise.”

Removing the extraneous words, and reporting those found in the oldest manuscript more accurately, Sha’uwl wrote...

“Certainly (alla – nevertheless and to the contrary) [this affirmation (o men – the indeed; not extant in P46)] from (ek) the slave girl (tes paidiske) according to (kata – by) flesh (sarkos – physical human body and nature) has been born (gennao – has been procreated and given birth), [but that (o de – then this; not found in P46)] from (ek) the free and unbound (tes eleutheros – the freeborn person, independent, and exempt) by way of (dia – through) a proclaimed promise (epaggelia – verbal announcement and agreement).” (Galatians 4:23)

Both boys were conceived and born the same way, only by way of different mothers. Although to be fair, it took a miracle for Sarah to conceive and bear a healthy child at 90 years of age. It is even true that both children were circumcised (albeit only Yitschaq experienced it in accordance with the Torah’s instructions).

None of that mattered to Paul because his goal was to demonstrate that if you are Torah observant, then you are a slave. Whereas if you believe Paul, you are instantly saved.

It is instructive to know that, while most lexicons include “promise” among epanggelia’s definitions, the word’s etymology suggests that this rendering is a legacy of Paul’s argument. In the general sense, the noun epaggelia means “announcement.” It was primarily used as a legal term in ancient Greece and denoted a “summons.” Not surprisingly, it is derived from the verb, epaggello, which means “to announce a summons.”

Epaggelia is a compound of epi, meaning “upon, by, and before,” and aggelos “messenger.” So in our attempt to be accurate, according to our fledgling writer, the freeborn child was literally “by messenger,” and figuratively “by summons or announcement.”

Ever the clever one, Paul’s ploy was designed to kill two birds with a single stone. By labeling the conception of Ishmael through Hagar as “of the flesh” and Yitschaq through Sarah (albeit neither were named) “by way of a proclaimed promise,” Sha’uwl deployed a false premise and Gnostic argument to disregard the Towrah while demeaning it. His deliberate deception reinforced his view that the Torah enslaved while at the same time denouncing it as being of the flesh, and thus corruptible. This would then lead to him condemning circumcision, which was also of the flesh. So while this is nothing more than a string of half-truths, outright lies, and fallacious arguments, to Paul’s credit, they are woven together in a clever way.

Therefore, as is the case with all effective deceptions, just enough of this statement was accurate to give Paul’s ploy a veneer of credibility, making the ruse sufficiently beguiling to conceive a new religion. In reality, Sarah’s solution to God’s announcement was to provide a surrogate mother – something even more common in her day than it is now. But since Yahowah’s Covenant is based upon the importance of conceiving a loving family, the human remedy (which was to use a slave as a surrogate) was not acceptable. The Covenant (which is a mutual vow to a family relationship) would, therefore, be conceived in a manner consistent with God’s plan, not with man’s modality.

Paul’s Christian troubadours scribed the following in support of the false prophet’s scheme. The Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate promotes: “But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh: but he of the free woman was by promise.” So then the Protestant Authorized King James Version published: “But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.”

The NLT’s recasting of Paul’s statement is inaccurate with regard to the Torah (Hagar was not Abraham’s wife), and also inconsistent with the Greek text of the epistle. “The son of the slave wife was born in a human attempt to bring about the fulfillment of God’s promise. But the son of the freeborn wife was born as God’s own fulfillment of his promise.”

Being accurate here is actually a big deal because the Covenant is the most important thing in the universe to Yahowah. Further, the original announcement of the Covenant agreement made with Abraham is found in but one place: the Towrah – which is the foundation of God’s Word. And even today, it serves as Yahowah’s invitation to us, one where we are afforded the opportunity to choose to appear before God as His children rather than appear before Him as our Judge.

Now that Sha’uwl has laid the cornerstone of his faith upon the shifting and desolate sands of deceit, he is set to erect the most beguiling straw man in human history. And since I am very uncomfortable with (read revolted by) Paul’s next statement, let’s approach the edifice of his religion by way of the Nestle-Aland’s scholastic rendering of the text through the McReynolds Interlinear: “Which is being allegorized these for are two agreements one indeed from hill Sinai to slavery giving birth who is Hagar.”

Before I comment, I’d like you to contemplate the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Evangelical portraits of Christianity’s straw man. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, compiled on the authority of his pope, reads: “Which things are said by an allegory. For these are the two testaments. The one from Mount Sina, engendering unto bondage, which is Agar.” Sir Francis Bacon’s political enterprise on behalf of King James published: “Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.” And the Evangelical paraphrase, mislabeled the New Living Translation, in keeping with 2 Timothy 4:3, authored the following to tickle the ears of their target market: “These two women serve as an illustration of God’s two covenants. The first woman, Hagar, represents Mount Sinai where people received the law that enslaved them.”

Now here is a more literal and complete translation of Sha’uwl’s Greek text for your consideration:

“Whatever (hostis – whoever or anything that) is being (eimi) spoken of allegorically (allegoreo – a form of speech which should be taken figuratively, an illustrated discussion in which a comparison, illustration, or metaphor are used), these (autos) then (gar) exist as (eimi) two (duo) covenants or testaments (diatheke – dispositions or promised agreements between parties which settle affairs and facilitate inheritances through a will), one (heis) indeed (men – surely and by way of affirmation and concession) from (apo) Mount (oros) Sinai (Sina – a transliteration of the Hebrew Synay) into (eis – to) subservience, slavery, and bondage (douleia), giving birth to (gennao) whoever (hostis) exists as (eimi) Hagar (Agar – transliteration of the Hebrew Hagar, from hagah, meaning to moan).” (Galatians 4:24)

In context, the Father of Lies scribed:

“Speak to me those proposing to exist under the control of Towrah: can’t you hear the Towrah? (Galatians 4:21)

For indeed because it has been written that Abram had two sons, one from the slave girl and one from the free and unbound. (Galatians 4:22)

Certainly, from the slave girl according to flesh has been born, while from the free by way of a promise. (Galatians 4:23)

Whatever is being spoken of allegorically, these then exist as two covenants or testaments, one indeed from Mount Sinai into subservience, slavery, and bondage, giving birth to whoever exists as Hagar.” (Galatians 4:24)

As I read these words, my hands are paralyzed above the keyboard. I am saddened and revolted. My stomach churns, my heart breaks, and my head is bowed in shame. How is it possible that the world’s largest religion was erected upon something so obviously false? Why wasn’t this letter discarded as rhetorical rubbish? Why did anyone believe Paul?

Unlike his previous statements, this is neither a credible counterfeit nor a plausible ploy. It is an outright lie – the kind of thing which only fools fools, hoodwinking the ignorant or irrational.

Paul has postured a deception that pierces the heart of God. He has crossed the point of no return and taken Christians back into the wilderness to die. Nothing ever written has been as demonic or deadly.

There is only one covenant, not two. The Hebrew word beryth upon which the Familial Covenant Relationship is based is never plural. It was established between Yahowah, Abraham and Sarah, and then affirmed with Yitschaq and Ya’aqob after them. Ishmael (who was freed, incidentally) was expressly excluded from the Covenant, and was banished from the Promised Land, as was his mother (who was also freed).

This singular Covenant begat the Children of Yisra’el. It led to the liberation of the Chosen People during the Exodus. Yahowah’s one and only Covenant was memorialized in the Towrah on Mount Sinai and serves as the foundation of God’s Word.

There is no association between Hagar and the revelation of the Torah on Mount Sinai, or between the Covenant memorialized in the Torah, and being placed into bondage. So what Paul has done by speaking of the Covenant in these terms, by referencing bondage, and by dropping the names Sinai and Hagar, is wrap his overt lie in a grotesque corruption of the truth, making it particularly insidious. And in so doing, he established the model Muhammad, Satan’s second most effective messenger, would follow. Both religions were founded upon tormented caricatures of Abraham, at the exclusion of the Torah, Yahowah, and the truth.

Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Mormonism have been construed to appear credible by weaving twisted elements of truth through overt distortions of it, thereby making outright lies appear credible to the unsuspecting and unthinking. That is what has occurred here. Shards of this are true, albeit horribly misshapen to suit Satan’s agenda.

The Towrah and Prophets have allegorical elements because Yahowah loves to compose word pictures. There is a Covenant. It was codified on Mount Sinai. And while Hagar and her son were expressly excluded from it, Islam, the Arabic word for “submission,” did emerge from them, leading billions into subservience, slavery, and bondage.

In their rage, today’s Muslims have become the embodiment of Yahowah’s prediction when He said about Ishmael’s descendants: “He shall consistently be (wa huw’ hayah) a wild ass (pere’) of a man (‘adam). His hand (yad huw’) will be against everyone (ba ha kol) and everyone’s hand (wa yad kol) against him (ba huw’). Even in opposition to the presence (wa ‘al paneh) of all of his brothers (kol ‘ach huw’) he will live and remain (shakan).” (Bare’syth / Genesis 16:12)

Unfortunately for billions of souls, the Christian religion was established upon Sha’uwl’s allegory, whereby their “‘Lord Jesus Christ’ died for them on a cross.” It did not matter that the Lord was the Adversary, that no one existed by this name or title, or that God cannot die, because the Torah was now dead and the truth had been slaughtered, replaced by Paul’s illusions. Through smoke and mirrors, lots of lying, and a heavy dose of replacement foolology, the purpose and benefits of Dowd’s sacrifice were annulled. For Christians, as a direct result of Paul, it became sufficient to “believe to be saved.” For them, a profession of faith in something that was completely invalid replaced relying upon the witness Yahowah had provided.

But why were so many people fooled by something that was diametrically opposed to that which God had communicated in His Word? After all, it is preposterous to correlate the Covenant promises memorialized on Mount Sinai with Hagar or to suggest that God’s Word enslaves. The Towrah’s codification of the Covenant celebrated Yahowah’s ability to lead His children – all of us – away from religious and political oppression, and to freedom.

As we wrestle with the devastating blunders in Paul’s artifice, let’s consider his selection of words. Allegoreo didn’t need to be translated because the Greek term was transliterated into English. It is from allos, meaning “other or another,” and agoreo, meaning “to address an assembly by speech or in writing.” An allegory is “another way of communicating with people through a story or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning – typically a religious or political one.”

Nonetheless, Paul is saying that no matter what the allegory or word picture God was painting in the Torah’s depiction of Hagar and her banished child, it was irrelevant to the point he, Paul, was now making: which is that there are two covenants, with the one codified with Moseh on Mount Sinai leading to slavery. In other words, Sha’uwl is saying: “Regardless of the intent of Yahowah’s story, my interpretation is all that matters.” Never mind that the Covenant codified with Moseh was written during the Exodus, when Yahowah was leading the Children of Yisra’el, the descendants of Yitschaq, out of the house of slavery.

If you believe Paul, when you die your soul will cease to exist – the consequence of being beguiled by a pathetic lie. If you trust Yahowah and rely upon His promises, you become God’s child and will live forever with Him. But you cannot have it both ways. To believe Paul is to distance yourself from Yahowah. To trust Yahowah is to reject Paul.

The next interesting word is diatheke. In addition to meaning “covenant,” it describes “a testament or will used to transfer property to one’s heirs.” It is from the verb, diatithemai: “to arrange one’s affairs in such a way that by entering into an agreement, a person is assured of inheriting something valuable.” The verb is a compound of dia, “by way of,” and tithemi, “that which is set aside and set in place.”

Thithemi conveys the idea of “having money laid aside to help establish someone,” and as a result, it foreshadows the concept of “redemption.” So there is nothing wrong with the word. The problem is that Paul rendered it in the plural and then he built the deadliest of all straw men upon it.

Should you want to exonerate Paul by suggesting there may have been some confusion between the Sinai Desert, which is now part of Egypt, and Mount Sinai, which is in Arabia, every lexicon at our disposal links the Sinai Peninsula with Mount Sinai. However, Mount Choreb | Horeb, which is the place where Yahowah introduced Himself to Moseh and returned to convey His Towrah to him was on the eastern, not western, shore of the Red Sea, and more specifically, across from Nuweiba on the Gulf of Aqaba. Moreover, Paul ends any doubt that he was speaking of Mount Sinai, not the Sinai Peninsula, again in the next verse.

That is not to say there aren’t two Sinais. There are, and they are not coterminous. The Sinai Peninsula is a desert sandwiched between the two arms of the Red Sea. The Children of Yisra’el crossed this wilderness en route to Mount Sinai, which is on the other side of the Gulf of Aqaba in today’s Saudi Arabia. Hagar, however, was never in one or on the other.

Mount Sinai (more often called Choreb) was the place Yahowah introduced Himself to Moseh, and where He subsequently revealed the Towrah to him following the Exodus. However, Hagar wandered aimlessly toward Shur before Ishmael was born. Shur, we learn from Bare’syth / Genesis 16:7, 20:1, 25:18 and Shemowth / Exodus 15:22, was within walking distance of what is today’s southeastern border of Israel. That places Shur east of Egypt, east of the Sinai Peninsula, and east of the Gulf of Aqaba. Then after Ishmael was born, Hagar and her son were banished into the desert of Paran, which is similarly located.

Rather than associating the wilderness of Sin (a.k.a. the Sinai Peninsula) with Paul’s four references to Sina (two in Galatians and two in Acts), Strong’s Lexicon defines Sina as “a mountain or rather a mountainous region in the Arabian Peninsula made famous by the giving of Mosaic Law.” They are mostly right, which makes Paul completely wrong.

The Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament says of Sina: “the mountain or mountain range in the peninsula of the same name, between Egypt and modern Saudi Arabia.” Unaware that the “peninsula” was and remains part of Egypt today, they would be wrong on both accounts. The Mount Sinai Moseh visited before he entered Egypt, and again after he had left Egypt, was on the eastern side of the Red Sea crossing, and thus not in Egypt but instead on the Arabian Peninsula.

The Complete Word Study Dictionary also exacerbates Paul’s dilemma, saying that Sina refers to “the site of the burning bush.” It is “the name of a peninsula and a mountain range.” In that they go on to associate the location of Mount Sinai within the Sinai Peninsula, they would also be wrong, as there would have been no sea to cross and the Exodus would have stalled in Egypt.

The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament cites Acts 7:38 which digs Paul into a still deeper hole. It reads: “They are the ones who became the called-out assembly in the desert with the messenger speaking to him in the Mount Sinai (Sina) and our fathers who welcomed the living words given to us.”

But we did not need the help of the scholastic tomes to condemn Paul. He hung himself. In his very next statement, he acknowledges that the Sina he is referencing to falsely associate a covenant with Hagar is “Sinai mountain existing in Arabia.” And that is Mount Choreb | Horeb upon which Yahowah revealed His Towrah | Teaching to Moseh.

There is yet another interesting insight into Sinai. Spelled Syny in Hebrew, in the ancient pictographic alphabet, it would have been written –  . Syny | Sinai would have conveyed: “the sign of the open and receptive hand of God reaching down and out to us to conceive children who grow by going to where God’s hand leads.”

Also interesting, considering Hebrew grammar, the Yowd  at the conclusion of Syny would read as “My” or “I.” Therefore, Syny |   means Sign I Handed to My Children.

There is no doubt Paul proposed two covenants and God has said there is only one. Paul wrote that there was a covenant formed with Hagar, and God has said that His Covenant was formed with Abraham and Sarah. Further, Paul has said that the covenant codified on Mount Sinai enslaves us while God has demonstrated that it liberates. Therefore, since there is an irreconcilable divide between Paul and Yahowah, one of the two must be wrong.

Beyond the stark contrast between God and this man, ponder the preposterous notion of using the Towrah’s central story to advance a doctrine designed to destroy the credibility of that same Towrah. And yet, since the Towrah is the only place that Abraham, Sarah, and the Covenant are known, that is exactly what Paul has done.

Since I am stating categorically, not allegorically, that Paul, the mother of the Christian Church, is lying, and that his thesis is in direct opposition to God, let’s consider Yahowah’s side of this story. He was opposed to establishing a Covenant relationship with Hagar’s son: “Then Abraham said to God, ‘What about Ishmael? Could he exist in your presence?” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:18) “God said, ‘Absolutely not.’” (Bare’syth / Genesis 17:19) There would be no covenant of any kind with “the son of the slave woman.” Sorry, Paul. To quote Yahowah, “Absolutely not.”

The Covenant is singular and eternal. It was affirmed with ‘Yitschaq as opposed to Ishmael: “Sarah, your wife, shall have a child, bearing your son, and you shall call his name: ‘Yitschaq.’ I will stand up and establish My Covenant Relationship with him as an eternal and everlasting family relationship with his offspring after him.” (Bare’syth / Genesis 17:19) Yahowah’s Word and Paul’s letter are irreconcilable, as are those who place their faith in Paul’s lies.

In direct opposition to Paul’s claim that “indeed from Mount Sinai into slavery,” on Mount Sinai, and in His own hand, Yahowah wrote: “I am Yahowah, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 20:2)

The following statement, also from the Towrah, obliterates the notion that Paul had a poetic license to delete portions of Yahowah’s Guidance he did not like, or add his own commandments: “With all the words (dabar – communications and statements) which, for the benefit of the relationship, I provide as Instructions for you (tsawah ‘eth – provide by way of direction to you), closely observe and carefully consider them (shamar – focus upon them). Do not add (yasap – make any increase or addition) to them and do not decrease or reduce them (gara’ – subtract from them).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 12:32)

As for Paul’s assertion that the Torah had a limited shelf life, Yahowah inspired Yasha’yah / Isaiah to write: “This dwelling place (chasyr – the abode), he will be gone for a while (yabesh – he will temporarily dry up (qal perfect)), the blossoming and gleaming flower (tsyts – the beautifully adorned and sparkling bud), he will be treated with contempt at this moment (nabel – he will be temporarily disrespected and disdained (qal perfect)) because, truly (ky), the Spirit (ruwach) of Yahowah (Yahowah), She blows like the wind, dispersing and driving away forcefully through him (nashab ba huw’ – She moves within him and out of him like the wind at this time (qal perfect)).

Insightfully (‘aken – truthfully, as a means to reveal causation), the abode (chatsyr – the dwelling place) is of the family (ha ‘am), (Yasha’yah 40:7) because the Word (wa dabar) of our God (‘elohy ‘anachnuw) stands (quwm – is established and confirmed) forever (la ‘owlam – eternally and forevermore).” (Yasha’yah / Salvation is from Yah / Isaiah 40:8)

The unchanging nature of God and His Covenant promises will be honored (which is to say they have been and will continue to be fulfilled, even in our future): “Because I, Yahowah, have not changed, you, the children of Ya’aqob | Yisra’el, will not perish or be destroyed.” (Mal’aky / Messenger / Malachi 3:6)

Why do Christians believe Paul’s anti-Torah rhetoric when his statements are diametrically opposed to the Sermon on the Mount?

“You should not think or assume (me nomizomai – you do not consider, expect, or suppose at any time even the possibility of the commonly held or popularly established presumption, never accepting the prevailing precept or justification (negative particle, aorist active subjunctive verb)) that (hoti – namely) I actually came (erchomai – I in fact appeared then, now, or in the future (aorist active indicative)) to tear down, invalidate, put an end to, or discard (kataluo – to dissolve, destroy, disunite, subvert, overthrow, abrogate, weaken, dismantle, or abolish, releasing or dismissing any of the implications, influence, or validity of) the Towrah (ton nomon – that which has been assigned to nourish and provide an inheritance) or the Prophets (e tous prophetes – those who are inspired to speak and write based upon divine inspiration, making God’s thoughts and plans known even before they happen).

I actually came not (ouk erchomai) to create a division, to dismiss, to invalidate, or to discard (kataluo – to tear down, to dissolve, to destroy, to disunite, to subvert, to overthrow, to abrogate, to weaken, to dismantle, or to abolish, dismissing any implication or its influence) but, instead (alla – to the contrary, emphatically contrasting that to the certainty), to completely fulfill (pleroo – to proclaim and complete, conveying the true meaning and thinking, to liberally supply, carrying out, accomplishing, and rendering it totally and perfectly). (Matthew 5:17)

For this reason (gar – because then so that you understand) in deed and in truth (amen – truly and reliably), I say to you (lego sy), until (hoes – up to the point that) with absolute certainty (an) the heaven and the earth (o ouranos e ge – the universe and the surface of the planet) cease to exist (parerchomai – pass away, disappearing), not ever under any circumstance shall (ou me – there is no way whatsoever, not even so much as a possibility that) one aspect of the smallest letter (eis iota – shall a single Yowd, the first letter in Yahowah’s name and the smallest character in the Hebrew alphabet) nor (e) a single stroke of the pen (mia keraia – one of the smallest lines distinguishing any aspect of any Hebrew letter) cease to be relevant (parerchomai – be averted or neglected, have any chance of being ignored or disregarded, being passed over or omitted, perishing) from (apo – being disassociated, separated, or severed from) the Towrah (tou nomou – that which has been assigned to nourish and provide an inheritance) until with absolute certainty (hoes an) everything (pas – every last aspect, all and the totality of it) might take place (ginomai – happens and occurs, becoming a reality). (Matthew 5:18)

Therefore (oun – indeed and as a result), whoever may at any time (hos ean – if at any moment anyone introduces a contingency or condition whereby individuals) dismiss or attempt to do away with (luo – may seek to toss aside, invalidate, or abolish, tearing away or asunder) one of the (mian ton) smallest and least important of these (houtos ton elachistos) prescriptions and instructions which are enjoined (entole – rules, regulations, and authorized directions, precepts, and teachings), or (kai) he may espouse and indoctrinate (didasko – he might teach, delivering moralizing discourses while conceiving and instilling doctrine, expounding or explaining so as to enjoin) mankind (anthropos – humanity) in this manner (houto – thusly and likewise), he will be afforded the name and will be judicially summoned as (kaleo – he will be referred to and called by the proper name, literally and passively summoned, called to task and designated) Lowly and Little (elachistos – Paulos in Latin, meaning: small and inadequate, insignificant and insufficient, irrelevant and unimportant, immaterial and inconsequential (Paulos, the Latin name Sha’uwl adopted as his own means elachistos – little and lowly)) by the kingdom of heaven (en te basileia ton ouranos – by, within, among, and with regard to the reign and royal authority of the heavens).

And then (de – but by contrast), whosoever (hos an) might act upon it (addressing the Towrah (poieomai – may engage through the Towrah, making the most of it, attempting to carry out its assigned tasks (aorist active subjunctive))) and (kai) teach it (didasko – try to provide and share the Towrah’s instructions, expounding upon its guidance), this (houtos – these things) will properly be referred to and called (kaleo – it will be judiciously and appropriately designated) great and important (megas – astonishingly valuable, splendid and sensible, albeit surprisingly uncommon) among those who reign within the heavens (en te basileia ton ouranos – by and with regard to the kingdom and royal authority of the heavens).” (Matthew 5:19) This statement regarding the Towrah is the antithesis of what Paul wrote throughout his letter to the Galatians.

The Instruction on the Mount concludes with this announcement regarding the connection between the Towrah and life…

“If (ei – introducing a condition which must occur or be met before the resulting event can be manifest), therefore (oun), you all (umeis) presently and actively being (ontes – currently existing and in the process of being (present active participle)) troublesome and morally corrupt (poneros – seriously flawed, evil and annoying, blind and diseased) have in the past been familiar with and have actually known how (oida – have perceived and have shown that you are genuinely aware of, having recognized how (perfect (a completed action in the past) active indicative)) to give (didomi – to provide) good and beneficial (agathos – moral, generous, and useful) gifts (doma – presents) to your children (tois umon teknon – to your descendants and offspring), how much more by contrast will (posos mallon) your Father (o umon pater), the One in the Heavens (o en tois ouranos), actually give (didomi – personally respond to reliably produce, grant, and bestow (future active indicative)) something good, moral, generous, and beneficial (agathos – that which is upright and worthy, capable and substantial, valuable and kind) to those asking Him (tois aiteo auton – actively responding to Him making a request of Him (present active participle))?

Anything (pas – everything), therefore (oun – then), to the degree or extent (ean hosos – whenever and as far as) you might want or may enjoy (thelo – you might decide or presently desire, you may propose or be of the opinion or currently think something might be so, perhaps personally being fond of or taking pleasure in your will, your intent and your purpose (present active subjunctive)) as a result of (hina – that) men being human (oi anthropos – individuals representing mankind and humankind (nominative plural)) doing to you (poieo umin – actively attempting to assign these things with regard to you (present active subjunctive dative)), also (kai) in this way (houto – likewise in this manner, thusly) you (umeis) should choose to actively do to them (poieomai autois – you may elect to perform and behave unto them (present active imperative)).

This (houtos) then (gar – for this reason) presently is (estin – exists as) the Towrah (o nomos – Torah teaching, guidance, direction, and instruction, becoming the means to being nourished by that which is bestowed to become heirs, existing as the precepts which were apportioned, established, and received as a means to prosper and to be approved, and prescriptions for an inheritance; translated using nemo – that which is provided, assigned, and distributed to heirs to nourish them (nominative)) and the Prophets (kai oi prophetes) under the auspices of freewill, you all should choose at some point in time to enter, personally engaging by moving (eiserchomai – at a moment in time you ought to want to personally act by electing to go in, beginning the journey by choosing to experience (aorist active imperative)) through (dia – by way of and on account of) the narrow, specific, seldom-tread, and exacting door (tes stenos pule – the doorway with known requirements which is restrictive, the passageway which is unpopular and seldom walked, an infrequently-trodden gateway (note: stenos is based upon histemi which provides the concluding insights)) because (hoti – for the reason that namely) broad, manmade, and crafted to be wide open (platys – molded, malleable, plastic, and easily crafted and plied, a wide and artificial thoroughfare; from plasso – formed and molded by man, serving as the basis of plastic) is the door (pule – is the gate) and spacious (eurychoros – as encompassing as nations, widely regional, and broadly societal; sharing a base with eusebeia – especially religious, speaking of belief systems and their devout and pious practices) is the way (e hodos – is the path and journey, the popular way through life, the well-traveled road and route, the common course of conduct) which misleads and separates (e apago – that takes away, leading through deception; from ago – directs, leads, and guides to apo – separation) into (eis) utter destruction (apoleia – needlessly squandering and ruining the valuable resource of one’s existence, causing it to perish; from apollumi – to be put entirely out of the way, to be rendered useless and to be abolished, coming to an end and ceasing to exist), and a great many (kai polys – the vast preponderance, an enormous number, and to a very great degree, serving as a superlative of great, many, much, and a large number) are those (eisin – are actually the ones (present active indicative)) who are influenced into moving while suffering the consequences of entering (oi eiserchomai – who as a result of being acted upon are affected by taking the first step toward and then going in, manipulated in the process of beginning a journey while experiencing the effect of going out (present middle passive participle nominative)) through it (dia autos – by way of it).

Certainly (tis – it is certain that), the appropriate doorway has specific requirements, it is narrow, seldom tread, and it is an exacting passageway (e stenos pule – the doorway is highly restrictive, the passageway is unpopular and infrequently walked whereby a stand is taken to enable others to stand, to be firmly established, and to be upheld), and it goes against the crowd to the point of being exceedingly unpopular (kai thlibomai – it is so totally shunned to the point of being rebuked (perfect passive participle nominative)), the one way (e e hodos – the specific journey through life, the singular route and the path) which leads, separating those guided (apago) unto (eis) life (zoe – vigorous and flourishing living, the fullness of a restored and active existence), but (kai) very few (oligos – an extremely small quantity over a very short time) are those (eisin o – exist the ones) finding it (heuriskomai autos – presently learning and actively discovering the location of it, themselves experiencing it).” (Matthew 7:11-14)

According to the pronouncements found throughout the Sermon on the Mount, the Towrah provides a seldom-tread doorway to life while man’s popular ways lead to death. This declaration, also found in the Gospels, echoes the same message…

“He said to them, ‘These are my words which I spoke to you while I was with you, because it is necessary to completely fulfill everything that is written in the Towrah of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms about me.’

Then he opened their minds so that they would be intelligent and have the capacity to understand what had been written.

He told them, ‘Because, in this way, it is written that the Implement of Yah must undergo and experience suffering and be enabled to arise from being separated on the third day.

And it should be announced publicly in Yahowah’s name, ‘Change your perspective, attitude, and thinking to be forgiven and pardoned for wandering from the path and missing your inheritance,’ to all nations, races, and places, commencing from Yaruwshalaim. You are witnesses to this.

And behold, I have prepared and sent you off as Apostles to convey the message of My Father’s announced and promised agreement.

But now, you remain in the city until you are clothed in power and ability from above.’” (Luke 24:44-49)

In direct opposition to Paul, Dowd (who most know as David) wrote the following lyrics for a Song to proclaim the value of the Towrah:

“Day unto day pours out answers, and night unto night reveals knowledge which leads to understanding.

Nothing exists without the Word. There is nothing of value when and where the spoken and written message of the voice which calls out is corrupted or negated, becoming unimportant and not heard.” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:2-3)

And as we know, he also affirmed…

“Yahowah’s Towrah is wholly complete and entirely perfect, returning, restoring, and transforming the soul. Yahowah’s eternal witness and restoring testimony is trustworthy and reliable, making understanding and obtaining wisdom simple for the receptive.” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:7)

This is the antithesis of everything Paul has written. If only Christians would compare this passage to Paul’s epistles, they would reject everything he wrote in favor of what God revealed.

But Dowd | David was not finished affirming what Paul attempted to belittle…

“Yahowah’s directions for living are right, causing the heart to rejoice. Yahowah’s terms and conditions are morally pure, shining a light toward understanding.” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:8)

Dowd did not find the Towrah to be an unbearable burden as Paul has alleged. Since Dowd is right (tsadaq – correct according to Yahowah), the basis of Paul’s manifesto is wrong.

This speaks of God’s purpose, which is to form a relationship with us, and of His promise, which is to make such a thing possible and enduring. To accomplish this, God must make us acceptable…

“Revering and respecting Yahowah is cleansing and restoring, sustaining and establishing forever. The just means to execute good judgment and resolve disputes of Yahowah are trustworthy and reliable, enduring and dependable. They are wholly vindicating, making the recipient right.” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:9)

So much for Paul’s notion that God’s Towrah never justifies and always enslaves. Dowd | David is the central figure in God’s story. He is the Messiah, Son of God, King, and Shepherd, a prophet as well as our Savior, while Sha’uwl / Paul, as the Father of Lies, Plague of Death, and Son of Evil is a blithering idiot. This is not a difficult choice.

The man Yahowah announced was “tsadaq – correct” wrote…

“Moreover, your coworker is admonished and enlightened, being taught by them. And in carefully observing them, there is a great benefit and reward.” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:11)

This was and remains the purpose of the Towrah. It’s our Maker’s Operating Manual, telling us through words how to get the most out of this life and make it to the next. Those who carefully observe what our Heavenly Father had to say will be rewarded because they will become His children and inherit the universe.

This, the most debilitating crime, became Sha’uwl’s Achilles heel…

“Also, keep your coworker away from arrogance, not letting this rule over me. Then I will be completely prepared and blameless, ready for action, upright, and lacking nothing, and I will be considered innocent, distanced from the great transgression of rebellion.” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:13)

Since God is right, Paul was wrong. Observing the Towrah is the source of wisdom, renewal, joy, enlightenment, being eternally established in Yahowah’s presence, being considered right and vindicated, in addition to providing a great reward. While we should be exceedingly grateful, exuberant in our enthusiasm, and confident in our disposition, there is no reason for arrogance because we are reliant on Yahowah, not ourselves. If we are self-directed or self-important, then we are not in a position to rely upon Yahowah’s provision and are in no position to speak for Him. In this light, it is especially worth noting that Dowd | David listed “rebellion” as “the great transgression,” something Paul should have considered before he spoke so defiantly against God.

Dowd’s closing line is particularly inspiring...

“Let the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart be acceptable and pleasing in your presence, Yahowah, my Rock and my Redeemer.” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:14)

The means to this wonderous outcome is by observing the Towrah | Guidance of Yahowah – the very thing Paul told his believers to avoid like the plague.

Since Sha’uwl’s / Paul’s message and Dowd’s are diametrically opposed, there is but one informed and rational conclusion: Paul lied. He was a false prophet. While the issue of whether or not Yahowah can be trusted is life and death to all of us, and is easily answered, it is irrelevant to Paul’s veracity because he claimed to speak for the God he contradicted.

This is the end of the line for Sha’uwl. The Father of Deception has proven beyond any doubt that he was the Devil’s Advocate. There is not a snowflake’s chance in She’owl that Sha’uwl spoke for God. His epistle was not inspired and thus is not “Scripture.” The Son of Evil was a complete and utter fraud.

Had Paul not repeatedly made the presumptuous claim that he was speaking for God as His authorized apostle to the world, had Paul not claimed that he could not lie, had he not said that his preaching saved those who believed him, or that the faithful were his children and should follow his example, then his errant statements would have been no different than thousands of other misguided religious advocates. But he made these claims. And as a result, Paul’s lifeless deceptions were placed in the heart of the New Testament canonized by the faith he conceived. The consequence of his arrogance has been catastrophic.

When considering this comparison, it should be noted that Yahowah used precisely fulfilled prophecy, brilliantly conceived imagery, a masterfully designed plan, and a consistent, multi-faceted, intertwined message, along with the creation of the universe and the conception of life, to prove beyond any doubt that His Word could be trusted. But Paul could neither write intelligently nor credibly recount his own personal history. This contest has not been David versus Goliath; it has been a speck of dust against the Creator and His universe. So why is it then that nearly two billion Christians believe Paul over Yahowah?

Christians have been deceived by a psychotic man. They are, however, responsible for their own predicament. A person must be tragically ignorant and hopelessly irrational to believe anything Paul has written. He is the scum of the earth. And yet it is likely Paul’s faith that has incapacitated believers, such that they no longer think that the truth matters.



Twistianity

Devil’s Advocate

…Plague of Death

8

Eremos | Forsaken

Birth Pangs…

We will continue to plod our way through Paul’s letter, recognizing that he was a mean-spirited, mentally incapacitated, and demon-possessed egomaniac suffering severe psychosis writing on his own recognizance. There will be no pretense of Galatians representing the inspired word of God or of Paul conveying anything worthwhile. Should we find Paul falling out of character and affirming something which is accurate, should that ever occur, I will acknowledge it, while continuing to expose and condemn his ongoing avalanche of lies, recognizing that the cost of his delusions can be counted in the billions of human souls.

Sha’uwl’s next lie was his boldest and most absurd, but it was not without result. He would impose blunt force trauma on the Towrah…

“So now (de – but) Hagar (Agar) exists as (to estin – is) Mount (oros) Sinai (Sina) in (en) Arabia (te Arabia – a transliteration of the Hebrew ‘Arab), therefore (de), corresponding to (sustoicheo – stands in parallel with, is aligned with, and resembles) the present (te nun) Yaruwshalaim (Ierousalem – a transliteration of the Hebrew Yaruwshalaim, meaning source from which guidance regarding reconciliation flow).

She is enslaved (douleuo – she is subjected to slavery) because of (gar) being associated with (meta – among) the children (ton teknon – the sons and daughters) of her (autes – third person singular feminine and thus referring to Hagar).” (Galatians 4:25)

The audacity of the Adversary to advance this cavalcade of blasphemy against the centerpiece of the Towrah – the Covenant between Yahowah and ‘Abraham – is without moral or rational restraint. There are no depths beyond which Paul and Satan will not plunge.

Their fallacious argument against life was a hideous straw man. Its premise, that “Hagar exists as Mount Sinai,” was not only invalid, it couldn’t be further from the truth. This reversal of reality was as obvious as it was deliberately deceitful.

I have said it before, but it bears repeating: If someone has to lie to make their point, they don’t have one. Such is the nature of Paul, the New Testament, and Christianity.

As for Hagar, she was never associated with Sinai, the formation of the Covenant, or the revelation of the Towrah. She was banished from the Promised Land and her son was excluded from the Covenant. By the time the Towrah was inscribed, she had been dead for over five hundred years.

And since Paul would have known what I’m sharing with you, by saying otherwise, his deception was deliberate. And that makes Christianity a premeditated fraud.

Paul’s proposition is delusional, not unlike Muhammad saying that David was a Muslim and Allah’s prophet. If there were a deceit scale, this would be off the charts.

Not only is there no correlation between Hagar and Sinai, neither corresponds with Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem – past or present – and this is where the Covenant was established. There is no similarity in geography or community. Hagar had been dead for 900 years and Yahowah’s meeting with His people on Sinai occurred 400 years before the city associated with the Covenant was founded by Dowd. One remains isolated and uninhabited, and the other is the most contested city on earth. They are as different as Arabia and Israel. He may as well have said that Rome was the new Jerusalem.

Further, at the time of Paul’s writing, Jerusalem was not enslaved. The city was under Roman control, not Hagar’s descendants through Ishmael. And it would be another 600 years before his ultimate descendants, Muslims, would raid the world, claiming Jerusalem as their prize. There was, therefore, no correlation between Hagar’s children and Yaruwshalaim, much less enslavement.

Paul hated Jerusalem for all of the reasons Yahowah loves it. It was the home of God’s favorite son, the site of His Temple, the capital of His people, and the place where the Beryth was confirmed and the Miqra’ey fulfilled. Paul despised one and all. And in addition, Jerusalem was where he had been rebuked by the disciples.

The name Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem means “Source from which Teaching and Guidance Regarding Reconciliation Flow.” It is the city of God – His Home on Earth, as it is known as the city of His Son, Dowd. Outside of what occurred in Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem during Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children, there is no means to eternal life, to being perfected by God, to becoming part of Yah’s Covenant family, or to being enriched and empowered by the relationship. Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem is the antithesis of what Paul writes of her.

While Hagar was one of many slaves belonging to Abraham and Sarah, she was set free at Sarah’s direction, with Abraham’s support, with Yahowah’s encouragement, and a mal’ak | spiritual messenger providing lifesaving direction along the way. While she plays no role in the formation of the Covenant, her life’s trajectory was from slavery to freedom, not the other way around.

Based on what the Towrah reveals of Hagar, she had only one son, not children. And her son, Yshma’‘el | Ishmael was excluded from the Covenant. Not only did Paul get all of this wrong, and deliberately so, his progression goes from bad to worse.

What a surprise it is going to be for all of those who have led Bible Studies over the ages to see their favorite saint sentenced to an eternity in She’owl | Hell. He writes…

“Speak to me those proposing to exist under the control of the Towrah: can’t you hear what the Towrah is saying? (Galatians 4:21)

For it has been written that Abram had two sons, one from the slave girl and one from the free. (Galatians 4:22)

Certainly, from the slave girl have been born those according to flesh. From the free, by way of a promise. (Galatians 4:23)

Whatever is being spoken of allegorically, these then exist as two covenants – two testaments – one from Mount Sinai into subservience, slavery, and bondage, giving birth to whoever exists as Hagar. (Galatians 4:24)

Accordingly, now Hagar exists as Mount Sinai in Arabia, therefore corresponding to the present Yaruwshalaim. She is enslaved because of being associated with her children.” (Galatians 4:25)

One thing is certain. Paul is deliberately trying to mislead believers and antagonize God. He could not have gotten so many things wrong by just being stupid. And there is a meaningful difference between listening to the village idiot ramble on about the sky falling and believing a con artist demeaning God while stealing souls.

In addition to everything else, Sha’uwl has perverted the concept of observing the Towrah, which is from shamar and means “to closely examine and carefully consider its Teaching and Guidance.” He is attempting to rob God’s word of its validity and ability to enlighten, enrich, empower, and emancipate. He is attacking the most brilliantly worded book ever written with the dumbest letters ever penned.

In pathetic fashion, Paul is propping up the flimsiest of straw men. First, he is contriving an artificial distinction between the birth of Ishmael “being of the flesh” and causing others to be “enslaved.” Yitschaq was the child of “promise,” but not Paul’s promise. His birth was a result of Yahowah performing a miracle.

Second, Paul was also errantly associating the Towrah’s Covenant with Mount Sinai. But that’s utter nonsense because Abraham never went near the place. In fact, associating the events that led to the Covenant with Mount Sinai is like saying that Noah sailed around the mountain in Arabia rather than Arafat because Moseh was standing upon Sinai when Yahowah explained the history of the flood to him. This is an exceedingly ignorant ploy.

Nevertheless, the Devil’s Advocate was so desperate, or insane, he based his “two-covenant” theory, with the original Covenant enslaving and his replacement saving, on an obvious fabrication – with a delusion propped up by an outright deception. However, the consequence is catastrophic because, without this myth, there is no basis for the New Testament, no place for Paul, and no hope for Christians.

This moronic diatribe is one of only two justifications for a New Testament and it is even less credible than the other, Yirma’yah / Jeremiah 31. Paul was hanging out on a broken branch. He knew that there was no truth to what he was claiming, but he also knew that his Greek and Roman audience wouldn’t know any better and that he could play them for fools. And that is not only what he did, it worked.

However, to play this ploy, Paul was going to war against Yahowah. With these words, he became the Adversary and indistinguishable from Satan. There would be no turning back, no way of avoiding Hell. The corporeal manifestation of Satan would have the faithful believe that everything associated with Yahowah – His Towrah, Beryth, Miqra’ey, Mountain, City, and Son, even His Children were enslaving – a journey from freedom in Egypt to being enslaved in the Promised Land. Moseh, the Great Liberator, was now an enduring oppressor. The Ten Statements etched in stone would need an eraser.

The Towrah in which all of these stories were told had it all wrong according to Paul. But if that is so, why did Paul claim that the same God inspired him? Why did he turn to the Towrah to validate his positions if the Towrah was invalid? And yet, it is upon this irrational footing that the Christian religion was conceived and endures. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

Paul has taken believers back to the dark and desolate wilderness of lifelessness and ignorance. Everything is inverted and backward.

Sustoicheo is the most intriguing word in this rant. Translated as “corresponding to,” it is from sun, meaning “with and together,” and stoicheo, “proceeding to march like soldiers in a row, to walk, and to direct one’s life.” It literally conveys “to be in a series with, to be in the same row or rank, and to stand in the same line.” Figuratively, sustoicheo is “used in logical discussions of things which have distinctive features which fit in the same category,” and thus it means “to correspond.”

Therefore, in the context of an allegory, the “corresponds” rendering seems the most appropriate. And that means that Paul is associating Hagar, the Covenant memorialized in the Torah on Mount Sinai, and Jerusalem with slavery when there is no connection between Hagar and the Covenant or the Towrah with being enslaved. But Paul never let the truth get in his way. In fact, the reason that Sha’uwl was opposed “to the present Yaruwshalaim” is obvious: he was rebuked there for his opposition to circumcision.

I would be remiss if I did not remind you that sustoicheo is related to stoicheion, which Sha’uwl used in Galatians 4:3 to demean the Torah, saying: “And also, in this way, it follows that when we were infants, under the elementary teachings and rudimentary principles of religious mythology, we were subservient slaves.”

He deployed stoicheion again six statements later, this time in context with “douleuein – to be controlled as a slave,” to further demean the Torah when he wrote:

“Certainly, on the other hand, not having known or acknowledged god, you were enslaved to nature, not existing as gods. (Galatians 4:8) But now having known god, but what’s more, having been known under god, how have you returned, changing your beliefs back upon the incapacitating and incompetent, the worthless, belittling, and terrifying elementary teachings and rudimentary principles of religious mythology representing the inadequate, simplistic, and improperly formed the first step which is backward again and again. You are choosing to be controlled as a slave (Galatians 4:9) by observing and attending to days, and months, and seasons, and years.” (Galatians 4:10)

It was during our review of these Galatians statements that we discovered that stoicheo conveyed a host of derogatory connotations, from “demonic supernatural powers or spirits” to “that which is basic, improperly formed, underdeveloped, and simplistic.” Something which is stoicheo is “initial, rudimentary and natural and thus associated with the elements which comprised the universe.”

Stocheion suggests that “something’s usefulness has come to an end.” It conveys the idea of “a first step” as well as something which is “primitive, underdeveloped, childish, and worldly.” Because stocheion is indicative of the “command and control aspects of a military regime,” and of “soldiers following orders, and marching in conformity,” it is the antithesis of freewill.

Everything Paul has written here is wrong. There is one Covenant, not two. The Covenant was formed with Abraham and Sarah who gave birth to Yitschaq, and with Ya’aqob after them, not with Hagar or her son Ishmael. They were specifically and demonstrably excluded from the Covenant and banished from the Promised Land.

And then, of course, the only reason their Covenant is known to us is that it was announced and memorialized in the Towrah which was handed down and recited on Mount Sinai / Choreb. Paul’s theory was like claiming that Odysseus actually sailed to China to worship Vishnu after waging war with the Gauls while denouncing Homer’s Odyssey.

The Covenant commemorated emancipation from the integration and influence of religious, political, military, and economic institutions in Babylon. Its story unfolds with two people on the way out of Babel and into the Promised land and concludes on Mount Mowryah | Moriah in Yaruwshalaim in 1968 BCE. By contrast, the Exodus from Mitsraym involved more than 600,000 people and transpired five centuries thereafter, with Mount Sinai in Arabia being an early stop along the way.

Each of the Covenant’s promises was enabled by Yahowah when He fulfilled the first four Miqra’ey in Yaruwshalaim – a name that means “the source of teaching and guidance regarding reconciliation.” Curiously, Jerusalem was neither enslaved at the time, nor was it occupied by Hagar’s descendants. Not only was she and her son freed from slavery, the city was not even Towrah-observant at the time of Paul’s writing or since, causing him to be wrong on all accounts.

The common threads which correspond between the Covenant forged with Abraham and Sarah and chronicled in the Towrah which was memorialized on Mount Sinai by Moseh are that all who rely on Yahowah’s Word are liberated from man’s religious schemes and adopted by God. And while both were about leaving human oppression to be emancipated by Yahowah, Paul jumbled the places, timing, and characters to propose the opposite approach. Mount Moriah was replaced by Mount Sinai. A loving Covenant Family was replaced by a cruel Torah. Sarah and Yitschaq were replaced by Hagar and Ishmael. Emancipation became enslavement. This is the evil and dimwitted underbelly of Replacement Foolology.

By saying that Jerusalem was no different than Sinai, Dowd contributes nothing to God’s story. Yaruwshalaim | the Source of Guidance on Reconciliation is now the wilderness in Paul’s twisted mind. Yahowah’s crown jewel and home on Earth is now a coconspirator in the enslavement of humankind. After having pierced Yahowah in the heart, Paul has now poked his finger in God’s eye.

Before we move on, I would like you to consider the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear and other renditions of Paul’s ongoing thesis. “The but Hagar Sinai hill is in the Arabia it lines up together but in the now Jerusalem she is enslaved for with the children of her.” LV: “For Sina is a mountain in Arabia, which hath affinity to that Jerusalem which now is: and is in bondage with her children.” KJV: “For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.” Then the NLT augmented Paul’s words to more accurately convey his blasphemy: “And now Jerusalem is just like Mount Sinai in Arabia, because she and her children live in slavery to the law.”

Based upon this letter, the Christian Church would forever be like Hagar and Ishmael – estranged from the Covenant and banished from the Promised Land.

Paul’s next statement is inaccurate but not as reprehensible. Having nullified the Covenant’s benefits by negating everything Yahowah and His Son, Dowd, accomplished in Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem in 33 CE by fulfilling Pesach | Passover, Matsah | UnYeasted Bread, and Bikuwrym | Firstborn Children, the Plague of Death invented a pretend Jerusalem to go along with his imaginary covenant...

“But (de) the (e) Yaruwshalaim (Ierousalem) above instead (ano – upward and opposite; from anti – in opposition), free and independent (eleutheros – released, unbound, and exempt) is (eimi – exists) who (hostis) is (eimi) our (emon) mother (meter).” (Galatians 4:26)

I wonder if Sha’uwl had one too many hallucinogenic mushrooms and then borrowed Muhammad’s Burāq | Winged Ass to fly up to and check out the mother ship? Just speculation on my part, but how else is one to explain such delirium?

All we know for sure is that Yaruwshalaim was too real for Sha’uwl. It did not fit into his story. So he had to replace it along with Yahowah, Yitschaq and the Covenant, Moseh and the Towrah, Dowd and the Mizmowr and Mashal, and what Father and Son accomplished during Chag Matsah.

Without the Miqra’ey, which were fulfilled in Yaruwshalaim, there is no way to engage in or benefit from the Covenant, foreclosing the possibility of salvation. But no matter. Paul had a replacement for everything. After suffering the birth pangs, he would serve as the Mother of the Faithful. His nest in the “free and independent Jerusalem” would rise above the one Yahowah cherished.

And the duplicity here is not a function of the translation, but instead in the Greek text. Consider the NAMI: “But the up Jerusalem free is who is mother of us.” After a steady diet of deceptions, it would be unreasonable to attempt an interpretation which would make sense of this.

Sha’uwl, and the dark spirit he was serving, came to despise what occurred on Mount Sinai with the revelation of the Towrah, and what occurred in Yaruwshalaim with the fulfillment of its most important promises. So, just as they had created their own covenant in opposition to God, they conceived a mythical city, one floating in the sky, that was “free and independent” of Yahowah. There is such a place, and it was named after Sha’uwl: She’owl | Hell. Paul will be the Resident Advisor, and he will have his heart’s desire – no God.

To add insult to injury, Paul’s coconspirators at the New Living Translation HQ decided to take their Apostle’s mythical metaphor to the next level. Consider the NLT: “But the other woman, Sarah, represents the heavenly Jerusalem. She is the free woman, and she is our mother.” Why not? In the process of inventing a new god, a New Testament, a new covenant, a new religion, and a new flying city, why not resurrect and repurpose Sarah. After delivering Yitschaq | Isaac when she was 90, I’m sure she wouldn’t mind having a few billion more children. If she laughed at God, what might her response be to this?

Here is the Catholic and Protestant translations. LV: “But that Jerusalem which is above is free: which is our mother.” KJV: “But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.” Silly me, all this time I thought I was born in Pasadena.

One day, likely around year 7000 Yah, about a thousand years from now, there will be a New Jerusalem. It is presented and embellished in Zechariah and elaborated upon again in Isaiah. Only one problem for Paul and the Christian faithful: Dowd will be King, it is filled with those pesky Jews, and it will be designed for the 12 tribes of Yisra’el. And of course, there is another problem – that old, enslaving God will be there too.

Nearly 3,000 years after Galatians was written, the creation of “Heavenly” Jerusalem remains in our future. It will be constructed by Yahowah as part of His creation of a new heaven and earth at the end of the millennial celebration of Sukah and the Shabat.

And just when we thought it could not get any worse, Paul’s Greek deteriorates to the point where we once again need to use the Nestle-Aland Interlinear as a compass to navigate Paul’s twisted realm. “It has been written for be merry sterile the not giving birth rip and cry aloud the one not having birth pains because many the children of the desert more or of the having the man.” This brings to mind one of my favorite sayings: “I know you think you heard what you believe I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”

Perhaps an even more literal and complete rendering of Paul’s word salad will help solve the conundrum. Please consider:

“For indeed (gar – for because then), it has been written (grapho), ‘Be glad (euphrainomai – celebrate and rejoice) infertile (steira – barren and sterile incapable of childbirth) the (e – feminine singular article (referring to Yaruwshalaim) nominative (conveying to be or to become)), not (ou) giving birth (tikto – bearing a child, being productive, growing, or producing), violently lacerating (rhegnymi – throwing an angry fit, viciously ripping things to pieces, distorting and convulsing while breaking apart) and (kai) cry aloud (boao – crying and shouting), becoming the (e) not (ou) suffering birth pains (odino – in great anguish, labor, and physical effort, engaging in long and hard work) because (hoti – that and namely) many (polys) the children (ta teknon) of the desolate (tes eremos – of the forsaken and deserted, of the solitary and lonely, and of the abandoned and lifeless), more (mallon – instead and by contrast as an alternative) than (e – or) of the (tes) possessing (echo – holding on to, having, and experiencing) the man (ton andra – the human).’” (Galatians 4:27)

While that is not entirely decipherable, or even discernible, without a dose of secret mythos and religious jargon, or, failing that, a decoder ring, the citation is allegedly from Yasha’yah / Isaiah 54:1. It may be of assistance.

Cognizant of that prophecy and the wannabe apostle’s tactics, it becomes obvious that Sha’uwl is trying to fool his audience into believing that Yahowah’s prophecy regarding the Set-Apart Spirit’s role in our lives following the fulfillment of Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym, was actually about a new replacement covenant. I’m sure that will come as a surprise to Isaiah.

Nonetheless, in our quest for verification, we’ll have to go back in time and consider what God revealed through a prophet named “Freedom and Salvation are from Yahowah” to see if we can affirm that Yasha’yah 54 was actually about our Spiritual Mother enriching the lives of Covenant members. Then, we will strive to understand how and why Paul twisted the prophecy to serve his ill-conceived thesis.

In that context is always an essential component of understanding, the cited passage follows one of the most vivid portrayals of Dowd’s redeeming sacrifice as the Passover Lamb found anywhere in the Towrah or Prophets. That portion of the prophecy would have to be omitted for Sha’uwl to promote his new theory because it was incompatible with Paul’s disdain for the Towrah.

The last statement of the 53rd chapter speaks of what Dowd accomplished for us on Pesach and Matsah: “Yet he, himself, bore the sin of many, and He interceded for the guilty.” Pesach and Matsah work in harmony to immortalize and perfect the Covenant Family.

“Sing for joy (ranan – choose to convey the lyrics of a delightful and happy song in a melodic and rhythmic manner, actually focusing on the joy being expressed, crying out for having overcome (the qal imperative conveys that which is both genuine and is an expression of freewill)), woman who has not yet given birth (‘aqar – female who has not yet experienced motherhood and thus without descendants).

And (wa – in addition [from 1QIsa and 4QIsa (not in the MT)]) She, who has not yet borne many children (lo’ yalad – she who has not during this confined period of time brought forth, beget, and delivered (the qal perfect conveys an actual relationship with a completed timeframe, and thus not ongoing, condition)), will be genuinely serene as She begins (patsach – be at peace, without negative concerns or distress, sparkling and happy, gleaming, bright, and cheerful, as She starts (qal imperative)) to openly communicate, expressing Her joyful message (rinah – to convey Her requests in song, happily proclaiming and entreating; from ranan – to overcome).

Then (wa) She will be brilliant in Her verbal communication, electing to shine (tsahal – She will convey a radiant message and appearance, light beaming and while She shouts (qal imperative)), not waiting any longer (lo’ yachal – not delaying any more past this moment in time (qal perfect)).

For then indeed (wa ky), greater and more abundant will be the children (rab beny – more numerous and abounding in influence, is the offspring) of the appalled and dismayed (shamem – the devastated and deserted, abandoned and ravaged) than the children (min beny – compared to the offspring) controlled by the Lord Ba’al (Ba’al – of those who were betrothed to the Adversary, possessed and ruled by Satan, lorded over and owned by the master (in the qal passive participle this is literally done to them)),’ says (‘amar – answers and promises) Yahowah ( – a transliteration of YaHoWaH as instructed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence).” (Yasha’yah / Salvation is from Yahowah / Isaiah 54:1)

The prophetic text of Yasha’yah 53 presents the fulfillment of Passover and UnYeasted Bread leading to Firstborn Children 700 years prior to their realization in 33 CE, which was the year 4000 Yah. Then in the transition from the 53rd to the 54th chapter of Isaiah, we are exposed to how the fulfillment of Bikuwrym, which occurred the following day would enable the Shabuw’ah Harvest nearly 2,000 years later. During the Promise of Seven Sevens, our Spiritual Mother, the Maternal aspect of Yahowah’s nature, will accomplish Her mission, that of incorporating thousands of souls into the Covenant Family. This is a celebration of that occasion.

We also see the Spirit in Her element, doing what She does best, which is to communicate with Her children. Her message is as uplifting and enlightening as Yahowah’s Word. Father and Spirit are singing the lyrics of the same song.

It is also interesting to note that She will be serene, providing quiet confidence to those She is inspiring, making their lives exciting and worth living, even at the approach of the Time of Ya’aqob’s Troubles.

The most encouraging aspect of this prophecy is its conclusion. We discover that the Spirit’s children will finally outnumber and outshine those Paul and company have caused to worship the Lord Ba’al, a.k.a. Satan. Having been rightfully appalled and dismayed by what Christians have said and done, especially in the name of their “Holy Ghost,” She will finally have the last word.

Sometimes God’s testimony conveys more than what we see at first blush. For example, the primary meaning of the verb ranan is predicated on the idea of “expressing joy for having overcome a formidable obstacle,” thereby “announcing and celebrating having finally accomplished” what the Spirit “has striven to achieve.”

Along these lines, while ‘aqar can mean “infertile, sterile, and barren,” it also speaks of “offspring in successive generations.” What is fascinating is that ‘aqar is the verbal root. It would normally define the noun, especially when it is spelled identically. And yet ‘aqar speaks of “uprooting something and plucking it out.” This seems to address the idea of removing the Covenant Family before the Time of Israel’s Troubles, thereby affirming my conclusion that this will transpire on May 22nd, 2026 – seven years before Father and Son return. The root speaks of “uprooting those from others who will be abandoned, with many ruined, as an entire population is eliminated as a result of their destructiveness.”

We will compare Yahowah’s prophecy to Sha’uwl’s misappropriation of it in a moment. But first, let’s consider what Yahowah predicted would happen as a result of Bikuwrym | Firstborn Children following the fulfillment of Passover and UnYeasted Bread. In anticipation of Reconciliations and Camping Out, the final two Miqra’ey, the Set-Apart Spirit is asked to enlarge God’s brilliantly illuminated home such that it will accommodate His entire family. Then we discover Her making the arrangements for the celebration of Sukah | Tabernacles using metaphors harmonious with Camping Out in an expansive and protected fashion.

“Enlarge (rachab – make expansive and roomy, choosing to joyfully take advantage of the opportunity to expand the special dimensions (in the hifil imperative, the subject, who is the Set-Apart Spirit, enables the object, those about to camp out with God, to participate in the action, which is to be made greater, expanding dimensionally)) the shining and sheltered place (maqowm – the protected dwelling conducive to life, the location to take a stand and abode; from ma – to consider the implications of and quwm – rising up, standing up, confirming, and establishing) of Your home and brilliantly illuminated dwelling (‘ohel ‘atah – of Your dazzling encampment and illuminating tent for camping out within Your enlightened residence).

And (wa) the shelter (yarya’ah – the protective curtain and interwoven fabric) of Your tabernacle (mishkan ‘atah – of Your dwelling to abide and reside; from my – to consider the implications of shakan – settling down, residing, and living) continuously spread for them under the auspices of freewill (natsah – outstretched and extended on an ongoing basis so that they can choose to be raised up and increased (the hifil stem, imperfect conjugation and jussive mood show the Set-Apart Spirit constantly facilitating this result on behalf of those who elect to participate)).

Do not withhold (lo’ chasak – do not hold back (qal imperfect jussive)) dimensionally increasing (‘arak – lengthening in time and space) Your cords for those who remain (mythar ‘atah – the tent strings which hold up, enlarge, and secure Your dwelling for the remnant; from my – to question, seeking answers regarding yathar – those who remain).

Then (wa) strengthen, restoring and renewing (chazaq – intensify the learning experience and potential to respond, being resolute and firm, empowering and encouraging by firmly establishing (piel imperative – of Your own volition choose to restore)) Your tent pegs (yathed ‘atah – Your stakes which provide added safety and security). (Yasha’yah 54:2)

Indeed (ky), to the right and on the left (yamyn wa simo’wl – right and left hand; speaking of Yisra’elites and Gowym) You will speak to, encourage, and spread out the increase of those born to You (parats – You will communicate with and inspire, reassuring the proliferation of many from Your womb).

Then Your seed, and thus descendants (wa zera’ ‘atah – Your seed, offspring, and children) will inherit and take possession of (yarash – they will displace and acquire (qal imperfect plural – the “seed” are many and they will genuinely and on an ongoing basis come to own and occupy)) the gentile nations (gowym – the places and countries which had been occupied by people estranged from and in opposition to Yisra’el) and (wa) will inhabit (yashab – will settle and dwell within, living, staying, and remaining in (hifil imperfect – indefinitely making them their own)) the desolated and deserted cities (‘iyr shamem – depopulated and abandoned urban areas).” (Yasha’yah / Freedom and Salvation are from Yahowah / Isaiah 54:3)

The Set-Apart Spirit will be celebrating the removal of Paul’s Christians, Muhammad’s Muslims, Baal Shem Tov’s Haredim, and Marx’s Progressives, all of whom hampered the growth of Her family. They are not only gone, those born into Yahowah’s Spiritual Family will inherit their nations and live in their depopulated cities.

This is stunning in a way. Just as Paul cited a passage from the prophet who called him the “Plague of Death,” he is now drawing upon a prophecy which reveals that those who believe him will lose everything, including their lives. The beneficiaries of Pesach, Matsah, Bikuwrym, and now, Shabuw’ah and Taruw’ah, leading to Kipurym and Sukah, will prevail. Born into Yahowah’s Spiritual Family, they will Camp Out with their Heavenly Father and Spiritual Mother without ever having to be annoyed by the likes of Paul again.

Christian apologists, steeped in the poisonous brew of Pauline Doctrine, will tell you that the self-pronounced Apostle cited this verse to suggest that Sarah, who was once barren, would become fertile, and that as such, she became the mother of the faithful. In their mind, this, in turn, explains why there are so many Christians, and why they became so powerful. They perceive themselves as the “children who would be greater in number and status.”

That, however, is not what this prophecy was predicting. Sarah’s infertility was resolved 1,300 years before Yasha’yah penned these words (which would have made him a prophet predicting the past). Moreover, Sarah’s son, Yitschaq, fathered Ya’aqob, who became Yisra’el – not a goyish church – negating the Christian claim.

Further, once upon a time prior to Christianity, there were no chapter or verse designations in Yahowah’s revelations. What is now designated Isaiah 54:1-2 was and remains part of the same story revealed in the preceding chapter. And what is now labeled Isaiah 53 speaks not of Abraham, Sarah, and Yitschaq but of the fulfillment of Passover, Unyeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children in year 4000 Yah (33 CE) in Yaruwshalaim! It is then the continuing story of how the Promise of Seven Sevens protects God’s Covenant Family as the world turns on Jews and tries to exterminate them prior to the fulfillment of Reconciliations and Shelters.

By misappropriating and misquoting a prophetic revelation, and taking it out of context, Paul hoodwinked unthinking Christians into believing that this was about Sarah and Yitschaq rather than the Ruwach and the Miqra’ey. Rather than celebrate the prophecy that explained the reason the Messiah would fulfill Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym, and how that would lead to the ingathering of the Covenant’s children during Shabuw’ah, the Devil’s Advocate beguiled billions into believing that this was God’s promise to the people He would ultimately eliminate.

Stupid is as stupid says and believes. The birth of Yitschaq | Isaac was now ancient history. Sarah had but one child, and he was the father of the patriarch of the Yisra’elites. They were designated heirs to the Covenant Paul had condemned. And in the end, when the last Miqra’ is fulfilled, the Children of the Covenant will inherit depopulated Gentile nations and cities.

Yisra’el has not been replaced – but Christians will be. So much for the theory of Replacement Theology.

If we distance ourselves from Paul’s polluted mantra, it becomes obvious that the “Mother” being described in Yasha’yah 54 is someone very special. This prophecy is telling us that our Spiritual Mother will give birth to the Covenant’s children in concert with Bikuwrym | Firstborn Children, enriching and empowering God’s Family so that they are prepared for Shabuw’ah | the Promise of Seven Shabats. This would lead to Kipurym | Reconciliations and to Sukah | Camping Out with God.

Our Spiritual Mother adorns us in a “Garment of Light,” which is suggested in “tsahal – let your light shine.” She is responsible for enlightening us as well, illuminating the path to God. She also empowers the Covenant’s children to “rinah – sing out the lyrics” of Yahowah’s message, singing from Dowd’s Mizmowr | Songs. The Spirit is the power behind Yowm Taruw’ah, where we are called to “joyously proclaim the Good News” of Dowd’s return, while also “shouting out a warning” to those headed in the wrong direction. Reinforcing this, on Shabuw’ah, Taruw’ah, Kipurym, and twice on Sukah, we are expressly asked to approach the Maternal aspect of God’s Light so that we can enjoy all of the rights and privileges of being part of our Heavenly Father’s Covenant Family.

As an interesting aside, once we understand the promise and purpose of Yahowah’s Invitations to be Called Out and Meet, we recognize that each resolves an aspect of our current nature, preparing us for adoption into Yahowah’s family and for camping out with our Heavenly Father. Therefore, those who answer God’s engraved Invitations, and those who observe the seven Miqra’ey in accordance with Yahowah’s Towrah | Instructions, receive the promised benefits.

‘Ohel, meaning “covered shelter,” describes “pitching a tent to camp out.” It is indistinguishable in the text from ‘ahal, “to shine a pure and clear light.” We have within this word a depiction of how our Spiritual Mother protects Her children. It becomes even more obvious when we recognize that ‘ohel is a “dwelling place, a household, and tabernacle.” Addressing this, the next word, maqowm, and its root, quwm, describe the “standing place” where Yahowah “stood up for us so that we could stand with Him.” Dowd, as the Passover Lamb, is the living embodiment of quwm. And of course, “maqowm – the standing place” would be Yaruwshalaim – Paul’s coconspirator along with Sinai in our supposed enslavement.

Fortunately, there is a bright side to all of this. One of the benefits of having Paul routinely misappropriate and misquote the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms is that it gives us the chance to spend some quality time reading something which is enlightening and uplifting, not to mention comprehensible, in the midst of the Pauline rhetorical rubbish. At least it keeps our brains from turning to mush and our souls from withering.

There is another provocative insight, one which negates one of Sha’uwl’s most bombastic misrepresentations. Remember back in Galatians 3:16 when Paul began his diatribe on the moronic notion that since “zera’ – seed” was singular, we could dispense with the Towrah because it somehow pointed to the fable of Iesou Christou while bypassing the reality of Israel. Then in Galatians 3:29, he doubled down on his use of the straw man fallacy by claiming that those who believed him were “Abraham’s seed,” thereby replacing Yisra’el with his Gentile believers, planting the seed that would grow into Replacement Theology.

However, in Yasha’yah / Isaiah 54:3, the Great Isaiah Scroll, the only completely intact book found in Qumran, specifically reveals that the “descendants” who would be greater and more numerous, were our Spiritual Mother’s zera’ | seed. And while the “more numerous” depiction ought to have been enough for even the religious to recognize that zera’ implied more than “one,” the 1QIsa (a.k.a., the Great Isaiah Scroll) presents yarash, the verb translated as “will inherit and take possession” in the plural. It therefore reveals that “‘they’ will acquire and possess,” not “he” or “it” will inherit. There would be many, not one, seed. Sorry, Paul.

I am particularly fond of the 4th and 5th prophetic declarations of the 54th chapter of Yasha’yah / Isaiah. I thought you might enjoy them too.

Yahowah is speaking to the Children of the Beryth, who will be overwhelmingly Yisra’elite. They are beneficiaries of the Miqra’ey and will be celebrating Yahowah’s return with Dowd – honoring His promises. After removing the abusive religious believers, mostly Christians but also religious Jews, Muslims, and Socialist Secularists, the prophet, speaking for God, reveals how different things will be for Yahuwdym | Jews now that they are no longer being humiliated and mistreated by Gentiles…

“Fear not (‘al yare’), because you will not be humiliated or distressed again (ky lo’ bowsh – for you will never be disapproved or shamed (qal imperfect)). Nor will you be mistreated (wa ‘al kalam – you will not be deprived, especially of what is needed to live and prosper (nifal imperfect jussive – by choice you will be given what you want and need to achieve your rightful place)). By contrast (ky), you will not be dismayed or confused (lo’ chaphar – you will not be dishonored or have your rightful status diminished or confiscated (hifil imperfect jussive)). Indeed (ky), you will forget (shakach – you will no longer be mindful of (qal imperfect)) being disappointed and shamed (bosheth – the disconcerting and ignominious experiences) when you were younger (‘aluwmym ‘atah – of your youth).

And then (wa) the contemptible and dishonorable condition (cherphah – the lowly status, reproach, and insults) of being widowed and forsaken (‘almanuwth ‘atah – of being bereaved by the loss of your spouse) you will no longer remember (lo’ zakar – you will no longer recall (qal imperfect)) ever again (‘owd – forevermore). Because then (ky) your husband (ba’al ‘atah – you will be married to and you will rule alongside with) will be the One who engaged and acted on your behalf (‘asah ‘atah – will be your Maker who fashioned and formed you).

Yahowah ( – the pronunciation of YaHoWaH as guided by His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence) of hosts (tsaba’ – of the vast array of spiritual implements) is His name (shem huw’ – is His proper designation and renown), your Redeemer and Liberator (wa ga’al ‘atah – the One who removed you from harm’s way, freeing you, providing emancipation and liberty as your kin), the Set-Apart One (qodesh) of Yisra’el (Yisra’el – Individuals who Engage and Endure with God).

Almighty God (‘elohym) of the entire material realm (kol ha ‘erets – the entire earth) He will be invited as, summoned and proclaimed (qara’ – He is called, read and recited aloud as, met with, known as and encountered).” (Yasha’yah / Freedom and Salvation are from Yahowah / Isaiah 54:4-5)

I love Yahowah and enjoy His prophets, so this is music to my ears.

Leaving our respite in Heaven for another round in Hell, we find that Sha’uwl | Paul not only misquoted Yasha’yah | Isaiah, he improperly associated Sarah with a prophecy depicting our Spiritual Mother’s fulfillment of the Invitations to Meet with God. In this light, please consider how different Paul’s Greek is from Yasha’yah’s Hebrew:

Sha’uwl: “For indeed, it has been written, ‘Be glad infertile one, the one not giving birth, violently throwing an angry fit while viciously ripping things to pieces, cry aloud for not suffering the birth pains because many are the children of the desolate, more than of the man possessing.’” (Galatians 4:27)

Yahowah: “‘Sing for joy, conveying the lyrics of an uplifting song, woman who has not yet given birth. And She, who has not yet borne many children, will be genuinely serene and at peace, gleaming brightly as She openly conveys Her joyful message.

She will be brilliant in audible communication, no longer hesitating to sing. For then indeed, greater and more abundant will be the children of the appalled and dismayed than the offspring controlled by the Lord Ba’al, says Yahowah.” (Yasha’yah 54:1)

While our intent was to discern what Paul tried to say, and then determine why he said it, the one thing I know for sure is that Yahowah is articulate, and is indeed a profound communicator, and Paul is neither.

Recognizing that Sha’uwl once again misquoted, twisted, and misapplied Yahowah’s Word to imply that he had Divine authority for his blasphemous position, let’s consider how the religious community handled his mistakes. The Catholic Latin Vulgate reads: “For it is written: Rejoice, thou barren, that bearest not: break forth and cry thou that travailest not: for many are the children of the desolate, more than of her that hath a husband.” The Protestant King James therefore says: “For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.”

The Evangelical New Living Translation accurately assessed Paul’s intent but misrepresented his Greek text by attempting a paraphrase of the Hebrew passage instead: “As Isaiah said, ‘Rejoice, O childless woman, you who have never given birth! Break into a joyful shout, you who have never been in labor! For the desolate woman now has more children than the woman who lives with her husband!’” In a moment, I will share the Christian interpretation of Paul’s message so that you will be able to more fully appreciate how this lie was woven into the fabric of his faith.

Continuing with the Galatians epistle, please note that the following statement contains a pronoun, a conjunction, a preposition, four nouns, and one lone verb hanging out at the end of the “sentence.” Of these elements of speech, the NAMI composed: “You but brothers by Isaac promise children you are.” It is hard to explain Paul’s point when his words don’t make any sense.

Examining the same words, I concur, that is what the self-proclaimed mother of the Christian faith wrote. Too bad it required Paul to contradict himself. Just a moment ago, he equated the Towrah memorialized on Mount Sinai with Hagar, Ishmael’s mother. But now, he would like you to forget all that and consider...

“But (de) you (umeis) brothers (adelphos) according to (kata – literally down from or opposite of) Yitschaq (Isaak – a transliteration of the Hebrew Yitschaq, meaning laughter) of promise (epaggelia – of announced declaration or agreement) children (teknon) you are (eimi).” (Galatians 4:28)

Even if Paul had not mangled and denounced the Towrah’s Covenant, this wouldn’t be true. The only promises that matter are the ones Yahowah made to Abraham, all of which He recorded for our benefit in His Towrah. Yitschaq was himself a beneficiary of those engraved vows, just as are we.

And last time I checked, Yitschaq had two children – twins as it turns out, not hundreds, thousands, millions, or billions of children. One of his two sons, his firstborn, Esau, Yahowah despised – so that’s not an appealing option. Although in this regard, Sha’uwl and Esau share the distinction of being the only two individuals Yahowah calls out by name to demean.

Yitschaq’s second son, Ya’aqob, became Yisra’el, and thus he represents the nation and the race Sha’uwl has been denouncing. Ya’aqob was the father of the twelve tribes known collectively as “Yisra’el.” And yet Galatians has established, and Thessalonians will affirm, that Jews and Israel were Paul’s mortal enemy, so Ya’aqob is not a viable option either. Therefore, even the details which comprise Paul’s attempted recasting of Yahowah’s message are inaccurate, inappropriate, and contradictory. As such, his argument was designed to fool those prone to be religious – the ignorant and the irrational.

Even metaphorically, the Gowym who are adopted into Yahowah’s family are not Yitschaq’s children, but instead we are the product of our Heavenly Father and Spiritual Mother. And this adoption process is only possible when we accept the terms and conditions of Yahowah’s Covenant, the one memorialized in the Torah, something Paul rejected as have Christians after him. And thus, Sha’uwl’s statement is wholly fraudulent.

Simply stated, the opposite of what Paul is claiming is true. A faith based upon Paul’s words is worthless.

We find the following in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate: “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.” Which was then reflected in the King James: “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.” And then this was augmented in the NLT to convey: “And you, dear brothers and sisters, are children of the promise, just like Isaac.” It was a case of “money see, monkey do.” Unwilling to admit the “announced promise” is contained in the Torah, and that the “assured agreement” was the “Covenant,” each religious tome parroted Paul’s inaccurate and uninspired drivel.

Since nothing more needs to be said with regard to exposing Christians to the fact that Paul should not be trusted, let’s move on to his next line. The Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear proposed the following: “But as indeed then the by flesh having been born pursued the by spirit thusly also now.” Perhaps if we were insane like Paul, or demon-possessed, this might make so much sense it would appear inspired. But since we are not, this is the best I can do...

“Otherwise (alla – on the contrary, nevertheless, or certainly) just as (hosper) at that time (tote – then) this (o) accordingly (kata), flesh (sarx – the physical body) having given birth (gennao – having been born) pursued, persecuted, and expelled (dioko – hastily pressed forward, putting others to flight, running over them and driving them away, harassing and oppressing) this (ton) according to (kata – down from) spirit (ΠΝΑ) and so it continues (kai houto – also likewise it follows) even now (nyn – at the present time).” (Galatians 4:29)

Let’s be honest in our appraisal. This “sentence” is incomprehensible. So rather than attempt to comment on what Paul actually wrote, let’s consider the Roman Catholic interpretation of his words. Jerome ventured: “But as then he that was born according to the flesh persecuted him that was after the spirit: so also it is now.” I would not know where to begin if asked to “translate” this.

The King James appears to be taking a racist approach, suggesting that Yahowah’s Jews were persecuting Paul’s Christians: “But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.” While there is some history of Jews harassing Jews, there is no indication that Jews persecuted Gentiles.

As we have come to expect, the authors of the New Living Translation embraced this potentially anti-Semitic slant and made the most of it: “But you are now being persecuted by those who want you to keep the law, just as Ishmael, the child born by human effort, persecuted Isaac, the child born by the power of the Spirit.” While I cannot quarrel with the realization that this may well encapsulate Paul’s intent, it isn’t even remotely close to what he actually wrote.

There is no association between “to observe” and “to keep” or between the “Towrah” and “law.” There is no correlation between the “Covenant” and “Ishmael,” and both “Ishmael” and “Isaac” were conceived “by the human effort” of Abraham. Further “Isaac” was not “persecuted.” Yitschaq was not “born by the power of the Spirit.” While Ishmael is said to have teased Yitschaq, that’s a world away from “dioko – persecution.” Moreover, since dioko means “to persecute by hastily pursuing someone, to oppress and harass him, and thereby cause the victim to flee and ultimately be expelled,” it is the wrong verb to apply to the intermittent taunts Ishmael launched in Yitschaq’s direction, especially since it led to Ishmael’s, not Yitschaq’s, expulsion from the Promised Land. Therefore, no matter how Paul’s message is interpreted, it is consistently wrong. And one thousand lies do not make a religious text credible.

And speaking of mistaken...

“Otherwise (alla – on the contrary, nevertheless, or certainly) what (tis) says (lego) the Writing (e graphe), ‘Throw out and expel (ekballo – cast, drive, and send out) the (ten) slave girl (paidiske) and (kai) the (ton) son (huios) of her (autes) [not (me – the first of the two negations is not extant in P46)] for (gar – because then) will not receive (me kleronomeo – will not gain possession or inherit through a chance throwing of lots; from kleros – to cast or draw lots) the son (o huios) of the slave girl (tes paidiske) with (meta) the son (tou huios) of the free (tes eleutheros – free, unrestrained and not bound).’” (Galatians 4:30)

Once again, Paul’s attempted citation of the Torah was garbled and inaccurate. But so that we have another perspective from which to consider his misquotation of Genesis 21:10, let’s turn to the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear and consider what they have published: “But what says the writing: Throw out the servant girl and the son of her not for not will inherit the son of the servant girl with the son of the free.”

Jerome’s Latin Vulgate reads: “But what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman.” So we should not be surprised that the KJV conveys the same thing: “Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” Other than confirming that Paul was attempting to quote the Torah, the NLT’s rendering is very similar: “But what do the Scriptures say about that? ‘Get rid of the slave and her son, for the son of the slave woman will not share the inheritance with the free woman’s son.’”

The Torah passage Sha’uwl cited begins similarly but ends differently. Most importantly, it is in Sarah’s voice, not God’s:

“Sarah (Sarah – to struggle and strive or to engage and endure) saw (ra’ah – perceived and envisioned) the son (‘eth ben) of Hagar (Hagar – to devise a sorrowful plot and commit it to writing; from hagyg and hegeh – lamentable words which tell a woeful tale), the Mitsry (Mitsry – from the guarded crucible of chronic oppression and serious impairment, anguish, and distress, the Egyptian), who had relations with (‘asher) ‘Abraham (‘Abraham – father who raises and lifts up those who stand up and reach up, father of the abundantly enriched, merciful father, or father of multitudes who are confused and troublesome), bearing a child (yalad), laughing (tsachaq – laughing and playing around).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:9)

We are left to wonder if Hagar and Ishmael were laughing at Sarah trying to raise Yitschaq at ninety years of age or if the joking around included ‘Abraham. But either way, Sarah was not amused.

Hagar’s name could be based upon hagyg or hegeh, which would be “to devise a sorrowful plot and commit it to writing,” or “lamentable words which tell a woeful tale.” Either sounds a lot like the Quran – a sorrowful tale originally recited by Muhammad, who claimed to be a descendant of Ishmael.

Also interesting, hagah means “to be removed and expelled, driven out.” That would be consistent with what follows and with Muhammad’s plight. Muhammad even used Hagar’s name to describe his mythical flight on the winged ass Jerusalem, calling the high-flying affair “the Hegira.” Islam has long represented a return to slavery.

“So (wa) she said (‘amar) to ‘Abraham (‘Abraham), cast out and banish (garash – remove, expel, divorce, and drive away (piel imperative – of your own volition cause them to be expelled, sending away)) this slave woman (ha ‘amah ha zo’th – the female servant, this piece of property and lowlife of a woman) along with her son (wa ‘eth ben hy’), because (ky) the son of this piece of property and lowlife of a woman (ha ben ha ‘amah ha zo’th – the child of the female servant and slave) shall not share in an inheritance (lo’ yarash – shall not be an heir) with my son (‘im ben ‘any), Yitschaq | Laughter (Yitschaq – I thought it was funny and laughed).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:10)

Sarah was jealous, but so is God. Not everyone shares in the inheritance. Sarah was now a mother, and she was protective.

It is also likely that her relationship with Hagar and with Ishmael changed appreciably. Hagar had served at her bequest as a surrogate mother and bore her husband’s child. Her status would have risen. However, now Yitschaq was the star of the show. Uncomfortable with the turn of fortune, Hagar evidently copped an attitude that was unbecoming.

Nonetheless, ‘Abraham had divided loyalties…

“But (wa) this statement (ha dabar – these words and manner of speaking) was exceedingly (ma’od – tremendously and utterly, highly and greatly) distressing and inappropriate (ra’a’ – troubling and hurtful, displeasing and sad, disturbing and harmful) in the sight of (ba ‘ayn – from the perspective of) ‘Abraham (‘Abraham – father who raises and lifts up those who stand up and reach up, father of the abundantly enriched, merciful father, or father of multitudes who are confused and troublesome) on account of (al ‘owdowth – because of) his son (ben ‘any).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:11)

Yahowah’s loyalties were not divided. Ishmael had been Sarah’s idea and ‘Abraham’s mistake. Yahowah had made it possible for them to conceive Yitschaq, and he would be their heir.

“God (wa ‘elohym – the Mighty Ones) said (‘amar – explained) to (‘el) ‘Abraham (‘Abraham), ‘You should not perceive this in a negative way (‘al ra’a ba ‘ayn ‘atah – you should not see this as hurtful or harmful, avoid viewing this as wrong, and do not be seen appearing anxious) before (‘al – or against) the boy (ha na’ar – the teenager; from na’ar – to be shaken over the emptiness and lack of adherence and to shake off and free) or because of (wa ‘al) your female servant (‘amah ‘atah).

Whatever (kol – everything) for the benefit of the relationship (‘asher – which, to show the way to get the greatest joy out of life) Sarah (Sarah – to struggle and strive or to engage and endure) says to you (‘amar ‘el ‘atah), listen (shama’) to the sound of her voice (ba qowl hy’) because, indeed (ky – for the reason that surely by contrast), with Yitschaq | Isaac (Yitschaq) your offspring (la ‘atah zera’) shall be called out and summoned (qara’ – invited and welcomed, designated and known).’” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:12)

It was a short meeting with a simple and clear intent. Listen to your wife when she addresses the benefits associated with your relationship. What she is saying is in your interests. It was now time to “garash – cast out and remove” his possessions, freeing the boy and her mother in the process. Those in and out of the Covenant would not live together. Turf wars and feuding over misperceptions would lead to conflict and bloodletting.

Therefore, let’s review what the Towrah says and juxtapose it next to Paul’s citation.

The Towrah says: “So she said to ‘Abraham, cast out and banish this slave woman along with her son, because the son of this piece of property and inferior woman shall not share in an inheritance with my son, Yitschaq | Laughter.” (Bare’syth 21:10)

But Galatians reads: ‘Throw out and expel the slave girl and the son of her for will not receive by lots the son of the slave girl with the son of the free.”

Why do you suppose Paul removed “And she said to Abraham” from the beginning of this sentence? After all, he was positioning Sarah as the “Mother of the faithful” so her words should have carried Divine authority. Also, since Paul makes women subservient to men, his credibility is undermined by God asking this man to listen to his wife.

More importantly, why did Paul corrupt the ending of the sentence, changing what Sarah said: “because the son of this piece of property and inferior woman shall not share in an inheritance with my son, Yitschaq | Laughter” to: “for will not receive by lots the son of the slave girl with the son of the free.”

Beyond the fact that it is poor form for the creation to misquote the Creator’s witness of events, it is obvious that Sha’uwl misrepresented God’s statement because he wanted the passage to support his ploy. So when Sarah didn’t differentiate between “the son of the slave girl and the son of the free,” Sha’uwl changed the text to create the illusion that he had a Divine sanction for his faith.

What is so deeply troubling about all of this is that Sha’uwl knew that this particular passage was one of many which affirms that there was no covenant established with Hagar or Ishmael. They were banished into the desert and were separated from God and from the Children of Yisra’el. Thus, the basis for Sha’uwl’s adversarial covenant, the one allegedly memorialized on Mount Sinai with Hagar, which enslaves us, is torn asunder by the very Towrah he cited.

It is, therefore, once again evident that Paul was playing his audience for fools, banking on the hunch that they were too poorly informed and too irrational to connect these things and thereby rebuke him. And as it turns out, his assessment was accurate.

Perhaps this explains one of the reasons Sha’uwl spurned Jews. They knew the Towrah and would have held him accountable for twisting it. Recognizing that his ploy would not prevail before an informed audience, Paul marketed his ideas exclusively to Gentiles who didn’t know any better. It is one of the reasons there are so few Jewish Christians today.

Also, since I have made the comparison, Satan’s other messenger, Muhammad, turned against Jews for exactly the same reasons. He had purchased Talmud readings from them, which he twisted into Quran surahs. And since the Jews knew where he had gotten his “inspiration,” they had to be eliminated before exposing Muhammad as a fraud.

Before we move on, I would like you to consider something. If we were to put aside the big picture for a moment, where Paul’s message has been the antithesis of Yahowah’s, how can anyone believe that this poorly written and illogical, hateful and vindictive, egotistical and erroneous letter is the inspired and inerrant Word of God? All one has to do is compare Paul’s quotations to the original source and it becomes obvious that they are inconsistent and inaccurate. And by definition, inaccurate is not inerrant, thereby, destroying the most important precept of the Christian faith.

If you are a Christian, your options to resolve this problem are limited. They include blaming the source of inspiration. That is to say, you can accept the fact that Paul wasn’t inspired by the Spirit who revealed the Towrah, but that means Paul didn’t speak for God, and was thus a liar.

You can also blame scribes, thereby claiming that they changed Paul’s words. But this justification is devastating, because only Papyrus 75, which covers part of Luke and most of John, is considered particularly credible. And it was written one hundred years after Papyrus 46, which documented all of Galatians in the 2nd century. So if scribal error significantly changed the text of Galatians over this short period of time, then nothing in the so-called “Christian New Testament” could be considered remotely reliable. As such, the entire foundation of Christendom crumbles.

The only other option is to side with Paul and believe that God was so incompetent and senile that He could no longer remember what He said and, therefore, was no longer relevant. According to Sha’uwl, God, if He was still alive, came to realize that His original plan was so hopelessly flawed that He needed to have someone revise it for Him. Should you believe him instead of God, you are likely a Christian.

That notwithstanding, Paul has alleged that his message is the same as Gospel Jesus, even though the Gospels in which “Jesus’” sayings became known didn’t exist when Paul’s letters were scribed. Even more perplexing, if God authorized Paul to contradict Him, and change His message and plan of salvation, why is Paul quoting from the failed plan which he claims has been annulled?

Considering the options, it is little wonder Paul based his religion on believing Paul. And yet, those who are informed, and who are willing to think for themselves, will overwhelmingly conclude that Paul was untrustworthy. Removed from a religious context where the faithful will believe almost anything, Paul’s thesis was not the least bit credible.

By the way, even Paul’s insistence on Hagar and Ishmael remaining enslaved is torn asunder by the Towrah.

“Beside (wa gam – also as an alternative) the son of the slave woman (ha ben ha ‘amah) I will move into and put in a different place (sym la – I will relocate and set in another location) as a confluence of ethnicities and cultures (la gowy – becoming a people from different races and places, albeit the walking dead who are heathens estranged from Yisra’el). Indeed he (huw’ ky – surely, making a contrast with him), he is your offspring (zera’ ‘atah huw’ – he is the seed you have sown).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:13)

The realization that Ishmael was the seed Abraham had sown is why Abraham’s name carries such positive and negative connotations: ‘Abraham – the father who raises and lifts up those who stand up and reach up for mercy and the father of multitudes who are confused and troublesome.

This known, sym does not imply that Yahowah was nation-building with Gentiles – as is conveyed in English Bibles. It means “to put or set something in a different place.” He relocated Yshma’‘el | Ishmael toward what would become the Muslim Middle East.

God’s statement carries overtones of His desire to walk Abraham off the cliff of feeling rather than thinking. Abraham doted over Ishmael, largely because the two men enjoyed similar passions. And that was a problem. So Yahowah not only needed to separate them for the Covenant to prevail, He had to do so in such a way that Abraham would continue to listen to Him – to trust Him. God would put Ishmael in his place to get Abraham’s mind in the right place.

Hagar and Ishmael were freed. They were sent away with provisions. It is how I would deal with the errantly named and misinformed “Palestinian” Muslims in Israel, today. However, based on the propensity for terror and targeting Jews, Yahowah will not be as kind.

“‘Abraham (‘Abraham – the father who raises and lifts up those who stand up and reach up, father of the abundantly enriched, merciful father, or father of multitudes who are confused and troublesome) arose early in the morning (shakam ba ha boqer – started the day at dawn and) grasped hold of (laqach – obtained) a loaf of bread (lechem) and a skin of water (wa chemeth maym) and gave them (wa nathan – he offered them) to (‘el) Hagar (Hagar – to devise a sorrowful plot and commit it to writing; from hagyg and hegeh – lamentable words which tell a woeful tale), placing them (sym – setting and putting them) on (‘al) her shoulder (shakem hy’ – her upper back), along with the child (‘eth ha yeled). And then he sent her away (wa shalach hy’ – he dispatched her, directing her to leave).

So she began walking (wa halak – walked away), and wandered around aimlessly in error (wa ta’ah – she went astray intoxicated, staggering around without understanding, traveling place to place without purpose) into (ba) lifelessness, the desolation devoid of the word (ba midbar – desert wasteland, the wilderness, a place of illiteracy where the word is questioned; a compound of my – to question and dabar – the word) of Ba’er Sheba’ (Ba’er Sheba’– the pit of swearing).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:14)

Directly contradicting Sha’uwl’s testimony, Hagar and Ishmael were freed. They were no longer slaves and therefore could not represent bondage. Furthermore, they were sent away many centuries before Yahowah dictated His Towrah | Teaching on Mount Sinai. Therefore, they were long ago and forevermore disassociated them from the Covenant He codified in the Towrah.

Excluding both mother and son from the Covenant’s promise of eternal life in God’s family was one thing but robbing him of his earthly life would have violated the oath Yahowah made to ‘Abraham.

“When the water from the skin (wa ha maym min ha chemeth) was gone (kalah – was finished), she threw (shalak – she hurled and flung, casting down and rejecting) the young man (ha yeled – the boy and adolescent child) beneath (tachath – under) one (‘echad) of the bushes (ha syach – shrubs; from syach – complaint and expression of discontent).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:15)

There is a violent tone to the Hebrew word shalak with nothing maternal or loving about it. She threw the young man down, hurling him to the ground. Syach is also an intriguing word in that it is “a place of anguish and discontent where one contemplates foolishness while expressing anxiety.”

“And she took a walk (wa halak), settling down (yashab – remaining in place for an indefinite period) such that she went well beyond (la hy’ min neged), far enough away to avoid any association (rachaq – a great distance, to be aloof, severing the relationship), similar to a bowshot (ka tachah qeshet – about as far as an arrow can be hurled). And she said (wa ‘amar), ‘I do not want to witness (‘al ra’ah) the death (ba maweth – the process of dying associated with the plague) of the teenage boy (ha yeled – of the young man).’ And as she settled down (yashab – remaining in place for an indefinite period) opposite and beyond (min neged), she raised her voice (wa nasa’ ‘eth kol hy’) and wept (wa bakah – wailed, sobbed, cried, and mourned).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:16)

It is a bit strange, seeing that Ishmael was a taunting teenager, that his survival instincts and his will to live were surpassed by his mother. It does not speak well of his work ethic or character. And in this regard, Yahowah said this of Ishmael’s descendants: “He shall consistently be (wa huw’ hayah) a wild ass (pere’) of a man (‘adam). His hand (yad huw’) will be against everyone (ba ha kol) and everyone’s hand (wa yad kol) against him (ba huw’). Even in opposition to the presence (wa ‘al paneh) of all of his brothers (kol ‘ach huw’) he will live and remain (shakan).” (Bare’syth / Genesis 16:12) Therefore, Islam’s ongoing nature was being manifest before our eyes. But nonetheless, adjacent to a spring, yesterday’s troubadours of today’s trouble gave up.

Aware of the boy’s plight, God did not send him back to Abraham or Yisra’el. He simply did as Abraham had done – He had an envoy provide for him. This messenger offered some encouragement and then sent mother and son on their way.

“And God (wa ‘elohym) heard (shama’) the sounds (‘eth qowl – the noise and voice) of the teenage boy (ha na’ar – the young man and former servant, even the lost sheep who had strayed away and into harm’s way). So a messenger (wa mal’ak – a spiritual implement and heavenly envoy) of God (‘elohym) summoned (qara’ – called out to) Hagar (Hagar – to devise a sorrowful plot and commit it to writing; from hagyg and hegeh – lamentable words which tell a woeful tale) from the heavens (min ha shamaym – out of the spiritual realms).

And he asked regarding her (wa ‘amar la hy’ – so concerning her he said), ‘What is your objective (mah la ‘atah – What is your purpose and why are you concerned), Hagar (Hagar – one devising this sorrowful plot with all the lamentable words telling a woeful tale)? Have you no respect (‘al yare’ – have you no regard, esteem, admiration, or reverence)? In actuality (ky – by contrast), God (‘elohym) has heard (shama’) the intent (‘el – the goal) of the young man’s (ha na’ar – the teenager’s) sounds (qowl – noises and audible cries) in relation to where he is over there (ba ‘asher huw’ sham).’” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:17)

Such a simple, and yet probing, question: “What is your objective, and why are you concerned, Hagar?” She was the problem. She had no respect or regard for Yahowah. And so, by contrast, it was Yahowah who was concerned about the young man’s life. She had, after all, walked away.

Unlike His encounters with Abraham and Sarah, Yahowah did not meet with Hagar or Ishmael. They would not enjoy a familial covenant relationship with God. The Almighty sent a messenger – and a troubled one at that.

“‘Stand up (quwm – get up), pick up (nasa’ – lift up) the young man (‘eth ha na’ar) and hold him firmly (wa chazaq ba huw’ – grasp him strongly and resolutely, even harshly and with a degree of intensity) with your hand (‘eth yad ‘atah – under your influence). Indeed (ky – surely), I will move him into a different place in another location (sym – I will relocate him, setting him elsewhere) as a substantial confluence of ethnicities and cultures (gowy gadowl – to become multitudes of strange and estranged people from different races and places, many akin to the walking dead, a sizable animalistic and Godless community of non-Yahuwdym, representing a different nation).’” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:18)

“Then (wa) God (‘elohym) had her ability to be perceptive enhanced (paqach ‘eth ‘ayn hy’) and she saw (wa ra’ah) a pit (be’er – well or shaft) of water (maym). So she walked over (wa halak) and filled up (wa male’) the skin (‘eth ha chemeth) with water (maym) and gave a drink (shaqah) to the young man (‘eth ha na’ar – to the teenage boy).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:19)

She had been so caught up in her own miserable existence; after disowning the boy, she did not even bother to look for water. The well had been right there, beside her, all of the time. And yet to honor His promise, Yahowah had to work around humankind’s ineptitude. And apparently, a sip of water was all it took for Hagar and Yshma’‘el to be on their way.

“So God (wa ‘elohym) remained (hayah – continued to be) opposed to (‘eth – against) the young man (ha na’ar – was a lost sheep). He would become exalted (wa gadal – he would garner status and acclaim and be honored and glorified) living (yashab – dwelling and remaining) in the desert (ba ha midbar – in the wilderness where the word is questioned). And he came to be (wa hayah) great at shooting arrows from a bow (rabah qashath – a formidable and superior archer and hunter).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 21:20)

In other words, apart from being acclaimed as the forefather of Muhammad and Islam, he was a formidable killing machine. His mother should be so proud.

The story of the Covenant was just beginning, but the story of Ishmael was over, at least in relationship to God, His Towrah, and His Covenant. The next time we hear of Ishmael, it was at Abraham’s burial. Then we learn that Esau earned Yahowah’s wrath for having married one of Ishmael’s daughters. From that point, the bastard child fades into oblivion, only to be resurrected by Muhammad to serve Allah and Islam.

Paul knew that there was no covenant established with Hagar or her son. He knew that Hagar was not associated with the revelation of the Torah on Mount Sinai. And that is why it was so unconscionable for him to state otherwise.

I suppose that Paul’s parting salvo on the mythical second covenant might be valid if it were prophetic, and not historic, and you darted six centuries ahead in time and associated Ishmael with Islam.

“Therefore (ara – so then [as found in P46 as opposed to dio in the NA]), brothers (adelphos), we are not (ou eimi) children (teknon) of slave girl (paidiske), to the contrary (alla), the free (tes eleutheros).” (Galatians 4:31)

In reality, neither Sarah nor Hagar conceived again. But a religion was conceived from these words – one which would be astonishingly anti-Semitic and ardently opposed to the Torah.

Regarding this concluding statement, the NAMI offered: “Therefore, brothers not we are of servant girl children but of the free.” Jerome embellished his Latin Vulgate with: “So then, brethren, we are not the children of the bondwoman but of the free: by the freedom wherewith Christus has made us free.” Surprisingly, the KJV removed the reference to “Christus:” “So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.”

Rather than simply consider the New Living Translation’s rendition of this passage, a more comprehensive view seems appropriate. Interpreting and trumpeting Paul’s blasphemous manifesto, these Evangelical Christians wrote:

“Tell me, you who want to live under the law, do you know what the law actually says? The Scriptures say that Abraham had two sons, one from his slave wife and one from his freeborn wife. The son of the slave wife was born in a human attempt to bring about the fulfillment of God’s promise. But the son of the freeborn wife was born as God’s own fulfillment of his promise.

These two women serve as an illustration of God’s two covenants. The first woman, Hagar, represents Mount Sinai where people received the law that enslaved them. And now Jerusalem is just like Mount Sinai in Arabia, because she and her children live in slavery to the law. But the other woman, Sarah, represents the heavenly Jerusalem. She is the free woman, and she is our mother. As Isaiah said, ‘Rejoice, O childless woman, you who have never given birth! Break into a joyful shout, you who have never been in labor! For the desolate woman now has more children than the woman who lives with her husband!’

And you, dear brothers and sisters, are children of the promise, just like Isaac. But you are now being persecuted by those who want you to keep the law, just as Ishmael, the child born by human effort, persecuted Isaac, the child born by the power of the Spirit. But what do the Scriptures say about that? ‘Get rid of the slave and her son, for the son of the slave woman will not share the inheritance with the free woman's son.’ So, dear brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman; we are children of the free woman.” (NLT Galatians 4:21-31)



In my quest to understand the Christian justification for Paul’s fictitious improvisation regarding a second covenant, with his view that the one formalized on Mount Sinai was associated with Hagar, as opposed to Ya’aqob and Yisra’el, and of it leading to slavery, as opposed to liberation, I found uniformity. It was as if someone wrote a plan for how to deal with Paul’s willingness to demean the Towrah and contradict God, and thereafter everyone thoughtlessly parroted the same script.

Each of the scores of Christian religious sites I scoured said that Paul was condemning the “Judaizers,” as if there actually were such people. But since it sounds nasty, and because hating Jews has become a religious obsession, “Judaizers” became the ubiquitous explanation for Paul’s mythical second covenant.

Before we delve into Christian apologetics, so that Paul’s thesis is fresh in our minds, here is a recap of his position:

“Speak to me those proposing to exist under the control of the Towrah: can’t you hear what the Towrah is saying? (Galatians 4:21) For it has been written that Abram had two sons, one from the slave girl and one from the free. (Galatians 4:22) Certainly, from the slave girl have been born those according to flesh. From the free, by way of a promise. (Galatians 4:23)

Whatever is being spoken of allegorically, these then exist as two covenants – two testaments – one from Mount Sinai into subservience, slavery, and bondage, giving birth to whoever exists as Hagar. (Galatians 4:24)

Accordingly, now Hagar exists as Mount Sinai in Arabia, therefore corresponding to the present Yaruwshalaim. She is enslaved because of being associated with her children. (Galatians 4:25) But the Yaruwshalaim above is in opposition, free and independent is who is our mother. (Galatians 4:26)

For indeed, it has been written, ‘Be glad infertile one, the one not giving birth, violently throwing an angry fit while viciously ripping things to pieces, cry aloud for not suffering the birth pains because many are the children of the desolate, more than of the man possessing.’ (Galatians 4:27)

But you are brothers according to Yitschaq. You are of promised children. (Galatians 4:28) Otherwise just as at that time accordingly, flesh having given birth pursued and persecuted this according to the spirit and so it continues even now. (Galatians 4:29)

Nevertheless, what says the Writing, ‘Throw out and expel the slave girl and the son of her for will not receive by lots the son of the slave girl with the son of the free.’ (Galatians 4:30) Therefore, brothers, we are not children of slave girl, to the contrary, the free.” (Galatians 4:31)

According to Protestant Christianity: “the allegory of Hagar and Sarah was written to persuade us (along with the Galatians) not to follow the ‘Judaizers’ into slavery with Hagar and Ishmael.” This comes courtesy of the Baptist Church. And yet, the Towrah clearly states that, at Yahowah’s insistence, Hagar was freed, and Ishmael was never a slave. Therefore, if this is what Paul meant to say, he chose the wrong examples.

From a site operating under the acronym CCEL.org (Christian Classics Ethereal Library at Calvin College), and under the heading, “Sermons from Galatians,” we find: “It is important to note that Paul does not deny the actual historical narrative, but he simply uses it in an allegorical sense to illustrate his point for the benefit of his readers who are tempted to go under the burden of the law.” Yet in fact, Paul’s hypothesis contradicts every aspect of the Towrah’s presentation of Hagar, Ishmael, the Covenant, as well as what occurred on Mount Sinai. His “illustration” thus represents a complete “denial of the actual historical narrative.”

They wrote: “Our threat today might not be from Judaizing teachers, but from those who would have us turn away from Christ, such as voices in the world and false religions.” For example, they might follow Christian preachers and come to believe the false religion of Christianity.

The Sacra Eloquia provided this twist: “The Apostle Paul, like Morpheus in the film The Matrix, had been a slave to his former religion of Judaism. And the Judaizers wanted the Galatians to be slaves as well.” In actuality, it appears that Paul never escaped religion, and stepped from one into another.

The Lectionary Studies of the New Testament provided this perfectly prepared presentation of Pauline Doctrine: “By the use of the Hagar-Sarah illustration Paul makes his strongest argument: forward in the Christian life, or backward to Jerusalem and Mount Sinai. The message is that the Torah enslaves and condemns us. Yet the Judaizers argue that only those who submit to the Sinai covenant share in the promised Abrahamic blessings and thus Gentile believers must submit themselves to the Mosaic Law if they are to share in Isaac’s blessings, as opposed to being cast out with Ishmael.”

As is the case with Paul, this is wrong from beginning to end. And yet, in these words we find the religious script unveiled which has been deployed to pit Christianity against the Torah, against Yahowah, its author, against His one and only Covenant, against His seven Invitations, against the Ten Statements He etched in stone, and lest we forget, against Yisra’el and Yahuwdym – His Chosen People. And it is a plot whose mythological origins are rooted in Paul’s letter to the Galatians.

Spreading the Light Ministries Network under the heading “Sermons,” protests: “Paul illustrates the difference between believers who rest in Christ only and Judaizers who trusted in the law, by a comparison taken from the story of Isaac and Ishmael.”

However, Paul’s story isn’t “from” the account of Yitschaq and Yshma’‘el, but is instead the antithesis of it. Moreover, there is no comparison between the banishment of Hagar and the Covenant memorialized in the Torah.

This Christian organization says: “He tells the Galatians that they are making a big mistake by falling away from the truth.” And yet, according to Yahowah, the Towrah is the truth.

“These things Paul said are an allegory, besides being literal and historical.” It is hard to believe that the proponents of this plot are so stupid that they don’t recognize that Paul wasn’t calling his version “allegorical,” but instead Yahowah’s, and that Paul’s thesis was neither literal nor historical. Religion does crazy things to people’s minds.

“Hagar represents the Mosaic Law, slavery.” This is only true in Paul’s twisted mind and in the hearts of those sufficiently ignorant and irrational to believe him. Yahowah says just the opposite.

Spreading the Light Ministries Network protested: “Mount Sinai represents Jerusalem under slavery to Rome and the Jews…who are under the curse of the Law.” The only association between Mount Sinai and Jerusalem is that one predicts, explains, and leads to the other. They are linked, not in “curses” or “slavery,” but in being steps along the path to our redemption. The Towrah’s Covenant promises were honored on Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children. And we can be assured that the Promise of the Shabat, Trumpets, Reconciliations, and Shelters will be fulfilled on schedule. And they are focused upon Yaruwshalaim | the Source of Teaching and Guidance Regarding Reconciliation.

The Bible Study Guide to Galatians suggests: “Paul uses the story of Hagar and Sarah as a picture of the relationship between God and man. Paul tells the Galatians that Hagar represents the covenant given on Mt. Sinai, which is the law that the Jews pride themselves on keeping. In so doing, Paul warns us about complying with the Judaizers.”

The opposite of this is true. Abraham, and through him, Yitschaq and Ya’aqob (who became Yisra’el), represent the Covenant between Yahowah and His family, not Sarah. And Hagar was specifically disassociated from the Covenant centuries before it was codified in the Towrah on Mount Sinai. Further, the “law that the Jews pride themselves on keeping” isn’t the Towrah, which means “Teaching,” but instead, Jewish Oral Law codified in their Talmud.

Bereft of the notion that “proof” requires “evidence,” McGarvey and Pendleton’s Commentary published: “Paul proves that Christians are not required to keep the Jewish Sabbath or festivals of Judaism even though the Judaizers insisted upon them.”

The only thing Paul has proven is that his Greek is impoverished and that he feels no qualms about misquoting and contradicting God. Equally uninformed, McGarvey and Pendleton as anti-Semites, want Christians to believe that the Shabat, Passover, UnYeasted Bread, Firstborn Children, the Promise of Seven, Trumpets, Reconciliations, and Shelters are the customs of “Judaizers” rather than being Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God.

And by the way, if we were to believe the myth that Christians became part of the family as a result of Sarah, or as a result of Christo, or as a result of Paul, then can someone explain the reason for Yowm Kipurym | the Day of Reconciliations. With whom is Yahowah restoring His relationship, unless with Yisra’el and Yahuwdah?

M&P wrote: “Paul imagines that the Galatians are seeking the instruction of the Judaizers, as they had once sought him.” While Paul has a vivid imagination, there is no evidence for “Judaizers,” much less that the Galatians sought Paul’s instructions. On the contrary, the text of the epistle indicates that the Galatians rejected Paul and his message. (If only the rest of the world had as well.)

Reading Galatians through glasses fitted at a Christian bookstore, McGarvey and Pendleton wrote: “And Paul, knowing the passion of the Judaizers for allegory, meets them with their own weapon, and presents his case argumentatively and logically.”

Nothing Paul has said has been logical, albeit his rhetoric has been plenty argumentative. There is no indication that rabbis used allegory. It is Yahowah who has a passion for parables, metaphors, and word pictures. And they are not “weapons” but, instead, teaching aids. And yet, by saying this, these Christians have demonstrated their disdain for God in deference to Paul.

Further, they have demonstrated that Christianity renders its victims unable to think. Anyone who has read this passage in Greek understands that Paul specifically differentiated the allegorical meaning of the story, whatever it may have been, from his personal interpretation of it. Paul did not say that the two covenants were allegorical, but instead said “these then exist as two covenants.” And again, while Paul is undeniably “argumentative,” he is the antithesis of “logical.”

From an organization called “From Pentecost to Patmos,” we find confusion between religious rhetoric and sound argument: “Paul’s thesis, presented in Galatians chapter 4, verses 8-31, provides a series of arguments for his conviction that justification comes by faith alone, and he contrasts this with the improperly motivated zeal of the Judaizers.” This begins well. Galatians is “Paul’s thesis.” And therein lies the problem. Paul’s thesis and Yahowah’s message differ on every essential issue.

Pentecost to Patmos’ insistence that “justification comes by faith alone” is invalid according to God. But it is true that faith operates alone, without evidence or support. Whereas trust, which is predicated on knowledge and understanding, requires a foundation of supporting evidence.

Since these alleged “Judaizers” were such a legendary foe, I wonder why no one has actually named one. Why hasn’t anyone been able to identify their leadership, determine what they believed, uncover a text written by them, find where they met, or provide any evidence that such people even existed. Unlike early Christians, rabbis documented everything from friend or foe – and there is no mention of a Judaizer in any rabbinical text.

The longest, most errant, and yet most unapologetically Christian comparison between Genesis 17:15-21 and Galatians 4:21-31 is found on a Presbyterian site. A pastor on behalf of the “Orthodox Presbyterian Church,” wrote the following anti-Semitic rant: “The Judaizers [in actuality, Jews seldom, if ever, attempt to convert anyone and in fact, make conversion difficult] entered the Galatian churches [there is no reference to a “church” in these Greek manuscripts, but instead an ekklesia, referring to the Called Out], which were primarily Gentile [while this excuse is ubiquitous, the content of Galatians demonstrates that the audience was aware and fond of the Torah, meaning that they were mostly Yahuwdym, not Gowym], and argued that true believers [“true believer” is an oxymoron, moreover, God wants us to know and understand so that we can trust and rely upon the truth He revealed in His Torah] had to be engrafted into the lineage through circumcision and obedience to the Law of Moses.”

This misconstrues the symbolism of circumcision, and it confuses “observance” with “obedience.” Being aware leads to knowing. Obedience leads to submission. Further, the “Law of Moses” is akin to calling the prophecies Yahowah revealed to Yasha’yah the “Edicts of Isaiah.” Moseh was simply the scribe who wrote Yahowah’s teaching and guidance on a scroll. It is a wonder these theologians do not attribute the Declaration of Independence to the calligrapher.

Failing to appreciate the difference between “stating” and “demonstrating,” the Presbyterian pastor exclaimed: “But Paul demonstrates that the Mosaic Law itself has come to an end with the coming of the true seed, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the end of the Law.” Paul does make this claim, but by doing so, he directly contradicts the ongoing relevance of the Towrah acclaimed during the Sermon on the Mount.

“But sadly the Galatians had begun to buy into the Judaizers’ argument. [Galatians only hints at the nature of Paul’s foe and the arguments they proposed.] They had already capitulated and were being told to observe the fasts and festivals of the Jewish calendar. [Wrong again. There are no fasts, and the festivals are Yahowah’s. They are dated on His calendar, not a Jewish one.] But we are no longer slaves to the Law of Moses, and are no longer regulated by its commandments.” If the Towrah isn’t guidance for liberation, then Yahowah is a liar and Dowd fulfilled Passover and UnYeasted Bread in vain. Under this condition, there would be no freedom from human oppression or vindication from guilt.

I was appalled not long ago to see the Presbyterian Church release a stunningly immoral and inaccurate press release following their General Assembly against Jews and Israel and in favor of the Muslims who were terrorizing them. And now, I understand the source of their anti-Semitism. “So Paul turns the Judaizers’ use of the Old Testament against them.” Calling the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms the “Old Testament” demonstrates that Christians have remained mired in Paul’s polluted rhetoric. Yahowah’s message to His creation begins with the “Towrah,” and it concludes with the “Prophets.” There is only one testament, and it is as vital today as when it was scribed 2,500 to 3,500 years ago.

According to Orthodox Presbyterian Church: “Paul tells them that the Covenant made at Mt. Sinai where the Law was mediated through Moses in the presence of the angels was a covenant of slavery and bondage.” There are no “angels,” only mal’ak | messengers, and the Towrah was not “mediated through Moses.” To mediate is “to intervene.” Yahowah spoke for Himself and acted on His own behalf.

Further, the explicit purpose of the Torah is to detail the role Yahowah played in the liberation of the children of Yisra’el from the crucible of human religious and political oppression and bondage in Egypt, leading them to a life of freedom in the Promised Land. Yahowah’s seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet delineate this same path for the rest of us.

“Paul’s gospel is not related to Hagar, the Judaizers are.” Paul can be blamed for many things, but “gospel” is not among them. He used euangelion, meaning “profitable messenger and beneficial message.” “Gospel” is a Christian myth based upon pagan nomenclature.

This same Presbyterian entity demonstrated its ignorance when they postured: “The message of the Torah is one of slavery.” According to Paul, this is true, but not according to Yahowah. Therefore, God’s Torah instructions and man’s religious teachings on this foundational issue are diametrically opposed. How is it then that Christians remain oblivious to this conflict? Search as I might, I was unable to find a single theologian who even attempted to reconcile this catastrophic problem.

The Christian apologist, having skipped the lecture on the Instruction on the Mount at seminary school, wrote: “Since the city of Jerusalem had become a symbol for the Mosaic Covenant, when that Covenant/Law came to an end, so did all the hopes that were rooted in that city, including the land and temple.” Yaruwshalaim is the symbol of salvation, not the symbol of the Covenant. And according to Yahowah, His Word is eternal, never-ending.

Presbyterian Christians have separated themselves from Yahowah, from His Torah, from God’s Path home, from Yaruwshalaim the source of reconciliation, and thus from the Promised Land, symbolic of Heaven. “No longer for the Christian is Jerusalem, the land of Israel, and the law of Moses the center of our hope. The Christian’s hope is not to be found in whether or not a nation today called Israel locates itself in the Middle East, or if they are able to slaughter enough Arabs to take over the city of Jerusalem, or if they are able to take control of the temple Mount and rebuild the Temple. These things are all vain hopes. They are Jewish empty dreams. They are simply the confused dog chasing his shadow in the yard.” While it is hard not to envision Yahowah’s anguished expression at the trial of the Christian pastor who scribed these words, it would do these fellows a world of good to read the Prophets sometime.

“Rather the Christian has become heirs of the realities, not the shadows. Let the Jews continue to place their hopes in the shadows which have come to an end. Amen.” And yet, Christianity remains mired in the myths of Mystery Babylon, confused by Satan’s shadows, his counterfeits. “Amen,” indeed.

For Paul’s thesis to be true, for the Torah to be an agent of enslavement, and for it to be annulled, Yahowah, the God who created the universe and conceived life, would have to have concluded that He was wrong and that He was incapable of resolving man’s condition. As a result, He would have had to recognize that Paul was superior in intellect and ability to Himself. Then, God would have had to have asked Paul to correct Him, and to solve these problems a different way – all while twisting and demeaning everything He had previously revealed. If you believe that is what occurred, that Paul had the authority and ability to correct God, congratulations, you are a Christian.



Twistianity

Devil’s Advocate

…Plague of Death

9

Pharmakeia | Poisoned

Toxic Tale…

Once upon a time, I had expected that errant translations and misinterpretations of Galatians had been responsible for Christendom promoting the myth that the Torah had been annulled. And yet, Paul, himself, has been responsible for this deadly delusion. He has gone well beyond simply relegating the Torah to a bygone era. He has assailed the Covenant, calling it a source of slavery, rather than liberation.

Sha’uwl has condemned himself to She’owl with his own words. If that was all there was to this investigation, so be it. But unfortunately, Paul’s noose was woven into a net which has ensnared billions of souls and turned Gentiles against Jews. For those reasons, we will press on, unraveling his trap.

As we turn the page and open the fifth chapter of Galatians, Sha’uwl remains fixated on the distinction between the liberty he delusionally claims he possesses and the servitude he has falsely associated with observing the Towrah. In the process of having made Yahowah’s Covenant man’s mortal enemy, the concluding clause is exceptionally demeaning, even for Sha’uwl.

“This (te) freedom (eleuthera – liberty) of ours (ego) is in becoming Christos (ΧΡΣ – placeholder used by early scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement to usurp the Septuagint’s credibility and infer divinity) it freed and unrestrained (eleutheroo – it liberated, exempted, and released). You all are directed to stand firm (steko – you must persist steadfast).

Therefore (oun – then), also (kai), not again (me palin) in yoke (zygos) of subservience and slavery (douleia – bondage and subjugation) you are held based upon a grudge against you all (enechomai – are submitting based upon hostility toward you all, burdening, opposing, and controlling you all, forcing you to surrender to someone who bears ill will, is resentful, violent, and quarrelsome).” (Galatians 5:1)

There is a rather complex grammatical anomaly occurring in the initial clause which can only be appreciated through close scrutiny of the cases, moods, and pronouns. “Christos,” for example, was written in the nominative case which conveys “to be” or “to become.” It renames the subject, in this instance, the reader, so that they become Christos.

Eleutheroo was written eleutherosen, in the third person singular, conveying “it,” and then scribed in the past tense using the aorist indicative. This requires a rendering of “it freed and unrestrained,” but what “it” might have been, we do not know.

The associated verb, steko, was written stekete, in the second-person plural, making it “you all” or “all of you,” and then in the present tense imperative mood which expresses a command. This communicates: “you all are directed to stand firm.” Such a directive is contradictory. How is someone who has been freed now subject to a command?

What Paul is attempting to say is that Christians will be freed from the Towrah so long as they obey his command. This, of course, requires the recasting of Dowd who was devoted to the Towrah.

Because the rest of Sha’uwl’s statement is equally deplorable, let’s consider the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear interpretation of it before we dig any deeper: “In the freedom us Christ freed stand then and not again in yoke of slavery be held in.” These scholars ignored much of the prevailing Greek grammar and then translated the verb enechomai inadequately, even inaccurately. According to the ten most respected lexicons, its primary meaning is “to bear a grudge against someone and to violently control, harass, and burden them against their will in a hostile fashion.” It speaks of “the hatred and resentment which flows from being ensnared and entangled in a trap, and thus having to surrender and submit to a hostile foe.”

Let’s not forget, Sha’uwl has relentlessly sought to identify this “yoke of slavery” which “ensnares, burdens, and controls” its victims as being Yahowah’s Towrah. So now this is personal. Paul has gone so far as to slander God and demean His character.

To remove any doubt that enechomai was properly translated, and that Sha’uwl inappropriately associated its perverse connotations with Yahowah, and His influence over humankind from this preposterous Pauline perspective, we can turn to the most respected lexicons. They render it: “to bear a grudge against someone, to be resentful and hostile, to burden and harass someone violently, to control and subjugate others, and to ensnare and entangle them in a trap.” Also recognize that this verb was written as enechesoe, in the second-person plural, present passive imperative. The passive voice signifies that “you all” (from the second-person plural) are being acted upon by a verb which is in this case quite maniacal. And since the imperative mood is used to express a command, Sha’uwl is saying that our forced submission is the intended result of God’s announced declaration.

Therefore, the opening stanza of the fifth chapter of Galatians actually conveys:

“This freedom and liberty of ours by becoming Christos, it freed and released. So you all are directed to stand firm. Therefore, also, never again associate with the yoke of subservience and slavery. You were held based upon a grudge against you all, controlling you and forcing you to surrender to someone who bears ill will, is resentful, violent, and quarrelsome.” (Galatians 5:1)

That was hard to write, much less read. It is hard to imagine Paul hating God to this degree.

Based upon Paul’s attitude, and the nature of his delusional and inverted thesis, it wasn’t much of a stretch for the New Living Translation to suggest: “So Christ has truly set us free. Now make sure that you stay free, and don’t get tied up again in slavery to the law.” Paul’s intent is obvious. Therefore, as a thought-for-thought paraphrase, the NLT nailed it.

Unfortunately for Christians, what Paul thought and wrote was not true. Dowd’s fulfillment of Pesach and Matsah resolved our guilt, not God’s.

By comparison, the KJV was a bit slow on the uptake: “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.” At least, the King James accurately reflected one aspect of enechomai with “entangled.” And it was even a slight departure from the Latin Vulgate which is rare. Jerome wrote: “Stand fast and be not held again under the yoke of bondage.”

Galatians continues to be as painful as it is pernicious. Having attempted to censure God, the Devil’s Advocate unleashed his first official “I Paul say….” He would have the faithful believe that he was more credible and important than God. Sha’uwl was a blithering idiot. What you are about to read is yet another lie – this one deadly...

“You pay attention (ide – you look right now, listen and see, noticing this), I (ego), Paulos (Paulos – transliterated Paul, whom Strong’s called “the most famous of the Apostles;” the name is of Latin origin meaning Lowly and Little), myself, say (lego – I individually assert, declaring) to you all (umin) that (hoti – because) if (ean – on the condition) you may be circumcised (peritemno), Christos (ΧΡΣ – being Christos (but without the definite article)) for you (umas) nothing (oudeis – totally worthless and completely meaningless, annulling the possibility and negating the idea that) will be helpful (opheleo – will provide assistance or benefit, will be useful or valuable).” (Galatians 5:2)

According to this statement, to believe Paul’s word, you must reject God’s Word. Yahowah said the opposite. An uncircumcised man is prohibited from participating in Pesach – foreclosing the only means to eternal life.

Beyond robbing every Christian of the opportunity for life beyond death, Paul has done something far worse. The man who had the audacity to claim that he alone was inspired by God, and had met with “Jesus,” just negated the merit of the Messiah’s gifts of life, perfection, and adoption.

Distilled to its essence, the Plague of Death wrote…

“You pay attention, I, Paulos, myself say to you all that if on the condition that you may be circumcised, Christos is totally worthless and completely meaningless, not in the least bit helpful or useful for you.”

This is blasphemous in the extreme, with Paulos saying: If you follow God’s guidance in the Towrah, you cannot be saved by Gospel Jesus. This time, the writing quality is sufficiently clear – it is the message which is at fault.

The depravity of Paul’s message is exemplified by the words he chose to convey it. The first one, “lego – I say,” pits Paul against Gospel Jesus who in John’s Gospel was called “the ‘logos – word’ made flesh.” It is also a substitute for the “dabar – word” of God. Logos was written in the first-person singular, present active indicative. Even though the pronoun “I” or “myself” was designated in the verb, Sha’uwl added “ego – I” separately, in addition to his chosen name, “Paulos,” to emphasize that he was the source of this “declaration, narration, command, assertion, and report.”

The present tense indicates that “Paulos,” as the writer, was portraying his statement as being currently valid and remaining so into the future. In the active voice, the verb confirms that Sha’uwl was the sole source of, and solely responsible for this assertion and for its consequence. The indicative mood attests to the fact that Paul wanted his audience to believe that his portrayal was completely accurate. As such, he has negated any possibility that he was speaking for the Jesus whose narrative would be contrived in books scribed three to five decades later.

“Peritemno – you may be circumcised” was written as peritemnesoe in the second-person plural, present passive subjunctive. The passive voice combined with the subjunctive mood signifies that there is somewhere between a possibility and a probability that the subject is being acted upon, suggesting that Sha’uwl wanted to convey that those who are Towrah-observant may have been either hoodwinked or compelled into being circumcised.

Moving on to the next word, at first blush, it appears as if oudeis, rendered as “nothing,” was misused in this text. It is actually an adjective (meaning that it should be modifying the noun “Christos”), not an adverb, coloring the nature of “opheleo – will be helpful.” Oudeis is defined as “the negation of a noun,” as “no one, nothing, and nobody,” all of which are rather demeaning when associated with the Messiah because it negates everything the Son of God said and did, making him a “nobody” and his sacrifice for “nothing.” And yet that is what happens when Yahowah’s Towrah instructions regarding His Covenant and Miqra’ey generally, and circumcision, specifically, are ignored or, worse, rejected.

Similarly, oudeis conveys the idea that a noun, in this case a misnomer, “Christos,” is “in no respect valid, totally worthless, of no account whatsoever, and completely meaningless.” All of this is true when “Christos” is disassociated from God’s Word as Sha’uwl has done.

Oddly, noting that umas, designating the pronoun “you,” was rendered in the personal (referring to a person) second-person plural (and thus “all of you” or “you all”) accusative (marking it as the direct object of the verb), “opheleo – will be helpful” was written in the third person singular, denoting “it will not provide assistance or benefit.” Therefore, to properly convey Sha’uwl’s convoluted citation into English, we need to move “umas – you” from between “Christos” and “ouden” (as it appears in the Greek text) to the end of the sentence, as I did for you in the statement’s summation.

Rendered in the future active indicative as ophelesei, the concluding verb conveys the notion that “its negated benefit will not actually be accomplished in the future” by the subject, who is “Christos.” And the future negated benefit is defined as: “being of help, assistance, or value, being useful or profitable, and being advantageous.”

It should be understood here that as a Yisra’elite, and as the son of a Pharisee, Sha’uwl would have been circumcised eight days after he was born. So by writing this sentence, Paul was either saying that his rules don’t apply to him (as was the case with Muhammad, most politicians, and religious leaders), or he was publicly announcing that the Messiah’s life and Yahowah’s Towrah are of no value to his Faith. I will let you ponder whether one or both realities are actually true.

Before we consider Yahowah’s position on circumcision, here is a consortium of English translations for your consideration. NAMI: “Look I Paul say to you that if you might be circumcised Christ you nothing will benefit.” LV: “Behold, I Paul tell you, that if you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” KJV: “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” NASB: “Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.”

In this case, the NLT has actually moderated what Paul has said: “Listen! I, Paul, tell you this: If you are counting on circumcision to make you right with God, then Christ will be of no benefit to you.” While Paul wrote that you have no hope of salvation if you are circumcised, the evangelical text softened that considerably to suggest that circumcision isn’t beneficial when it comes to salvation.

Since I am bereft of words to properly condemn Paul’s preposterous statement, let’s consider Yahowah’s position on circumcision as it was articulated in the Towrah. God’s message is so unambiguous and unwavering, there is no reason to interrupt Him with my commentary. He said...

“I will take a stand to establish and confirm (wa quwm – so I will validate and honor, setting up, constructing and building, fulfilling and accomplishing, carrying out and restoring, encouraging others to take a successful stand to raise up and keep (hifil perfect)), therefore (‘eth – in accordance with this association and through this relationship), My Covenant Family (beryth ‘any – My Family-Oriented Relationship Agreement, Vow of Marriage, My Home and Household Promise, My Pledge and Contractual Arrangement, My Binding Oath Regarding a Treaty Between Two Parties, from beyth – family and home).

For the purpose of encouraging understanding, achieved through making connections between Me and you, it will promote an association with (bayn ‘any wa ‘atah wa byn – to provide insights which facilitate a relationship between Me and you so that you and I can be discerning based upon closely examining and carefully considering teaching and instruction, using good judgment to respond properly throughout the long interval of time, so as to increase the comprehension of) your offspring (zera’ ‘atah – your seed, those conceived as posterity, your children, the harvest that is the result of what you have planted) after you (‘achar ‘atah – afterward and subsequent to you) for their generations to approach (la dowrym hem – for their people living at different times and in various places, their family line and lineage dwelling in a home and camping out throughout time) by way of (la – for the purpose of) an everlasting (‘owlam – an eternal, never-ending, always continuing) Family Covenant Relationship (beryth – Family-Oriented Agreement regarding the terms and conditions of living in a home as part of a household).

I will exist as (la hayah – for the purpose of being) your God (la ‘atah la ‘elohym – and for you to approach the Almighty) as well as (wa) for your offspring (la zera’ ‘atah – for your posterity and children to move toward the goal) after you (‘achar ‘atah – afterward and subsequent to you).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:7)

“So then (wa) God said (‘amar ‘elohym – the Almighty affirmed and declared, making a request (qal imperfect – literally with unfolding consequences)) to (‘el) ‘Abraham (‘Abraham – the father who raises and lifts up those who stand up and reach up, father of the abundantly enriched, merciful father, or father of the multitudes who are confused and troublesome), ‘As for you (wa ‘atah ‘eth – in addition and with regard to you), you should continually examine and genuinely consider (shamar ‘atah – you should consistently observe, always focusing upon, look at and pay attention to, learn from and care about, diligently and literally contemplating the details which comprise (qal imperfect – literal interpretation of the relationship with ongoing and unfolding consequences throughout time)) My Family Covenant Relationship (beryth ‘any – My Household Accord and Agreement).

In addition, so should the offspring you conceive (wa zera’ ‘atah – as well as your seed, descendants, and prodigy) following you (‘achar ‘atah – after you) so that they might approach throughout their generations (la dowrym hem – for them to draw near and reach the goal no matter when or where they live, for every age, period, lineage, race, or class of individual). (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:9)

This specific (zo’th – this one and only, singular entity being discussed as the (demonstrative singular feminine pronoun from zeh – lamb and sheep)) Familial Covenant of Mine (beryth ‘any – My Family Agreement, My Household Accord, and My Home (singular feminine construct)), which beneficially marks the way to the relationship (‘asher – which to show the way to this fortunate and joyful place that is found by walking the correct way, thereby revealing the steps which lead to life), you should continuously observe, closely and literally examining, while carefully considering (shamar – focus upon, look at and pay attention to, be aware of, learn about and remember, care about and cling to, retain for protection, diligently contemplate and in great detail evaluate (qal stem imperfect conjugation – literally and genuinely, consistently and continually, with actual and ongoing implications regarding the relationship)).

You should strive to be discerning and make an intelligent connection to understand Me (bayn ‘any – to pay attention while being observant and diligently join things together in a rational and prudent way which lead to perceiving, properly regarding, and comprehending Me). This is for you to be perceptive and prudent regarding the association (wa bayn ‘atah – for you to make the appropriate connection after exercising good judgment).

To form a thoughtful relationship and make a comprehensible connection between (wa byn – to consider the instruction provided and make an intelligent association with) your offspring (zera’ ‘atah – your descendants and children, your seed and posterity, those you conceive who are harvested) following you (‘achar ‘atah – after you), you should circumcise (muwl – you should cut off and remove the foreskin, warding off a deadly and debilitating curse by way of this oath, changing priorities while making a binding promise to undergo the benefits of circumcision (scribed with the niphal stem denoting the genuineness of this relationship while stressing the benefit accrued to the parent, while the infinitive absolute intensifies the importance of the act, and in the imperfect conjugation, reveals that this instruction on circumcision will endure uninterrupted throughout time with ongoing benefits)), accordingly (la – to facilitate their approach), your every male to help them remember their status (‘atem kol zakar – every son of yours, every man and every boy to remember, memorialize, and honor the status and renown associated and implied with this celebration of the relationship).’ (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:10)

And (wa) you all shall make a declaration by cutting off and separating (malal – you shall truthfully proclaim and speak about being circumcised, announcing the truth regarding the principle of circumcision as a sign, as a subtle means of communicating what it means to be set apart (the niphal stem is used to convey the voice of genuine relationships where the subject, which is “you” as a parent, receives the benefit of the verb, which is circumcision, in the perfect conjugation designating that this instruction and resulting action should be accomplished and considered whole and complete, and in the consecutive associating it with our basar – flesh)) your foreskin’s (‘arlah – the fold of skin covering the conical tip of the masculine genitalia; akin to ‘aram and ‘arak – the tendency of people to gather together before the cunning and crafty, to be drawn in by the clever counsel and calculating tendencies which are conceived, arranged, set forth, ordained, and esteemed to appear comparable) association with (‘eth) one’s animalistic instincts and propensity to preach (basar – the physical body and animal nature but also separating from mankind’s propensity to proclaim and publish what the people yearn to hear).

And (wa) this will exist (hayah – this is and will be (scribed in the qal perfect, signifying the relationship is genuine and that the act is only performed once and is considered complete)) as (la) the sign to remember (‘owth – the example to visually illustrate and explain, the symbol and standard, the pledge and attestation of the miraculous nature (singular, as in the one and only sign, construct form, linking the sign to)) the Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth – mutually binding familial agreement, household promise, relational accord, marriage vow based upon home and family (feminine singular, scribed in the construct form, eternally associating the beryth – covenant with ‘owth – the sign of muwl – circumcision)) between Me, for the purpose of making a connection (byn – in concert with coming to know and understand Me as a result of being perceptive, prudently considering the insights which are discernible regarding Me) and between you, promoting understanding (wa byn – to cause you to be aware and to more readily comprehend the association). (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:11)

Therefore, with (wa – it follows that with) a son (ben – a male child) of eight (shamonah – from shamen, meaning olive oil, which is symbolic of the Spirit, of light, of being anointed, and of being rooted in the land) days (yowmym), you shall circumcise (muwl – you shall cut off and separate his foreskin (scribed using the niphal stem denoting a relationship which is genuine whereby the parents benefit from doing as God has requested, and in the imperfect conjugation which tells us that this must continue to occur over time because it is designed to produce ongoing results)) with regard to your (la) every (kol) male to remember (zakar – masculine individual; from zakar: to commit to memory, to remind, and to remember) throughout (la) your dwelling places and generations (dowr – your protected households and extended families, elevating and extending your lives), those naturally born (yalyd – those naturalized as a member of the extended family through natural childbirth) in the home (beyth – into the household and family (singular absolute)), and also (wa) those wanting to be (kasap – those desiring, yearning, and passionately longing to be) acquired and included (miqnah – purchased and obtained; from qanah – to be redeemed (speaking of adoption)), of (min) every (kol) son (ben – male child) of foreign lands (nekar – of places where they were not properly valued and appreciated, and yet who are nonetheless observant) who relationally (‘asher – by way of making a connection) are not (lo’) from (min) your seed (zera’). (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:12)

He (huw’ – third person masculine singular pronoun, addressing fathers) should absolutely circumcise him, definitely cutting off the foreskin (muwl muwl – he can ward off a deadly and debilitating curse by way of this oath, promising to cease what he is currently doing by changing his priorities while making a binding promise to undergo circumcision (scribed with the niphal stem denoting the genuineness of this relationship while stressing the benefit accrued to the parent, in the infinitive absolute which intensifies the importance of the act, and in the imperfect conjugation, telling us that this instruction on circumcision will endure uninterrupted throughout time with ongoing benefits)) of the naturally born (yalyd – naturalized as a member of an extended family through natural childbirth) in your home (beyth – into your household and your family) and also (wa) those desiring to be (kasap – those wanting, strongly yearning, and passionately longing to be) included (miqnah – acquired, purchased, redeemed, and obtained) as well as those who are acquired (miqnah – purchased through adoption and included) with your money (keseph – your precious metals; born out of a deep longing and love for adoption).

This shall be (hayah – this was, is, and will be, existing as (qal stem denotes a genuine relationship between the subject and the action of the verb which is existence, in the perfect conjugation revealing an act that is complete, lacking nothing, when accomplished, in the singular conveying that there are no other options or contingencies, and in the consecutive form, associating our existence with the beryth – family-oriented covenant relationship and its sign, muwl – circumcision)) My Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth-y – My mutually binding familial agreement and relational accord), in (ba) the flesh (basar – physical realm with humanity), serving as a means to approach toward (la – to the goal of) an everlasting and eternal (‘owlam – forever existing and never-ending) Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth – mutually binding agreement and promise, relational accord and marriage vow based upon home and family (feminine singular)). (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:13)

Therefore (wa), the uncircumcised (‘arel – the stubborn, unresponsive, untrusting, and self-reliant, those unwilling to listen and those who are unobservant, those who are not separated and who are unwilling to be set apart) male (zakar – man who fails to remember to do this) who relationally (‘asher – by association does not know the proper way or the benefits of the relationship and) is not circumcised (lo’ muwl – willing to change his direction and priorities and make this binding promise to ward off the curse (nifal imperfect – men who continually remain uncircumcised as a result of their inaction suffer the consequence)) with regard to (‘eth) the flesh (basar – physical, human, and animal nature in addition to being separated from those who preach and publish what mankind wants to hear in association with) of his foreskin (‘arlah – symbolic of ‘aram and ‘arak – man’s propensity to be drawn together by crafty counsel, by cunning tendencies, and that which is conceived, arranged, set forth, ordained, and esteemed to appear comparable), that soul (ha nepesh ha hy’ – speaking of what makes each individual unique, alive, aware, and conscious) shall be cut off, be excluded, and banished (karat – it shall be severed and cut down, it shall be uprooted and die, perishing and destroyed, ceasing to exist (nifal perfect – they will not only have caused their soul’s banishment, they will suffer the effect of their exclusion as a result of this singular failure during their brief lives)) from (min) her / Her (hy’ – addressing the nepesh which is now severed from the Ruwach Qodesh’s Covenant) family (‘am – people who are kin, related biologically or through a common language or experience).

By way of association (‘eth – therefore as a result), they violated and broke by creating two separate variations, thereby dissociating themselves from (parar – they nullified the agreement and injured themselves by revoking the Covenant’s promises, tearing asunder and thwarting the relationship’s benefits, splitting away and harming themselves in the process by severing the agreement through the process of tearing into two parts (hifil perfect – their act of creating a new covenant led to their own demise such that neither they nor their new covenant will endure)) My Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth-y – My mutually binding agreement and promise, My relational accord and vow based upon home and family (feminine singular, scribed in the construct form, connecting and associating the beryth – covenant with God’s ‘am – family; written with the first-person singular suffix: My – reminding us that this specific and unique Covenant is God’s)).” (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 17:14)

There can be no doubt; according to Yahowah circumcision and the Covenant are related and inseparable. A “New Covenant” of any kind, much less one where circumcision is considered counterproductive, is therefore a nonstarter. Do not believe anyone who says otherwise, and that includes Paul. Also, if someone condemns “the flesh,” calling it evil, as Paul is wont to do, please note that Yahowah’s Covenant was cut with us in the flesh – and there is nothing God prizes more highly than His Family.

Therefore, our Heavenly Father is serious about circumcision. So we should be as well. His statements are as enlightening as they are unequivocal. And especially relevant is ‘arel, a word which when fully amplified explains the nature of those who are uncircumcised. Those who do not embrace this, the fifth and final Covenant requirement, are considered: “stubborn and unresponsive,” they are “untrusting and therefore not reliant” because they “do not listen and refuse to be observant,” so as a result, they are “forbidden” because they are “not set apart” unto God.

Rather than Sha’uwl’s “if you might be circumcised, the benefit of Gospel Jesus is nullified,” God said: “if you are not circumcised, your soul will be cut off and separated from My family because you have broken and nullified My Familial Covenant Relationship.” Those who believe Paul must reject Yahowah, and He just happens to be God. Or we can trust Yahowah, which means rejecting Paul. The truth is undeniable: Sha’uwl’s faith and his promise are the antithesis of God’s promises – especially relative to the Covenant.

There are so many questions which are answered by Yahowah’s declaration, let’s linger here and consider them one at a time. First, karat, like so many Hebrew terms, has a dark and light side. The word’s divergent implications influence us differently depending upon the choices we make. On the bright side, karat is routinely used by Yahowah to tell us that He has “karat – cut” His “beryth – agreeable familial covenant relationship” with us – one which “separates” those who accept it from those who do not.

For those who ignore Yahowah’s Covenant, who reject it, or try to change it, they will endure the cutting and divisive side of karat. They shall be “cut off” and thus “separated from” Yahowah’s Family. They will be “excluded” from His Covenant and will be “banished” from His Home. Those who choose not to sign their acceptance of Yahowah’s Covenant by way of circumcision, those who are unwilling to “muwl – change their direction and priorities,” will be “karat – uprooted” from the Promised Land – a metaphor for Heaven. They will “karat – die” and their souls will “perish, ceasing to exist.”

Second, while “muwl – circumcision” is a physical act in the flesh, our “nepesh – souls” are everything but physical. The nepesh represents our “consciousness.” It is an essential part of our nature, the reservoir of our personality and means to observe and respond to what is around us.” This consciousness has no physical properties. It has no mass, and it is not matter. And yet, by failing to be circumcised in the flesh, our soul dies, because it is expressly excluded from Yahowah’s Covenant Family. Therefore, the choices we make in our mortal, material bodies influence whether or not we are elevated to a spiritual status.

Third, circumcision is not, by itself, the means to reconciliation, but it is a barrier to salvation. While most of those who are circumcised will not be adopted into God’s family, one hundred percent of men and boys who have not been circumcised will be excluded.

Fourth, we either agree to God’s terms or we nullify the opportunity He has given us to survive our mortality and to live with Him. There is no hint of leniency here, no sense of compromise, no opportunity for a future revision to alter this requirement. We either accept it or not. No circumcision, no Covenant. No Covenant, no relationship with God. No relationship with God, no salvation. And therein is why such souls die.

This distinction is so well established, so clear cut, so unequivocal, and so obviously delineated as a condition of the Covenant, it means that Paul’s attack against Yahowah, His Towrah, and His Beryth was deliberate and overtly adversarial. It also means that Paul was wrong.

God is not going to negotiate this point nor is He going to capitulate. He cannot change the terms of His agreement without becoming dishonest and unreliable. As a result, there is a singular path to life, and we either walk to God along it without wavering, or it is goodbye and good riddance. There is no accommodation for individual approaches, or for the collective appeal of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.

The implication here is something no Christian or Muslim, both who claim that the Towrah was inspired, seem willing or able to acknowledge. Most believe that it does not matter if their faith is in compliance with God’s instructions, because they have been led to believe that He knows the content of their heart. Contradictions, therefore, become irrelevant. To them, God is God no matter what you call Him. To them, Friday prayers and Sunday worship are perfectly acceptable. Jihad and Grace are both embraced by the faithful, and many paths are thought to lead to Heaven. Sure, Christmas and Easter are pagan, but since that is not what they mean to the celebrant, they believe that their god will be understanding. For them, mercy invokes a level of capriciousness which they do not see as inappropriate. Their god would not reject them for getting some of the details, well actually, everything, wrong.

And yet, all of these musings are inconsistent with the God who inspired these words. With Yahowah, you accept the Covenant on His terms or not at all. Not only are we in no position to negotiate with God over something integral to His nature, we have everything to gain if we agree to His terms, and He loses nothing if we do not.

Fifth, the “nepesh – souls” of those who do not rely upon God’s instructions “karat – die, they perish and cease to exist.” Throughout the Towrah and Prophets, this is the prevailing outcome for the vast preponderance of human souls. At the end of most peoples’ mortal lives, when they die, they will cease to exist because their souls will simply perish.

The evaporation of a soul is not a penalty or a Divine punishment. In fact, Yahowah has little to do with this eventuality. It is by “karat – disassociating from” God that this fate occurs. And that is because eternal life with God is predicated upon us associating with Him in the specific manner He has delineated. If we do not accept His terms, if we don’t avail ourselves of the path He has provided, then our souls, disconnected from the source of life, perish, which means that an individual’s consciousness will simply cease to exist.

All religions, but most especially Christianity and Islam, seek submission among their adherents by threatening eternal suffering and fiery tortures in hell for all of those who don’t acquiesce to their edicts. However, not a person among such believers pauses to think that, if their god actually said, “love me and agree with me or I’ll see to it that you suffer forever,” such a spirit would not be lovable. A god who would make such statements would be sadistic. And that is why there is an alternative fate awaiting souls which is neither heaven nor hell, neither a reward nor a punishment. Religious leaders, however, universally deny the fact that God has such a provision since this outcome is neither something to be coveted nor feared and cannot be used to threaten masses of people into submission.

That is not to say that there is not a place of eternal separation – there is. But there are no fires blazing or physical tortures perpetrated therein. She’owl is a lightless place which exists only in the dimension of time. It was established for Satan, fellow demonic spirits, and for those who lead others astray by associating with them. This is the place of separation, filled with the most outspoken and notorious religious, political, economic, and military advocates. It is for those who victimize others, oppressing them, and leading them away from the Towrah and its Covenant. It is where Sha’uwl | Paul will endure eternity.

No doubt, eternal separation from God is a penalty, but having one’s soul perish is not. Each individual is given the gift of life and freewill. Everyone can do with them as they please. If a person chooses to avail themselves of Yahowah’s Covenant, to walk away from Babylon and to walk to Him along the path He has provided, God has promised eternal life, merciful forgiveness of sins, adoption into His family, tremendous empowerment and enrichment.

Those who choose to ignore Yahowah’s provision, to rely on a different scheme, to alter the deal He has cut with us, or simply reject it, will be ignored by God and remain unaltered by His Covenant promises. It is ashes to ashes and dust to dust. Such individuals do not know God and God does not know them. Death will be the end of life.

The sixth lesson we can learn from this Towrah presentation brings us back to Sha’uwl. Circumcision is the fulcrum upon which those who rely on Yahowah’s Word move in a different direction than those who believe the self-proclaimed thirteenth “Apostle.” In Acts, the moment we are introduced to Paul, we learn that he was preaching against circumcision. As a result, he was called to Yaruwshalaim, by those Gospel Jesus had chosen and taught, to explain his departure from Yahowah’s Covenant instructions. They told Paul that he was wrong, so in his initial letter, the one he wrote to the Galatians, Paul demeaned the disciples, especially Shim’own / Peter, Yahowchanan / John, and Ya’aqob / James (renamed “James” to flatter an English king). In Galatians, Paul ruthlessly attacks the Towrah, demeans the Covenant, and then denounces circumcision, inferring that God’s plan “enslaves” and is a “curse,” “incapable of saving anyone.”

Therefore, Christians have a choice. They can trust Yahowah, or they can believe Paul. Their claims are diametrically opposed and irreconcilable.

It is also instructive to know that we can’t blame this conflict between Yahowah and Paul on scribal error. These specific passages from Bare’syth / Genesis on circumcision are not only extant among the Qumran scrolls, they are unchanged. There isn’t a single discrepancy between the Dead Sea Scrolls, dating to the 2nd century BCE, and the Masoretic Text from Bare’syth 17:12 through the end of the chapter. And on the other end, we have a complete copy of Paul’s letter to the Galatians dating to the 2nd century CE.

Moreover, the preposterous notion that Paul didn’t write Galatians, a book he claims to have written, a book which is universally attributed to him, a book which provides the most sweeping panorama of his life, and a book which serves as the most direct rebuttal to the disciples regarding his animosity toward circumcision, the Covenant, and the Towrah, does not exonerate Paul. He is equally opposed to circumcision, the Covenant, and the Torah in Acts and also in Romans.

And that means that the conflict between Yahowah and Paul cannot be resolved. If you side with Paul, you will invalidate the benefits of the Covenant. You will be excluded from God’s family. And your soul will cease to exist. And that is why the choices we make in the flesh, while we retain our physical and animal nature, are so important.

The seventh lesson we can learn from God’s definitive statement is not to trust English Bible translations. Yahowah actually said:

“And (wa) the uncircumcised and unresponsive (‘arel) male who fails to remember this (zakar), who to benefit from the relationship (‘asher), is not (lo’) circumcised and changed (muwl) with regard to (‘eth) the flesh (basar) of their foreskin (‘aralah), those souls (nepesh) shall be cut off, they will be excluded and banished, ceasing to exist (karat) from (min) Her (huw’) family (‘am).

By way of association (‘eth), they violated and broke, disassociating themselves from (parar) My Family-Oriented Covenant Relationship (beryth-y).” (Bare’syth 17:14)

While not as revealing or complete, the Roman Catholic Vulgate was accurate up to the point of identifying whose family a soul would be excluded from. “The male whose flesh of his foreskin shall not be circumcised, that soul shall be destroyed out of his people: because he hath broken my covenant.” Not only is the pronoun “Her” scribed independently in the Hebrew text via hy’, “‘am – family” was suffixed in the third person feminine singular, reinforcing the fact that it is “Her family.” Also, the reference to “his people” suggests banishment from the villages and land of Yisra’el rather than from the “beryth – Covenant,” yet another feminine noun.

The King James Version reads identically. It promotes the same myth, one which would reinforce the church’s desire to excommunicate those whom they opposed.

Recognizing that the translators had both made a mistake, the New Living Translation, not knowing how to deal with “Her,” added a second “covenant” and substituted it for “Her.” “Any male who fails to be circumcised will be cut off from the covenant family for breaking the covenant.” Since it is God’s Word, and since accuracy is therefore important, you should know that there is no basis for “any” in the Hebrew text. They combined “‘arel – uncircumcised and unresponsive” with “lo’ muwl – is not circumcised or changed,” as if only one of these words were spoken by God. Then they completely ignored “‘eth basar ‘aralah – with regard to the flesh of their foreskin” – ostensibly to avoid destroying Pauline Doctrine. But in their conclusion, reversing course, they not only repeated “beryth – covenant” twice, even though it was written once, they neglected to convey that beryth was scribed inclusive of the first-person singular suffix, making it “My Covenant.”

Simply stated, as a sign of our desire to participate in Yahowah’s Covenant, males are to be circumcised. The foreskin is to be removed from the male genitalia which is responsible for consummating marriage and producing children. It reveals that we have agreed to be “separated, and thus set apart.” Our Heavenly Father’s Covenant is about bearing children and building a family set apart from the world of corrupt institutions. Yahowah does not want anyone to miss these points.

Therefore, considering Yahowah’s position on this particular topic, and Paul’s, it would be inappropriate to spin Galatians to infer anything other than Paul is overtly opposed to God and to His Covenant. Satan’s Apostle is not only assailing God’s instructions regarding circumcision, Paul’s position states that if you rely on God’s Word you cannot be saved. Good luck with that.



Continuing to assail Yahowah’s Covenant, whose sign remains circumcision, and God’s Towrah, the man who considered his testimony more vital than the Almighty’s, according to the NAMI ineloquently opined: “I testify but again to all man being circumcised that debtor he is whole the law to do.” Let’s be perfectly clear so that no one is misled: this is Paul’s testimony, not God’s.

“So then (de) once again (palin – furthermore, repeating myself), I testify (martyromai – I solemnly declare as a witness, I affirm, insist, and protest) to every (pas) man (anthropos) being circumcised (peritemno) that (hoti) he actually is (eimi) obligated (opheiletes – in debt and required) to do and perform (poieomai – to work, toil, and carry out the assigned tasks of) the entire (holos – all of, the whole, total and complete) Towrah (ton nomon – the nourishing allotment which leads to an inheritance; used throughout the Septuagint to convey Towrah – the Source of Teaching, Guidance, Instruction, and Direction).” (Galatians 5:3)

There are only five requirements in the whole of the Towrah, and they all pertain to participation in the Covenant. Everyone is free to accept these conditions, reject them, or ignore them. But for those who act upon them, the rest of the Towrah exists to liberate, enlighten, and empower the Children of God.

The best example of this is Dowd (errantly known as David). He responded to the terms of the Covenant as they were presented in the Towrah, and God responded by vindicating the man who violated much of His Towrah’s guidance on how we should live our lives among men. Then Dowd, who came to be the exemplar of the Covenant as Yahowah’s Firstborn Son, chose of his own accord to fulfill the means to deliver its blessings. Therefore, the fact that Yahowah calls Dowd “right, righteous, and vindicated,” demonstrates that Paul’s premise was wrong.

In that this is an important distinction, since Yahowah called Sha’uwl the “plague of death,” since God affirmed that Dowd was “correct,” let’s contrast what we have been reading to Dowd’s testimony to determine why one flawed individual was despised and the other was loved.

The following lyrics represent the initial sixteen verses of the 176 which comprise Dowd’s ode to the Towrah, with eight statements derived from each of Hebrew’s 22 letters...

“Enjoyable, favorable, and blessed (‘ashry) is the Way (derek) to becoming innocent, perfect, and entirely blameless (tamym) by walking (halak) in (ba) the Towrah (Towrah) of Yahowah (Yahowah).

Properly guided (‘ashery) are those who are saved and preserved (natsar) by His enduring and restoring testimony (‘edah). They genuinely seek to have a relationship with Him and His witness (darash) for all (la kol) time (dowr).

Therefore (‘ap), they do not carry out (lo’ pa’al) that which is harmful or wrong (‘eowlah) by walking in His ways (ba derek halak).

You (‘atah), Yourself, provided and ordained (tsawah) Your precepts, these instructions which You have entrusted to us, encouraging us to respond appropriately to You (piquwdym) in order that they would be diligently examined and carefully considered (la ma’od shamar).

As a result (‘achalay), my path through life (derek) will be properly prepared and firmly established (kuwn), approaching by (la) observing (shamar) Your truth, Your consistent, never-changing, enduring, and reliable testimony (‘emeth).

Then (‘az), I will not be ashamed (bowsh) by (ba) looking at (nabat) all of (kol) God’s (‘el) terms and conditions as they relate to Your binding covenant contract (mitswah).

You, I will publicly acknowledge and thank, expressing my gratitude while professing Your attributes (yadah) directly in an upright attitude (ba yashar leb) when (ba) I learn and properly respond to (lamad) Your righteous and vindicating (tsadaq) means to resolve disputes (mishpat).

According to (‘eth) Your clearly communicated and inscribed prescriptions of what we should do in life to live (choq), by being observant (shamar), I will not be forsaken by You. I will never be neglected or disassociated from You (‘azab), not for one hundred (me’ah) eternities (‘ad).

In what way (ba mah) can a young man (na’ar) keep his path pure so as to be acquitted (zakah ‘eth ‘orah)? By being observant, closely examining and carefully considering the associations in (ka) Your Word (dabar).

In all my heart and with all my being (ba kol leb), I seek to form a relationship with You, seeking to learn more about You (darash). You do not want me to be misled or stray (shagah) from (min) the terms and conditions of Your relationship agreement (mitswah).

In my heart (ba leb), I have genuinely treasured (tsaphan) Your instructions and promises (‘emrah) so that (ma’an) I will not fail to reach You as a result of going astray and missing the way, nor by my wrongdoing or guilt (lo’ chata’ la).

Yahowah (Yahowah), You (‘atah) have knelt down in love to bless and provide divine favor (barak). Teach me so that I respond properly to (lamad) Your clearly communicated prescriptions of what I should do to live (choq).

With my lips and in my spoken words (ba saphah), I consider and proclaim from the written text (saphar / sepher) all of (kol) the means used to achieve justice, resolve disputes, and exercise sound judgment (mishpat) which come from Your mouth (peh).

In the Way (ba derek) of Your Witness regarding our restoration (‘eduwth), I am pleased and delighted, enjoying the ensuing relationship (suws), as if (ka) before all of the Almighty’s abundance, God’s sufficiency and substance (‘al kol hown).

Concerning Your precepts and directions (ba piquwdym), I will choose to meditate on them and speak of them (syach). And (wa) I will choose to consistently observe so that I understand (nabat) Your ways and Your path through life (‘orah).

Concerning Your clearly communicated and inscribed prescriptions of what I should do to live (ba choq), I find them fun, even enjoyable (sha’a’). I will never overlook or ignore (lo’ shakah) Your Word (dabar).” (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 119:1-16)

Dowd loved the Word of God, especially His Towrah, and wrote songs to extol its virtues. Yahowah loves Dowd, calling him both “right” and “vindicated,” in addition to “My son,” “Messiah,” and “King.”

By contrast, Sha’uwl hated the Word of God, especially His Towrah, and wrote letters to demean and discard it. Yahowah despises Paul, calling him the “Plague of Death,” in addition to “the Father of Lies” and “Son of Evil.” And that leaves us with only one question: why is this comparison too difficult for Christians to understand?

In order to control his audience, Paul needed the faithful to believe that he was the foremost authority on the Towrah as well as the world’s leading expert regarding salvation. Therefore, in the case of his most recent proclamation, the myth he is promoting is that if someone does anything Yahowah asks, they must do everything He asks, or they are dead men walking. But as we just noted with Dowd, that clearly was not the case.

In this regard, the third condition for those desirous of participating in the Covenant relationship with God is that we walk to Him along the path He has provided to make us perfect. This path, which is comprised of seven invitations to meet with God, is presented in the heart of the Towrah, in the book aptly named Qara / Called Out / Leviticus. Yahowah offers His remedy for our inadequacies after formalizing the Covenant with Abraham. And along His Way, Yahowah does the work so that nothing other than attendance and appreciation is required of us.

But that is not to say that Paul’s myth, one born out of a hatred for God, was not persuasive. Christians the world over and throughout time have been cheated by Sha’uwl’s belligerent deceptions into believing that “the problem with the Torah is that its restrictive and antiquated rules require perfection.”

Let’s pretend for the sake of argument that Paul was right: how can disobeying everything God requests endear a person to the One making those recommendations? And that is precisely what Paul is insisting upon. The self-proclaimed messenger of God wants Christians to reject God’s entire Towrah – all of it from beginning to end. Now, I ask you: who do you suppose inspired him to say such a thing?

Paul is wrong and he knows it. He was aware that the Ark of the Covenant was unavailable, and that according to a prophecy likely spoken by Dowd and later wrongly attributed to Iesou, we were told that the Temple would soon be destroyed by the Romans. And at the time, the people were under the yoke of Roman law. So, Paul knew that there were many things which were prescribed in the Torah which could not be done. Therefore, salvation could not have been a matter of doing everything the Torah prescribed, but instead understanding its prescriptions sufficiently to trust Yahowah’s remedy.

Seeing religion among the rubbish, the NLT again interpreted Paul correctly, which of course put them in opposition to God. “I’ll say it again. If you are trying to find favor with God by being circumcised, you must obey every regulation in the whole law of Moses.” Nowhere does God state that men “find favor” with Him as a result of being circumcised. Circumcision is prescribed as “the sign of the Covenant,” not the symbol of salvation or reconciliation. Moreover, for the vast preponderance of people, circumcision isn’t a choice, but instead something done to them when they are eight or fewer days old. Not a single newborn in human history has said or thought: “I want to have someone cut off the end of my external plumbing so that I can earn favor with God?” And as a result, Paul’s animosity against circumcision is misplaced.

For consistency’s sake, here are the Roman Catholic and Protestant versions of Paul’s poison. The LV reads: “And I testify again to every man circumcising himself that he is a debtor to do the whole law.” And the KJV says: “For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.”

The operative term in this next statement from the Devil’s Advocate is apo. It “describes the separation of something from an object which it was previously united but is now disjoined.” In this case, Sha’uwl is speaking of the purported separation of “Christou from the Towrah.” So now, addressing those who had chosen to follow Yahowah’s Torah instructions regarding circumcision, Sha’uwl testified:

“You have invalidated and rendered inoperative (katargeo – you have put an end to, made inactive and useless, and abolished the purpose and function of) the separation of (apo – the movement away and disassociation of) Christou (ΧΥ – a Divine Placeholder for the Ma’aseyah (but without the definite article, the errant misnomer, Christou, is a better grammatical fit than the correct title meaning “the Implement Doing the Work of Yah”)) whosoever (hostis) is in unison with (en) the Towrah (nomo – the nourishing allotment with enables an inheritance).

You all having been declared righteous (dikaioo – you having been acquitted, put right, and vindicated) with the (tes) Charis / Gratia / Graces (Charis – a transliteration of the name of the Greek goddesses known as the Gratia or Graces in Roman mythology), you all have fallen away and have been forsaken (ekpipto – you have become inadequate and have descended from a higher place to a lower one, you have bowed down and prostrated yourselves).” (Galatians 5:4)

Sha’uwl was a man on a mission. Too bad it involved promoting pagan deities, and demeaning the only actual Deity, on behalf of the Adversary.

And speaking of Paul’s mission, he had become a broken record. In a rut, he was demeaning the Galatians again. However, by lambasting the entire community of those he had preached to for completely rejecting what he had demanded of them, Paul’s letter proves that those who knew Paul best did not believe him.

The Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear renders the Greek text somewhat differently, albeit the resulting message is no less inaccurate: “You have been abolished from Christ who in law are made right the favor you fell out.” This is perhaps more incomprehensible than the more literal and exacting presentation of the same words.

But as you probably anticipated, this poorly expressed thought has been interpreted by Christendom to say: “For if you are trying to make yourselves right with God by keeping the law, you have been cut off from Christ! You have fallen away from God’s grace.” To the contrary, it is only by observing the Towrah that we come to avail ourselves of what Dowd accomplished. This in turn enables us to benefit from the Covenant. Those who disassociate the Towrah from the Messiah separate themselves from Yahowah. Therefore, the New Living Translation has become an agent leading the faithful away from God.

But they were not the first to commit this crime. There was a long line of false witnesses before them, starting with Paul. The Latin Vulgate reads: “You are made void of Christo, you who are justified in the law: you are fallen from Gratia.” The King James Version parroted this thought by publishing: “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” Neither properly translated as “katargeo – you have invalidated and rendered inoperative” in the initial sentence, and both either ignored or misstated the meaning of “apo – the separation of.” But it’s Paul’s grammar that is to blame for the variant renderings of the second sentence.

Considering the onslaught of lies that preceded it, in context, Paul is now saying that, since the Towrah cannot save anyone, only those who accept his Faith have hope. Even if his premise were true, and it is not, accepting it would not lead to this conclusion. Pretending that one thing is wrong does not demonstrate that something different is right, even if there were only two options available to humankind. Therefore, Paul has compounded the problem, moving from deceitful statements to logical fallacy.

“Because (gar – for then, because, and indeed) we (emeis) in spirit (ΠΝΙ) out of (ek) faith (pistis – originally conveyed as “trust and reliance” but migrated as a result of Sha’uwl’s epistles to mean “belief”) hope (apekdechomai). Righteousness (dikaiosyne – being acceptable, virtuous, and innocent) we hope for (elpis – we expect and await patiently).” (Galatians 5:5)

If nothing else, Sha’uwl has defined his use of pistis for us. With “faith” there is never anything beyond “hope.” The faithful are left to hope that their religion is right. They never know.

The NAMI suggests that Paul said: “We for in spirit from trust hope of rightness we await.” LV: “For we in spirit, by faith, wait for the hope of justice.” And the KJV edits the “Apostle’s” words this way: “For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.”

While faith is counterproductive, the Spirit indwells those who come to know, trust, and rely upon Yahowah. But the instant the Set-Apart Spirit takes up residence in us, we are purified, and thus instantly become right with God. This isn’t something that we “hope for,” or “eagerly anticipate,” but instead enjoy.

Even more confused than Paul, and completely missing the purpose of the Spirit, the NLT conveys: “But we who live by the Spirit eagerly wait to receive by faith the righteousness God has promised to us.”

Nothing comes to us by way of “faith.” Yahowah’s “promises” are knowable because they are all memorialized in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. We realize we can trust God’s testimony because it is all enveloped in prophetic predictions which have proven to be accurate. As such, those who know the Towrah are in a position to trust Yahowah and rely upon His provisions. Those who don’t understand God’s Word are relegated to faith, while those who understand God’s Word recognize that faith is counterproductive.

Using the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear as a handrail in this upside down, backward, and twisted realm of Paul’s mind, we find: “In for Christ Jesus neither circumcision some is strong nor uncircumcision but trust through love operating.”

Or, more precisely:

“[For (gar – indeed because then) omitted from P46] In (en) Christo Iesou (ΧΡΩ ΙΗΥ – placeholders used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement and Iesou) neither (oute) circumcision (peritome) is someone (ti) is capable, powerful, and mighty (tis ischuo – is able, competent, strong, or healthy) nor (oute – neither) uncircumcision (akrobystia – a word Paul made up comprised of “akron – the uttermost part of” and “posthe – penis”), on the contrary (alla), through (dia) faith (pistis – belief) love (agape) operating (energeo – functioning and working).” (Galatians 5:6) (Papyrus 46 renders “energeo – working” in the genitive participle rather than the nominative, and therefore, it modifies the noun, “agape – love,” not “pistis – trust.”)

This is to say that everything God conveyed in the Torah and Prophets regarding His Covenant and its sign, circumcision, was mistaken. Even the Christian “Christ Jesus” was neither Torah observant nor trustworthy. The Sermon on the Mount was evidently untrue. He may have been a “Judaizer.”

His crucifixion on Pesach was pure happenstance, as was the reunification of Dowd soul with the Set-Apart Spirit on Bikuwrym. He was not yet in touch with his inner sha’uwl when he said that we could come to know him through the Torah and Prophets. Ignorance really is bliss. Just believe Paul and hope that he was right in contradicting and demeaning God.

It is always laughable when those prone to protest in hateful fashion, as Paul has done since the beginning, claim that they are loving. And yet there is no difference between hating under the pretense of love and claiming to speak for the God one constantly denigrates. Citing the Towrah’s presentation of the Covenant and salvation of Abraham to claim that the Towrah cannot save is equally duplicitous. But few things are as hypocritical as claiming to have been chosen by God and then negate the purpose and benefit of His Son’s Passover and UnYeasted Bread sacrifices. And yet Paul has done all of these things, and worse.

Should Paul have been saying that “our faith expressing itself in love” was the means to our salvation, as the NLT claims, then he would have been wrong on all accounts. Our redemption is predicated upon relying upon Yahowah’s demonstration of His love for us as proposed in His Towrah. “For when we place our faith in Christ Jesus, there is no benefit in being circumcised or being uncircumcised. What is important is faith expressing itself in love.” KJV: “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”

Christian apologists will no doubt protest that it’s time to give Paul a break. After all, they believe that he was preaching about “faith expressing itself in love.” What could possibly be wrong with that? The problem is that rejecting our Heavenly Father’s advice, which is what Paul is asking, is the opposite of loving God. And placing one’s faith in Paul’s deplorable rhetoric, which is what he is demanding, is hateful to God.

Here then is a summary of Paul’s most recent assault on the truth. These are the most deceitful, destructive, deadly, and damning words ever written:

“This freedom and liberty of ours by becoming Christos, it freed and released. So you all are directed to stand firm. Therefore, also, never again associate with the yoke of subservience and slavery. You were held based upon a grudge against you all, controlling you and forcing you to surrender to someone who bears ill will, is resentful, violent, and quarrelsome.” (Galatians 5:1)

You pay attention. I, Paulos, myself say to you all that if on the condition that you may be circumcised, Christos is totally worthless and completely meaningless, not in the least bit helpful or useful for you. (Galatians 5:2)

So then, furthermore, repeating myself, I testify, insisting and protesting to every man being circumcised that he actually is obligated to do and perform the entire and complete Towrah. (Galatians 5:3)

You have invalidated and rendered inoperative, abolishing the purpose of the separation of Christou, whosoever is in unison with the Towrah, you having been declared righteous, and having been vindicated with the Charis / Gratia / Graces, you have fallen away and have been forsaken. (Galatians 5:4)

Because indeed, we in spirit out of faith hope. Righteousness we await patiently. (Galatians 5:5)

In Christo Iesou neither circumcision is someone capable, nor is the uttermost part of the penis. On the contrary through faith love operating.” (Galatians 5:6)

Since She’owl alone would be insufficient to hold Sha’uwl accountable for the hell he has unleashed upon humankind, I wonder how Yahowah intends to punish him.



Twistianity

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 running (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 created 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 is 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 hindered 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 tickle 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)

The 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 fool’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 presented 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, untrustworthy, 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 discarded. 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), crossing 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 the 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, we 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 amongst 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 Hebrew “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 day. 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 active 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 Towrah.

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 troubleth 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)



As 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.

But 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 Pillar” 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 copyedit 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 opening 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 – how 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 severed 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 – all 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.

Unfortunately, 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 (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:

“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 them 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 upon 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 openly 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 admonition 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 continually 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 – separating 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 / Exodus 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 behavior 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; Thou 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. (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..



Twistianity

Devil’s Advocate

…Plague of Death

11

Antikeimai | Adversarial

A Passion to Negate…

As we move past mutilation and cannibalism into the second half of the fifth chapter of Paul’s epistle to the Galatians, we find the wannabe apostle differentiating between the “flesh” and the “spirit.” This will become a major theme in his letters, one designed to further demean the sign of the Covenant.

Thankfully, the wording gradually improves. Regrettably, the message does not. And that is because the source of Sha’uwl’s inspiration remains the same. This begins with Paul acknowledging that he was conveying his opinions.

That is not entirely accurate. What follows would have resonated with the Greeks in Paulos’ audience because he adopted the Platonic and Socratic spiritual mysticism of Gnosticism. The Gnostics believed that the material world, which they referred to as “the cosmos” or “the flesh,” was created by the Demiurge, a “practitioner of public works” who fashioned the evil associated with the physical universe. Paul’s association of “stoicheion kosmos – the rudimentary principles representing the basic elements of the universe in the world’s religious mythology” with the Author of the Towrah was evidence that he was headed in the wrong direction. His contrasting presentation of “the flesh” versus “the spirit” is proof, as is his fixation on “enslavement” versus “liberation.”

In the Gnostic faith, the Deity was malevolent and enslaving – just as Paul has depicted the God of the Towrah. Growing out of the consciousness of man, “the One” who was Spirit usurped the power and authority of the Demiurge. This “Monad,” using Plato’s terminology and popularized by Pythagoras, represented “the Good Spirit” who came to reign above the original, but now old and arcane, Theos. The “Spiritual One,” consistent with Paul’s presentation, is the “dunamis – power” which is found through contemplation, is revealed through rhetoric and is accepted through faith.

As a result, in Gnosticism, just as is the case in Paulos’ letters, the Creator should be shunned so that the spiritual world of “the One God” can be embraced, thereby enlightening, emancipating, and saving all those who believe, resulting in a state of oneness with the Deity. Personal poverty (achieved by donating one’s wealth to the cult’s spiritual guides), sexual abstinence (as opposed to marriage and family), and helping other initiates (being slaves to one another in Paul’s words) were hallmarks of the Gnostic religion.

Believers were told that the flesh was evil and that the one true God had no association with the physical world. So, when the secret knowledge of the spiritual realm was revealed and accepted, the faithful could rise up, transformed by believing the promises made by the One’s messengers.

It is interesting to note that the English word “demiurge” is from a Latin transliteration of the Greek word demiourgos, meaning “public worker,” which is manifested in Paul’s “works of the Torah” theme. Also revealing, the oldest known pictorial depiction of a Gnostic deity is a lion-faced serpent whose head was superimposed on the sun, flanked by images of the moon and stars. Making matters worse, not only was this depiction found in Mithraic literature, the body of the snake superimposed on the sun forms an inverted cross. It is from a similar image that Constantine, who was an initiate in the cult of Mithras, created Roman Catholicism.

In Gnosticism, mystical experiences caused the participants to believe that they were interacting with the divine. A mere acquaintance with the spiritual mythology presented in the faith’s scriptures was sufficient for one’s salvation...

“But (de) I say (lego – I speak, I narrate, and I tell the story, I communicate, providing meaning, I report, I convey, and I imply (the present tense portrays the narrative as current and ongoing, the active voice makes Paulos responsible for the implications of his words, and the indicative mood reveals that the writer wants the reader to accept the assertion as true)) in spirit (ΠΝΙ / pneumati – the placeholder is a symbol for the ruwach (however, since Sha’uwl’s spirit bears no resemblance to the Ruwach Qodesh of Yahowah, the lowercase spirit is appropriate)), you are all commanded to advance (peripateisoe – you must go about and regulate the conduct of your life; from “peri – concerning” and “pateo – advancing” (with the imperfect tense [from P46], Paulos is portraying the process as a state of being which began in the past, without any assessment of its completion, the active voice reveals that the subject is advancing, while the imperative mood expresses a command)).

And so (kai – therefore) the desire and passion (epithymia – the forbidden strong impulses and longings) of the flesh (sarx – physical body) deny (ou – negating a proposition), lest (me – if not) you may come to an end (teleo – you might be finished, reaching a terminus or conclusion (the aorist tense conveys at some time, the active voice reveals that this conclusion is a result of the reader’s actions, and the subjunctive mood expresses a mere possibility)).” (Galatians 5:16)

This is a presentation of Gnosticism. Paul finally got something right. Too bad he was advocating on behalf of a discredited religious philosophy.

Since the oldest extant copy of Galatians was written by a professional scribe in Alexandria, Egypt, we know that he would have been schooled in the application of Divine Placeholders. It is therefore likely that the scribe of Papyrus 46, written one hundred years or more after Galatians was originally penned by Sha’uwl, replaced his Greek words with these contrivances so that his letters would harmonize with the Septuagint. Harmonization, which is the process of creating consistency in the presence of diversity in style and substance, was the most common way scribes intervened in the text. And while placeholders were ubiquitous, since Ruwach Qodesh is the Torah’s terminology, it would have been an abomination to Sha’uwl. Moreover, because Sha’uwl’s Gnostic spirit is the antithesis of Yahowah’s Spirit, it would be inappropriate to dignify his spirit with an uppercase “S.”

The Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear published the following rendition of Paulos’ Gnostic inspiration: “I say but in spirit walk around and desire of flesh not not you might complete.” Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, like the more recent Nestle-Aland 27th Edition, correctly renders pneumati in lowercase: “I say then: Walk in the spirit: and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh.” Ad-libbing a bit, the KJV wrote: “This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.”

Authoring their own epistle, the Greek “scholars” working on the behest of the New Living Translation imagined that Paul meant to say: “So I say, let the Holy Spirit guide your lives. Then you won’t be doing what your sinful nature craves.” I suspect that these Christian institutions were all desirous of hiding the Gnostic leanings of their religion’s founder.

This leads to a second referendum on Gnosticism…

“For indeed (gar – because then), the (e) flesh’s (sarx – the physical nature of the body’s) desires and passions are against (epithumeo kata – forbidden impulses, evil longings and impulsive lusts are in opposition to) the spirit (tou ΠΝΣ / pneumatos – placeholder for the Ruwach in the Septuagint (however, since Sha’uwl’s Gnostic spirit bears no resemblance to the Ruwach Qodesh – Set-Apart Spirit, the lowercase spirit is appropriate)). And so then (de) the spirit (to ΠΝΑ / pneuma) is in opposition to (kata – against) the flesh (tes sarx – that which is physical), because (gar – for) of these (houtos) each another (allelon) it is hostile and adversarial (antikeimai – it is opposed and adverse) in order to (hina – as a result) negate (me) what (hos) conditionally (ean – when) you might presently propose and want (thelo – you all may currently desire and enjoy, taking pleasure in the opinions of what) of these (houtos) potential behaviors and somehow doing an assigned task (poieomai – you all might perform an assigned duty).” (Galatians 5:17)

If you are wondering if Paul could have been this blatant regarding his endorsement of Gnosticism over the Towrah, the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear isn’t any more forgiving: “The for flesh desires against the spirit the but spirit against the flesh these for one another lie against that not what if you might want these you might do.”

But we can always rely on the King James to dignify Paul: “For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.” Not a word of this is true. God did not make our bodies to be opposed to the Set-Apart Spirit but instead designed us so that we would appreciate and could accept the Ruwach Qodesh. As such, body, soul, and Spirit are complementary, celebrating life in harmony with Yahowah’s design. Further, God never negates His purpose by interfering with freewill. Christians endorsing Paul’s caustic attack on the Towrah are proof of this. Therefore, the Authorized King James Version is wholly errant.

For consistency’s sake, here is the Latin Vulgate’s take on this passage: “For the flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh: For these are contrary one to another: so that you do not the things that you would.” It is strikingly similar to the KJV, which is telling considering the incomprehensible nature of Paul’s Greek.

Turning a convoluted sentence into a mini-drama, the NLT authored the following theory: “The sinful nature wants to do evil, which is just the opposite of what the Spirit wants. And the Spirit gives us desires that are the opposite of what the sinful nature desires. These two forces are constantly fighting each other, so you are not free to carry out your good intentions.” I suppose you would have to ask them what they meant by us “not being free to carry out our good intentions.” After all, I had thought that Paul had meant to say that our intentions were of the flesh, and thus both bad, and in opposition to the spirit.

Since it is apparent that Sha’uwl is pitting “the spirit” against “the flesh” in pristine Gnostic fashion, there is a hole in his reasoning. According to John, Iesous Christos was “the Word (logos) made flesh (sarx).” Moreover, there is a “spirit” opposed to God’s Word (and thus His Towrah) – Satan. With this in mind, and from this perspective, let’s consider the Devil’s Advocate’s case in favor of his “spirit,” and against the Towrah.

“But (de) if (ei – on the condition) in spirit (ΠΝΙ / pneumati) you are (eimi – you exist), you are not guided (ou ago – you are not led and carried) under the control of (hypo – subject to) the Towrah (nomon – nourishing allotment which facilitates an inheritance).” (Galatians 5:18)

The circle is complete. According to Sha’uwl his spirit’s guidance is good and liberating while the Towrah is of the flesh and is controlling. But at least by putting his spirit in opposition to the Word of God, we now know for certain that Paul’s spirit is demonic.

The facts in this case are clear. Our Spiritual Mother is introduced early in the Towrah, initially in Bare’syth / Genesis one. She plays a starring role throughout God’s testimony. The “Ruwach – Spirit,” as Her title affirms, is “Qodesh – Set Apart” from Yahowah. That means the “Ruwach Qodesh – Set-Apart Spirit” is part of the Authorship of the Towrah. The Spirit and Yahowah can, therefore, never be in opposition because the Spirit and Yahowah are one and the same.

Therefore, in his continued hatred of God’s Word, Paul wants Christians to believe that the only way to walk in the spirit is to walk away from the Towrah – when the opposite is true. And Paul also wants Christians to associate “the flesh” with “the Towrah” and “the spirit” with “his Faith.”

Therefore, the comparisons between “the flesh” and “the spirit” which follow are specifically designed to read like a campaign speech. Sha’uwl wants Christians to view his rival’s Torah from the bleakest and most derogatory perspective while considering his advocacy for “change we can believe in” through the rose-colored glasses of faith. And as is the case with politicians, Sha’uwl will not only lie with almost every stroke of his poisonous pen and movement of his putrid lips, but as a hypocrite, he, himself, is opposed to the position he extols.

Since Jerome was aware that the Septuagint replaced Towrah with nomos, his rendering of this statement was contrived to support Paul’s assault on God’s Word: “But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law.” Not surprisingly, the KJV played along: “But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.” The Christian NAMI knows better, but it did not seem to matter: “If but in spirit you are led not you are under law.” And from this, the NLT extrapolated: “But when you are directed by the Spirit, you are not under obligation to the law of Moses.” It is no wonder Christians are lost souls.

Because we cannot remove the following list from this context, where God’s Towrah is presented as being of the flesh, the most impoverished qualities attributable to the human experience are now being associated with the Torah by its Adversary.

This continues to read like Gnostic scripture...

“But now (de) evident, clearly seen, and widely known (phaneros – manifest and apparent) are (eimi) the works and assigned tasks (ta ergon – the job and result) of the flesh (tes sarx – of the physical realm (now being used as a metaphor for the Towrah)) which indeed (hostis – whatever) exist as (eimi) sexual promiscuity (porneia – immoral fornication), impure materiality (akatharsia – decayed flesh which is filthy, unclean, and worthless and wasteful), sensuality (aselgeia – licentiousness and lewdness, unrestrained lust and debauchery),…” (Galatians 5:19)

The only reason this Pauline list of things associated with the flesh was “phaneros – clearly evident and widely known” is because this audience was far more familiar with Gnosticism than they were with the Towrah. And here, “ta ergon tes sarx – the works of the flesh” is being presented in parallel with “ta ergon tes nomos – the assigned tasks of the Towrah.”

If you recall, in his first reference to the “Old System” in Galatians 1:4, Paulos used poneros, instead of the closely related, porneia, to demean Yahowah’s Towrah, writing: “He might possibly gouge or tear us out (exaireo emas) from the past inflexible and unrelenting circumstances of the old system (aionos – the previous era, the long period in history operating as a universal or worldly system) which had been in place in the past (enistamai) which is disadvantageous and harmful (poneros – which is wicked and worthless, evil and faulty, immoral and corrupt, annoying and mischievous, laborious and criminal, unprofitable and useless, unserviceable and malicious, malevolent and malignant) down from and in opposition to the desire, will, and intent of the God.”

In this case, “the God” is “the One” of Gnosticism, and the “laborious, disadvantageous, and harmful” “Old System” is from its Demiurge. Therefore, we should not be surprised to see porneia appear first in Paul’s list because the most prevailing trait of the Gnostics was their disdain for sexual impropriety.

While akatharsia is often translated as “immorality,” that is not what the word actually means. It is far more Gnostic than that, because as a derivative of akathartos, it is a compound of a, serving as a negation of “kathairo – being clean and pure.” It speaks of the “worthlessness of that which is material,” and most dramatically of “decaying flesh.”

Even aselgeia, rendered as “sensuality,” has deeper Pauline overtones. In that he is associating the Towrah with the flesh because of circumcision, note that based upon its etymology, aselgeia literally means “incontinent.”

Ever the hypocrite, Paul wallowed in his personal lasciviousness in chapter 7 of Romans. Further, by his own admission, he knew nothing of the beauty of loving and romantic sensuality between a man and woman. Anyone who has ever read the Towrah knows that God isn’t opposed to sensuality. After all, He designed the objects of our affection and brought us together for this purpose.

As we are beginning to witness, Pauline Doctrine is overly fixated on the avoidance of sexuality, as opposed to developing loving relationships. Yahowah wants us to appreciate the nature of His Covenant. Paul simply wants Christians to abstain from something he could never appreciate. Misery loves company.

Additionally, Sha’uwl has obscured the role of the “Qodesh – Set-Apart” Ruwach – Spirit in Yahowah’s redemptive process. She is the Towrah’s remedy for our immorality. Moreover, the most immoral thing a person can do is what Paul has done: deceive others in the name of God.

These renderings are somewhat consistent, save the wide variations in definitions. NAMI: “Evident but are the works of the flesh which is sexual immorality, uncleanness, debauchery,…” LV: “Now the works of the flesh are manifest: which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury,” KJV: “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,” NLT: “When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, the results are very clear: sexual immorality, impurity, lustful pleasures,”

Having denounced the Towrah, Paul is establishing the moral code for his new religion. It is incompatible with God’s instructions. For example, Yahowah is not concerned about “porneia – sexual promiscuity and fornication.” His list of inappropriate sexual behavior is limited to incest, pedophilia, bestiality, rape, prostitution, and the harassment of those under one’s control.

Similarly, apart from the benefit of general hygiene and the symbolic gesture of washing our hands, our “akatharsia – material impurities and cleanliness” are of no interest to God. The reluctance to clean one’s house or take a shower at the end of the day may deter visitors, but neither has any bearing on our relationship with God.

The addition of “aselgeia – sensuality” after “porneia – sexual promiscuity,” reminds me of the politically incorrect line in Mel Brooks’ movie “Blazing Saddles.” Conducting a job interview, the actor Harvey Korman playing Hedley Lamarr, asks…

Hedley Lamarr: “Qualifications?”

Applicant: “Rape, murder, arson, and rape.”

Hedley Lamarr: “You said rape twice.”

Applicant: “I like rape.”

And while rape is a crime and no laughing matter, the realization Paul repeated himself reveals a sexually perverted and repressed attitude. On the other hand, Yahowah is the architect of our sensuality and encourages it. It is one of the most enjoyable aspects of a loving relationship.

The Christian fixation on promiscuity, fornication, and sensuality is purely Pauline. It is not unlike a Muslim woman playing religious dress up by wearing a tent when the instruction comes from Muhammad, a rapist, pedophile, and misogynist.

Considering Paul’s devotion to the Greek and Roman goddesses of Charity and Grace, his condemnation of Shim’own, his enmity toward Yahowchanan and Ya’aqob, his hostility toward the Covenant, his animosity toward Yahowah’s Towrah, his desire to mutilate his rivals, and his willingness to contradict the Word of God, this also oozes hypocrisy:

“…the likeness representing what can be observed (eidololatria – often rendered idolatry and worship of idols, but based upon its etymology, it is an “eidolon – image or likeness” “eidos – representing the external and outward appearance or manifestation” of eido – that which can be seen, perceived, discerned, and observed”), the use and administering of drugs (pharmakeia – use of medicines, poisons, sorcery, witchcraft, black magic, and seductive deceptions), hatred and hostile antagonism (echthra – enmity toward one’s foes or opposition, discord and feuds, animosity), strife and dissension (eris – conflict, contentious variance, discord, arguing, debate, wrangling, and quarreling), deep devotion and jealousy (zelos – earnest concern, enthusiastic zeal, warm support expressed through emotional feelings, ardor, the excitement of the mind, and indignation), the desire to make sacrifices (thumos – that vital source which moves us which wells up from within, boiling with passion and intense desire, which can lead to anger, rage, or wrath; from thuo – to make a sacrifice), selfish ambitions (eritheia – hostile rivalries, specifically electioneering while running for office), discord and division (dichostasia – standing apart, taking another stand, dissension and disunity; from “dis – a second” “stasis – stand”), the freedom to choose for oneself (hairesis – the option to choose or hold a divergent opinion, separatist teaching, factions and diversity, selecting a religion using heretical tenets; from “haireomai – to prefer, choose and accept for oneself, to vote or elect”),…” (Galatians 5:20)

Since Paul is anything but clear, upon etymological investigation we discover that “eidololatria – a likeness representing what can be observed,” is based upon “eidolon – image which is similar.” It in turn is derived from “eidos – representing the external and outward appearance or manifestation.” Then digging deeper, “eido – is of that which can be seen, perceived, discerned, and observed.” Collectively, these words provide the basic meaning of eidololatria. And yet, since Yahowah created humankind “in His image and in His likeness” it cannot be a bad thing. Based upon this insight, God is telling us that He can be perceived through the image and likeness of man.

And even if we buy into the commonly rendered religious connotation of eidololatria as “idolatry,” we find Paul’s faith based upon “Faith in the Gospel of Grace,” noting that the Charis, known as the Gratia in Rome, were the Greek goddesses of licentiousness. So, while Yahowah is unabashedly opposed to all forms of idolatry, including the memorialization of the names of false gods, Paul has based his religion on “Grace,” a transliteration of the Roman Gratia.

Moving on to the second term in this, the second installment of derogatory concepts Paul is associating with Yahowah’s Towrah, we find pharmakeia, from which we get the English word “pharmacy.” Its primary meaning is “to administer drugs,” and “to provide medicines.” Since there is no reason to believe that the Spirit is opposed to medicine, we must assume that Paul meant “the use of illicit, mind-altering drugs, or that he was against the use of potions in the practice of magic. And yet, he has told us that he was demon-possessed and Yahowah revealed that Sha’uwl “would cause his companions to drink, thereby, associating them with his poisonous antagonism and wrath” in Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:15, because of Sha’uwl’s fixation on “observing the male genitalia.”

Ignoring the obvious connection between Pharmakeia and pharmacy, and thus the manufacture and distribution of medicines and healthcare products, Christian translators convey pharmakeia’s dark derivatives, recognizing that some drugs were toxic, and that potions were sometimes used to create magic spells. Therefore, rendering pharmakeia as “witchcraft” or “sorcery” is like equating charming and beautiful women with whores.

Third, Gospel Jesus was extraordinarily “echthra – hostile” to the government and religious leaders of His day, so being “antagonistic” and “indignant” toward clerics and their false teachings cannot be inappropriate. Yahowah is relentless in this regard, showing unrelenting opposition to religion and politics.

Moreover, denouncing “echthra – hostile antagonism” is the epitome of hypocrisy for Sha’uwl. His Galatians letter is rife with “enmity toward his foes.” He is constantly “engaging in feuds.” He has “picked a fight” against Yahowah, even against Gospel Jesus. Apart from the Quran, it would be hard to find a religious text filled with so much “animosity.”

And fourth, speaking of the Quran, Paul’s Galatian epistle is similarly “eris – quarrelsome and divisive.” Therefore, if “arguing, discord, and contentious variances” are wrong, so is Paul. That said, Yahowah wants us to be divisive. He wants us to quarrel with the likes of Paul.

Fifth, zelos is most often used in a positive sense. It defines the “fervor and passion” In Revelation, this was desired, but found lacking, in the Laodiceans – the very people who lacked the Spirit. Zelos speaks of “pursuing a mission with great zeal and to warmly embrace a loved one.” So, since John and Revelation Jesus considers zelos to be a good thing, methinks Paul was ad-libbing here. Moreover, Yahowah expressly states on the first of the two tablets He etched in stone that He is “jealous.” Therefore, if Paul’s right, God is wrong.

Sixth, and along these lines, like zelos, thumos, which speaks of “that which motivates us from within,” also supports a dichotomy of connotations. But when we examine its root, thuo, which means “to make sacrifices,” an etymological investigation leads us to the realization that Sha’uwl was opposed to Dowd’s “desire to make the sacrifices” needed to fulfill his Father’s Towrah promises. Thumos would decry his sacrifice as the Passover Lamb.

Seventh, Muhammad was the only person who rivaled Paul in his pursuit of “eritheia – selfish ambitions which led to hostile rivalries.” Sha’uwl spent much of his time campaigning against the disciples, presenting himself as being superior to everyone in his audience, even the Messiah.

Also, since the primary meaning of eritheia is “electioneering and the process of running for an elective political office,” by using it, Paul is demonstrating his hostility to representative government and democracy. And this position is further reinforced in the 13th chapter of Romans, where Paulos orders the faithful to submit to governmental authority – an abomination from Yahowah’s perspective, especially considering the repulsive nature of Rome. Further, eritheia defines Paul, a man fixated on rehabilitating his public image.

Eighth, dichostasia, translated as “discord and division,” is predicated on a compound of “dis – a second” “stasis – stand.” This is again the height of hypocrisy. Sha’uwl proposed a New, Second Covenant in complete discord with God’s instructions. Therefore, what the Devil’s Advocate is actually saying is that, while his rules do not apply to him, it is not okay for someone else to take another stand, or one against him. Further, just on the face of it, “dichostasia – standing apart through dissension and disunity” summarizes almost everything we have read in Galatians thus far.

And ninth, that brings us to hairesis, which literally means “choice.” It defines the act of “choosing” and is thus foundational to “freewill.” Based upon haireomai, it means “to select for oneself, to prefer, to choose, to vote, and to elect.” From Yahowah’s perspective, freewill is unassailable. And from Paul’s, believers are to have no choice in the matter of their religion. So once again, we find similarities between Galatians and the Quran which makes the same claim.

If you dig a bit deeper, most lexicons eventually define hairesis as what we have thus far found throughout Galatians: “forming a divergent opinion, selecting a religious faith, becoming part of a sect, false or separatist teaching, and religious tenets.” The remaining definitions describe what Christianity has done with Galatians: “choosing a form of religious worship, making decisions which result in a diversity of religious factions, and taking people as captives.”

In this case, the lexicons are more instructional than English Bibles. But, for consistency’s sake, here is the list of notable translations. NAMI: “…idol service, magic, hostilities, strife, jealousy, furies, selfish ambitions, divisions, sects…” LV: “Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects,” KJV: “Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,” And last but least, the NLT: “idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division,”

While he has gotten nothing right, and almost everything wrong, the Gnostic listing of things Paul believes are associated with the “flesh,” and therefore with the “Demiurge” who authored the “Towrah,” continue with:

“…envious corruption (phthonos – jealous destruction; from “phtheiro – to corrupt and destroy”), drunkenness (methe – intoxication), public partying (komos – a festive assembly featuring feasting and merrymaking), and (kai) that (ta) similar to (homoios) this (houtos) which (hos) I previously spoke (prolego) to you (umin) inasmuch as (kathos – when) I said before (proepo) that (oti) the likes of such (oi ta toioutos – this kind) carrying out and committing these practices (prasso – preoccupation with such experiences), the reign and kingdom (basileia) of God (ΘΥ), they will not inherit (ou kleronomeo – they will not receive or gain possession of from father to child).” (Galatians 5:21)

The problem with “phthonos – jealous destruction and envious corruption,” at least in the midst of Paul’s initial letter, is that the envy Satan has for Yahowah has caused Sha’uwl to corrupt God’s testimony throughout this epistle. And Sha’uwl’s jealousy toward his perceived rivals has prompted him to destroy their credibility and message along with his own.

“Methe – intoxication” is a lightning rod for trouble because, in Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:5, Yahowah accuses Sha’uwl of being “an intoxicating man of deceptive infidelity and treacherous betrayal,” revealing that “whoever is open to the broad path associated with Sha’uwl” will discover that “he and his soul are like the plague of death.”

Komos, translated as “public partying,” is an issue for another reason. It actually describes “a festive assembly featuring feasting and merrymaking.” It is therefore synonymous with the Hebrew word, chag, which Yahowah uses to describe the nature of His seven Invitations to Meet, calling them “Festival Feasts.” Paul may be a killjoy, but God likes to party.

In Paul’s defense, komos was associated with the festival honoring Bacchus, the counterfeit for Gospel Jesus, whose annual winter celebration was renamed “Christmas.” But, as with most of what Paul has to say, his lack of specificity is his curse. Moreover, Sha’uwl quoted Bacchus during his conversion experience.

When we bring this list together with its conclusion, we have a serious problem. By saying that those who demonstrate these behaviors “will not inherit God’s kingdom,” Paul has created a works-based religion in which being “good” by his definition becomes essential. Yahowah is far more interested in us being right. So much for faith.

Not only does Sha’uwl lack the authority to limit Yahowah’s mercy, many of the things on Paul’s list, God encourages. And there is not a single item on Sha’uwl’s list which is also found among the Ten Statements Yahowah etched in stone. This dichotomy is especially relevant in the context of Paul repeatedly associating the Towrah with the flesh, and thus his list with the Towrah.

Turning to the translations, we find this in the NAMI: “…envies, drunkenness, carousing, and the like these that I say before to you just as I said before that the ones the such practicing kingdom of God not will inherit.” LV: “Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.” KJV: “Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” NLT: “envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other sins like these. Let me tell you again, as I have before, that anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God.” Just as Sha’uwl has repeatedly associated the Torah with “the flesh,” he has also disassociated “inheritance” from the Torah. His parting line was therefore designed to reinforce this aspect of his thesis: the Torah of the flesh (i.e., circumcision, Hagar, and slavery) precludes inheritance.

By comparison, God wants us to know that those who observe His Towrah, those who embrace the terms of His Covenant, and those who attend His seven annual Invitations to Meet will be adopted into His Family and live with Him in Heaven. However, those who deceptively promote lifeless teachings, men who are not circumcised, and those who do not rely on Him to free them from the religious and political culture of man will be excluded from His home.

There is nothing on Paul’s list which will preclude entry to Heaven. Much of it, God does not even care about. With eight wives and ten concubines, Dowd would have been sexually promiscuous, and that he was Yahowah’s Chosen One. He was also exceedingly quarrelsome and deeply passionate, as is God.

Before we move on to the spiritual side of Gnosticism, here is a review of the things Paulos says will restrict a believer’s entry into heaven:

“But (de) I say (lego) in spirit (pneumati), you are all commanded to advance (peripateisoe). Therefore (kai), the desire and passion (epithymia) of the flesh (sarx) you must deny (ou), lest (me) you may come to an end (teleo). (Galatians 5:16)

For indeed because (gar), the (e) body’s (sarx) desires and passions are forbidden because they against (epithumeo kata) the spirit (tou pneumatos). And so then (de) the spirit (to pneuma) is in opposition to (kata) the physical world and the physical body (tes sarx) because (gar) of these (houtos) one another (allelon) is hostile and adversarial (antikeimai) in order to (hina) negate (me) what (hos) conditionally (ean) you might presently propose and want, even enjoy (thelo) of these (houtos) potential behaviors and somehow doing an assigned task (poieomai). (Galatians 5:17)

However (de), if (ei) in spirit (pneumati) you are (eimi), you are not guided (ou ago) under the control of or subject to (hypo) the Towrah (nomon). (Galatians 5:18) So now (de) it is evident, clearly seen, and widely known (eimi phaneros) that the works and assigned tasks (ta ergon) of the flesh (used as a metaphor for the Towrah) (tes sarx) indeed (hostis) exist as (eimi) sexual promiscuity and fornication (porneia), being dirty (akatharsia), sensuality (aselgeia), (Galatians 5:19) the likeness of an outward appearance of what can be seen and perceived (eidololatria), the use and administering of medicines (pharmakeia), hostile antagonism, enmity and feuds (echthra), strife and dissension, even debate and quarreling (eris), devotion and jealousy (zelos), the desire to make sacrifices (thumos), selfish ambitions, running for an elective office, and rivalries (eritheia), discord and division, especially a second option (dichostasia), the freedom to choose for oneself (hairesis), (Galatians 5:20) corruption (phthonos), intoxication (methe), public partying or a festive assembly (komos), and (kai) that (ta) similar to (homoios) this (houtos) which (hos) I previously spoke (prolego) to you (umin) inasmuch as (kathos) I said before (proepo) that (oti) the likes of such (oi ta toioutos) carrying out and committing these practices (prasso), the reign and kingdom (basileia) of God (ΘΥ), they will not inherit (ou kleronomeo).” (Galatians 5:21)

NAMI: “I say but in spirit walk around and desire of flesh not not you might complete. The for flesh desires against the spirit the but spirit against the flesh these for one another lie against that not what if you might want these you might do.

Evident but are the works of the flesh which is sexual immorality, uncleanness, debauchery, idol service, magic, hostilities, strife, jealousy, furies, selfish ambitions, divisions, sects, envies, drunkenness, carousing, and the like these that I say before to you just as I said before that the ones the such practicing kingdom of God not will inherit.”

LV: “I say then: Walk in the spirit: and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh: For these are contrary one to another: so that you do not the things that you would.

Now the works of the flesh are manifest: which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury,” idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects, envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.”

KJV: “This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”

NASB: “But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the desire of the flesh is against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, in order to keep you from doing whatever you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: sexual immorality, impurity, indecent behavior, idolatry, witchcraft, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

NLT: “So I say, let the Holy Spirit guide your lives. Then you won’t be doing what your sinful nature craves. The sinful nature wants to do evil, which is just the opposite of what the Spirit wants. And the Spirit gives us desires that are the opposite of what the sinful nature desires. These two forces are constantly fighting each other, so you are not free to carry out your good intentions.

When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, the results are very clear: sexual immorality, impurity, lustful pleasures, idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division, envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other sins like these. Let me tell you again, as I have before, that anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God.”

The Sixteen Heaven-Foreclosing Sins of Pauline Christianity in the Greek text, from my literal translation, then the Latin Vulgate, the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear, the King James Version, the New American Standard Bible, and the New Living Translation, followed by an assessment of its validity, are…

Porneia – sexual promiscuity | fornication | sexual immorality | adultery and fornication | sexual immorality | sexual immorality | Paul was admittedly guilty, and God considers sexuality good.

Akatharsia – being dirty | uncleanness | uncleanness | uncleanness | impurity | impurity | Irrelevant.

Aselgeia – sensuality | immodesty and luxury | debauchery | lasciviousness | indecent behavior | lustful pleasures | God created it.

Eidololatria – the likeness of an outward appearance of what can be seen or perceived | idolatry | idol service | idolatry | idolatry | idolatry | God admonishes against idols, but Christianity is rife with them.

Pharmakeia – the use and administering of medicines | witchcrafts | magic | witchcraft | witchcraft | sorcery | God recommends the use of medicines necessitating an invalid translation of the Greek word by Christians.

Echthra – hostile antagonism, enmity and feuds | contentions | hostilities | hatred | hostilities | hostility | Paul was admittedly guilty, and God wants us to be antagonistic toward the likes of Paul, but not Him.

Eris – strife and dissension, even debate and quarreling | enmities | strife | variance | strife | quarreling | Paul was admittedly guilty, and God wants us to debate and quarrel with him.

Zelos – devotion and jealousy | contentions | jealousy | emulations | jealousy | jealousy | Paul was admittedly guilty, and God is and wants us to be jealously devoted.

Thumos – the desire to make sacrifices | emulations | furies | wrath | outbursts of anger | outbursts of anger | Paul claimed to have made sacrifices, and God wants us to appreciate and capitalize upon His sacrifices for our benefit.

Eritheia – selfish ambitions, running for an elective office, and rivalries | wraths | selfish ambitions | strife | selfish ambition | selfish ambition | Paul was exceedingly guilty, and God has nothing against us being ambitious so long as we are not self-reliant to the exclusion of trusting Him.

Dichostasia – discord and division, especially a second option | quarrels and envies | divisions | seditions | dissensions | dissension | In the negative sense, this is the basis of Galatians. However, God is a proponent of division when we separate ourselves from the world and become set apart unto Him.

Hairesis – the freedom to choose for oneself | dissensions and murders | sects | heresies | factions | division | Paul opposed freewill, and God is devoted to it.

Phthonos – corruption | sects | envies | envyings, murders | envy | envy | When it comes to corruption, even sects, envy, and murder, no one did these better than Paul, making him a hypocrite. That said, Yahowah is opposed to corrupting His testimony and to coveting what belongs to others.

Methe – intoxication | drunkenness | drunkenness | drunkenness | drunkenness | drunkenness | In His prophecy warning us against Sha’uwl | Paul, Yahowah repeatedly said that the Plague of Death would be intoxicating.

Komos – public partying or a festive assembly | revellings | carousing | revellings | carousing | wild parties | Yahowah’s seven annual Miqra’ey | Invitations to Called Out and Meet are Chag | Parties, so we know God’s position on public parties and festive assemblies.

Kai ta homoios houtos prasso – and that similar to carrying out and committing these practices | and such like | and the like these | and such like | and things like these | and other sins like these | There was only one thing on this list that is genuinely troubling to God: idols in a religious setting. And yet Christianity celebrates and is known for its Dead God on a Stick (Crosses and Crucifixes), Baby in his Mommy’s Arms (Madonna and Child), and Living Room Bushes (Christmas Trees).

Basileia theos ou kleronomeo – the kingdom of Theos they will not inherit | shall not obtain the kingdom of God | kingdom of God not will inherit | shall not inherit the kingdom of God | will not inherit the kingdom of God | will not inherit the Kingdom of God | There is nothing on Paul’s list which would individually or collectively preclude entry into Heaven. Even being around idols, while bad, can be resolved by disassociating from them.

This reads like a list of projections because Paul is guilty of either committing or contesting almost everything on the list. He is setting up a smokescreen by speaking out against his own vulnerabilities, so when rightfully accused, an apologist can dispense with the criticism by saying that Paul spoke against it. This is similar to Satan speaking out against Satan because he despised the “ha satan – adversary” designation in that it impedes his ambition of being worshiped as God.

But how can Paul’s list be valid if faith in his Gospel of Grace cures all ills? To be considered rational, Paul can either claim that our behavior is irrelevant to our salvation, as he has done previously, or claim that we are saved based upon it, as he is doing here, but cannot have it both ways.

With his almost entirely errant list of damning behaviors out of his system, Paul sponsors a list of attributes he associates with the spirit of his faith – one which must favor hypocrisy (at least based upon this letter).

“But (de) the (o) fruit (karpos – harvest and result) of the (toe) spirit (ΠΝΣ / pneumatos) is (estin): love (agape – an appreciative attitude resulting from a conscious evaluation and choice, familial affection and devotion, good will, benevolence, and fellowship festival feasts; from “agapao – welcoming and affectionate, entertaining and pleasing”), happiness (chara – gladness and joy), peace (eirene – harmony and tranquility), patience (makrothymia – forbearance and longsuffering), mercy from an upright implement (chrestotes – productive kindness, moral and upright goodness, and a useful and honest beneficial attempt to do what is right; from “chrestos – a fit and merciful implement”), being good through generosity (agathosyne – being pleasant and kind, being right and upright, being salutary and distinguished), faith and belief (pistis – originally conveyed as “trust and reliance” but migrated over time as a result of Sha’uwl’s epistles to mean “belief and faith”),…” (Galatians 5:22)

Was it not Paul who told the Galatians that they should be as he was? And yet his attitude and mannerisms were the antitheses of the characteristics he attributes to his spirit.

At the same point in the Instruction on the Mount, we heard that the “wolf in sheep’s clothing” who would lead many away from the Towrah, could be equated to the nature of trees and the fruit they produce. The analysis was emphatic and unequivocal, affirming metaphorically that good fruit is never found on a bad tree, just as bad fruit never grows on a good tree. The presence of the sixteen rotten lemons Sha’uwl has hung before us, thus far, precludes him from consideration as a worthy source. God does not grade on a curve. The presence of “love, happiness, and peace” in this second list does not exonerate him. The little he got right only serves to make the bad fruit he has offered seem more appealing.

Chrestotes, translated as “mercy from an upright implement,” is a term that should give Christians shivers. It is based upon Chrestus, the title Shim’own Kephas and the three most credible Roman historians of this day associated with the Messiah, not Christos, which speaks of the “application of drugs.” A Chrestus is a Merciful and Useful Implement.

In this light, other attributes associated with chrestotes are instructive. It describes “a merciful, compassionate, kind, and forgiving attitude which is expressed honestly and morally by someone who is steadfastly upright.” Chrestotes speaks of someone who “as a tool or implement is engaged in that which is useful and beneficial because he or she is doing that which is right.” It “combines moral perfection and honesty with usefulness and effectiveness, all under the auspices of loving-kindness.” Chrestotes conveys the idea that the “Upright One’s mercy generously and fortuitously provides the gifts of redemption and reconciliation.” Even in common profane Greek, it was only used to “characterize persons who were “honest, upright, respectable, worthy, useful, kind, merciful, loving, and pure morally, and whose works were beneficial and productive.”

You may have noticed that the last two spiritual accouterments are listed prominently among Gnostic attributes as “generosity” and “faith.” But as is the case when we compare Yahowah’s list of the ten things He is most concerned about with Sha’uwl’s, there is no commonality. Moreover, God has no interest in “faith.” He wants us to “know.”

If one is to believe that these attributes systematically represent the Spirit of God, then based upon Galatians, we can be certain Paul did not represent the same Spirit. And while that may sound harsh, even judgmental, there is no denying that Paul’s letter is hateful, not loving. He is unhappy, not glad. His words are divisive, not tranquil. He is impatient, as opposed to being calm or restrained. Most of Paul’s words have not been useful or beneficial, but instead debilitating and destructive. His false testimony regarding the Torah has been the antithesis of being upright, especially in his portrayal of the Covenant. As a result, what we have read cannot be trusted or relied upon. Simply stated, Paul was the antithesis of what he presented as being good.

As we noted a moment ago, not everything he wrote was misleading. For example, agape’s etymology helps illuminate the path to the “beryth – familial covenant relationship” Yahowah seeks to establish with us. Agape denotes “an appreciative attitude in the context of familial affection and devotion which results from making a choice following a conscious process of evaluation.”

But for there to be love, there must be choice. And for choice to be genuine, not compelled or capricious, there must be options and evidence to evaluate. And that is why freewill remains mankind’s most inalienable God-given right, and why the Towrah is God’s most valuable gift. It is also the reason that God did not stop Paul from writing or Christians from immortalizing him.

Paul has this backward. The attitude and choice inherent in true love are what comes before the Spirit enters our lives. Using the evidence Yahowah has provided in His Towrah, we are encouraged to revere and respect Yahowah sufficiently to want to become part of His family and ultimately love Him as our Father. That is why the Great Instruction reads: “And 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 part of your inner nature. And you should teach them to your sons and talk of them in your homes.” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 6:5-7)

This known, neither Yahowah nor the Set-Apart Spirit are all loving. God hates and so should we. Until we know what and how to hate, we cannot truly love. Empathy and compassion dictate that we come to despise rape and rapists, pedophilia and pedophiles, murder and murderers, terror and terrorists, politics and political leaders, religions and their scriptures. However, our disdain must be expressed in words, relying upon evidence and reason, never fists or weapons.

If we were to summarize Yahowah’s instruction regarding the fruit of the Set-Apart Spirit, Her influence in our lives would include: providing spiritual birth from above into God’s family on Bikuwrym following Pesach and Matsah. This enables us to become our Heavenly Father’s children, live in His home, and inherit all that is His to give. Our Spiritual Mother adorns us in Her Garment of Light which shelters and protects us from the sting of death and the consequence of guilt. Her Garment of Light keeps us looking perfect in Yahowah’s eyes and enables us to exist in His presence. The Set-Apart Spirit enlightens us by nourishing us in the Word of God, interpreting it for us so that we might know our Father better. The Ruwach Qodesh is responsible for empowering us, enabling us to be effective and courageous, convincing witnesses on behalf of Yahowah and His message. And our Spiritual Mother facilitates our communication with our Heavenly Father, turning our humble pleadings into a compelling stream of consciousness before God.

“Chara – happiness” is not a product of the Spirit, but instead the result of coming to know Yahowah and being part of His family. Also, the Set-Apart Spirit does not bring “eirene – peace” between men, as is implied in Paul’s list. She, like everyone associated with Yahowah, brings separation and, thus, division.

Pistis has served as the fulcrum of Paul’s deception. While it originally meant “trust and reliance,” it was translated as “faith and belief” in Galatians 5:22 because the content of Paul’s epistles and his legacy allow no other rational option. And since nothing is required for “pistis – faith and belief,” it can operate in the vacuum of reason and evidence that we find in this epistle.

As it relates to this verse, these four translations aren’t so much inaccurate as incomplete. NAMI: “The but fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, long temper, kindness, goodness, trust,…” LV: “But the fruit of the Spirit is, charity, joy, peace, patience, benignity, goodness, longanimity,” KJV: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,” NLT: “But the Holy Spirit produces this kind of fruit in our lives: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,”

It is hard not to shout “hypocrite” when Paul, of all people, promotes a word most often translated as “meekness and humility.” But nonetheless, Sha’uwl’s list of spiritual fruit continues with:

“…gentleness, meekness, and humility (prautes – considerate friendliness), self-control over one’s sexual appetite (egkrateia – temperance, being self-sufficient relative to controlling passions), with regard to (kata – down from, in accord with, and against) the such (ton toioutos) there is no (ouk estin – there exists no) Towrah (nomos – the nourishing allotment which leads to an inheritance).” (Galatians 5:23)

Sha’uwl is saying that the “fruit of the spirit” is incompatible with the Towrah. And so long as you recognize the demonic nature of Paul’s spirit, he is right.

But there is a benefit of Sha’uwl coming full circle once again and returning to the Towrah. He began listing derogatory insults to slander the Towrah and now has said that everything he considers spiritual, and thus good, is in opposition to the Towrah. He has, in essence, cast Yahowah’s Towrah in the corrupt material role of the Gnostic Demiurge while associating his Faith with the Gnostic “One.”

At some point, inadequacy becomes errancy. Consider the NAMI: “…gentleness, inner strength against the such not there is law.” LV: “Mildness, faith, modesty, consistency, chastity. Against such there is no law.” KJV: “Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.” NLT: “gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against these things!”

The lesson to be learned from Paul’s list is that if they are right, then Paul is wrong. His letters ooze the “activities of the flesh,” and they seldom reflect the “fruit of the spirit.” So regardless of the fact that his categorization of attributes is overwhelmingly wrong, the only unassailable conclusion is that Paul is a fraud on a massive scale – quite similar to Muhammad.

Moreover, after creating the physical world, Yahowah called it, “Good.” He designed us as corporeal beings.

His summation of spiritual Gnosticism, therefore, reads:

“But the fruit of the spirit is: love, happiness, peace, patience, mercy from an upright implement, being good through generosity, faith, (Galatians 5:22) gentleness, meekness, and humility, self-control over one’s sexual appetite, with regard to such there is no Towrah.” (Galatians 5:23)

The oldest witness of Sha’uwl’s next statement expressly differentiates the Towrah from Christou, confirming this heinous, albeit obvious, aspect of Pauline Doctrine.

“But (de) the ones (oi) of the (toe) Christou (ΧΥ – placeholder used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement to usurp the Septuagint’s credibility and infer divinity) the (ten) flesh (sarx – the physical nature) has been crucified (ΕΣΤΑΝ) with (syn) the (tois) sufferings and passions (pathema – misfortunes and impulses, calamities and afflictions) and (kai) the (tais) deep desires and longings (epithymai – lusts and cravings, coveting and angry responses).” (Galatians 5:24)

This would be news to the Messiah Dowd because he saw himself as the living embodiment of the Towrah. He is the Word of God in the flesh.

Further, Dowd’s crucifixion was irrelevant apart from his basar | corporeal body serving as the Passover Lamb, thereby enabling the Towrah’s promise to make us immortal. And his sacrifice on this day had nothing whatsoever to do with our sufferings, our passions, our misfortunes, our impulses, our desires, or our longings. Not only are passions, desires, and longings considered appropriate in a loving family, but the only suffering that mattered on Passover was that of the Lamb of God.

Paul’s statement in Galatians is understood similarly to the one he made in Colossians 2:14, which is cited by Christians to infer that “the Torah (represented by the flesh) was nailed to the cross.”

Since Sha’uwl’s proclamation suffers from some linguistic inadequacies, let’s see how the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear renders it. “The ones but of the Christ Jesus the flesh crucified with the sufferings and the desires.” The placeholder ΧΥ was written instead of Χριστοῦ/Christou, and Ἰησοῦ/Iesoe isn’t found in the text of the oldest witness, not even by way of a placeholder. Further ἐσταύρωσαν/estaerosan was rendered as ΕΣΤΑΝ.

In this regard, the King James is actually more accurate than the Nestle-Aland. They got one of these three things right. KJV: “And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.” But it was only because the Protestants copied the Catholic Vulgate: “And they that are Christi have crucifixerunt / crucified their flesh, with the vices and concupiscences.” Should you have wondered how English Bibles came upon the word “crucifixion,” now you know. As for “concupiscences,” it speaks of “strong sexual desire and uncontrollable lust.”

Having published a handful of books on the oldest Greek manuscripts, Phil Comfort ignored them when he authored the NLT: “Those who belong to Christ Jesus have nailed the passions and desires of their sinful nature to his cross and crucified them there.” There is no reference to “Christ Jesus” or “cross” in the Greek manuscripts scribed before the rise of Constantine – and he knows it.

Of course, it is true that the flesh of God’s Son had been affixed to the “Upright Pillar” to honor the promise of Passover, but that was not what Sha’uwl was saying. And the fulfillment of Passover only opened the door to eternal life. Our perversions, religious and political rebellion, were actually redeemed the following day, during the Miqra’ of Matsah. Dowd’s soul went to She’owl carrying our guilt with him so that we might be seen as perfect – all in accord with the Towrah and its Covenant.

Contrary to what Sha’uwl wrote, our “flesh” still exists. Our mortal bodies still suffer pain, and we all endure misfortune. While our “deep desires,” “longings,” and “angry responses,” when appropriate, are good things, even our cravings persist. Therefore, if the New American Standard Bible’s rendition of this verse is accurate, then Paul is wrong once again: “Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.”

Moving on to Sha’uwl’s next statement, since “kai – and or also” is omitted from P46, since Paul did not write “en – in” once, much less twice, since the placeholders for Ruwach are side by side, and since “στοιχωμεν – stoichomen – advances in a line” was rendered in the plural, present, active tense, the Nestle-Aland Interlinear isn’t even remotely accurate. “If we live in spirit in spirit also we might walk.” Therefore, while admittedly less unintelligible, this is at least a little more consistent with the original text:

“If (ei) we live (zao) for spirit (ΠΝΙ / pneumati), for spirit (ΠΝΙ / pneumati) we march in a line (stoichomen – we proceed to advance in a row, and we live in conformity, and we behave by imitating).” (Galatians 5:25)

The use of stoichomen, a cognate of stoicheion, in this context is a concern. First, it speaks of “soldiers following their leader in a militaristic regimen, never stepping out of line,” which is reminiscent of “Onward Christian Soldiers marching as to war.” And while that depicts the submit-and-obey realm of religion devoid of freewill, it also represents the command-and-control structure a spiritual envoy like Satan would have known. Yahowah’s spiritual envoys, messengers, and representatives follow orders in a militaristic regimen devoid of freewill. But this is not the realm man was designed to live in nor is it similar to the realm to which we are headed. Yahowah gave us the gift of freewill, one that we all currently enjoy. And even with the presence of the Set-Apart Spirit, we do not live in conformity but still enjoy the full benefits of freewill.

And even if we were to jettison all of stoichomen’s inappropriate baggage, and consider it to mean “live in conformity,” we have to ask ourselves: conformity to what? And the answer, according to Paul, is to “behave by imitating” him.

Also troubling, stoicheion was used twice in Galatians and once in Colossians to describe the “demonic powers associated with the fundamental elements of religious mythology,” so this is conflicting, taking believers to that which Paul has condemned.

Jerome’s conclusion as manifest in the King James reads: “If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.” The LV clearly supplied the text: “If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.” And the NLT simply marched the thought a little farther down the field: “Since we are living by the Spirit, let us follow the Spirit’s leading in every part of our lives.”

Thankfully, we have arrived at the last verse of the fifth chapter. Now if only this were the last chapter and the last of his letters.

“Not (me) we might come to exist (ginomeoa) vainly boastful (kenodoxos – glorifying ourselves without reason, being conceited, while sharing opinions which are baseless), one another (allelous) provoking and irritating (prokaleomai – calling forth to challenge others to combat), each other (allelous) jealous and envying (phthonoentes – corrupt and defiled).” (Galatians 5:26)

Kenodoxos is a tough word to translate. It is comprised of kenos, meaning “empty and vain,” which either means “failed or egotistical” and “devoid of truth,” and doxa, which conveys “opinions, conclusions, and judgments” but also “brilliant splendor” and “praise.” So, does it mean “failed judgment,” “devoid of light,” “undeserved egotistical appraisal,” or “baseless opinions?” Our lexicons suggest that kenodoxos means “proud or glorifying without reason, conceited, arrogant, or falsely enlightened.” In that it defines “a person who is void of real worth but who wants to be admired by others,” it is hard not to see the self-absorbed author of Galatians in kenodoxos. So why is he opposed to it?

After all, it would be hard to find a letter containing more “irritating,” more “combative,” or more “provocative” rants than Galatians. So if these things no longer exist for those who “live in the spirit,” this epistle does not conform either.

Not that I understand it any better, even so, the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear suggests Paul said: “No we might become empty splendor one another provoking one another envying.”

If the KJV is right, based upon his letter, Paul would be the poster child for wrong: “Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.” But it’s not the Protestant’s fault; they just copied the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate: “Let us not be made desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.” NLT: “Let us not become conceited, or provoke one another, or be jealous of one another.” In other words, let’s not act like Paul.

As is our custom, let’s give Sha’uwl the last word:

“This freedom and liberty of ours by becoming Christos, it freed and released. So, you all are directed to stand firm. Therefore, also, never again associate with the yoke of subservience and slavery. You were held based upon a grudge against you all, controlling you and forcing you to surrender to someone who bears ill-will, is resentful, violent, and quarrelsome. (Galatians 5:1)

You pay attention. I, Paulos, myself say to you all that if on the condition that you may be circumcised, Christos is totally worthless and completely meaningless, not in the least bit helpful or useful for you. (Galatians 5:2)

Then, furthermore, repeating myself, I testify, insisting and protesting to every man being circumcised that he actually is obligated to do and perform the entire and complete Towrah. (Galatians 5:3)

You have invalidated and rendered inoperative, abolishing the purpose of the separation of Christou, whosoever is in unison with the Towrah. You having been declared righteous, and having been vindicated with the Charis / Gratia / Graces, have fallen away and have been forsaken. (Galatians 5:4)

Because indeed, we in spirit out of faith hope. Righteousness we await patiently. (Galatians 5:5)

In Christo Iesou neither circumcision is someone capable, nor is the uttermost part of the penis. On the contrary through faith love operating. (Galatians 5:6)

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)

But now, brothers, if I, nevertheless myself preach circumcision, why and for what then am I pursued and persecuted? As a result of this offending trap and scandalous stumbling block invalidates the crucifixion. (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 the 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, but watch out for not under one another you might be consumed. (Galatians 5:15)

But I say in spirit, you are all commanded to advance. Therefore, the desire and passion of the flesh you must deny, lest you may come to an end. (Galatians 5:16)

For indeed because, the body’s desires and passions are forbidden because they against the spirit. And so then the spirit is in opposition to the physical world and the physical body because of these one another is hostile and adversarial in order to negate what conditionally you might presently propose and want, even enjoy of these potential behaviors and somehow doing an assigned task. (Galatians 5:17)

However, if in spirit you are, you are not guided under the control of or subject to the Towrah. (Galatians 5:18)

So now it is evident, clearly seen, and widely known that the works and assigned tasks of the flesh (used as a metaphor for the Towrah) indeed exist as sexual promiscuity and fornication, being dirty, sensuality, (Galatians 5:19)

the likeness of an outward appearance of what can be seen and perceived, the use and administering of medicines, hostile antagonism, enmity and feuds, strife and dissension, even debate and quarreling, devotion and jealousy, the desire to make sacrifices, selfish ambitions, running for an elective office, and rivalries, discord and division, especially a second option, the freedom to choose for oneself, (Galatians 5:20)

corruption, intoxication, public partying or a festive assembly, and that similar to this which I previously spoke to you inasmuch as I said before that the likes of such carrying out and committing these practices, the reign and kingdom of God, they will not inherit. (Galatians 5:21)

But the fruit of the spirit is: love, happiness, peace, patience, mercy from an upright implement, being good through generosity, faith,

(Galatians 5:22) gentleness, meekness, and humility, self-control over one’s sexual appetite, with regard to such there is no Towrah. (Galatians 5:23)

But the ones of the Christou, the flesh has been crucified with the sufferings, the deep desires, and longings. (Galatians 5:24)

If we live for spirit, for spirit we march in a line, living in conformity. (Galatians 5:25)

Not that we might come to exist vainly boastful sharing opinions which are baseless, one another provoking and irritating, each other jealous and envying.” (Galatians 5:26)

It’s a wonder he didn’t name his fabled man-god “Gnostus.” Plato would have been pleased.



Twistianity

Devil’s Advocate

…Plague of Death

12

Harpayesomeoa | Snatched Away

Being Caught…

The longer the sentence, the more challenging it can be to comprehend. That is especially true with Paul, a man already prone to word salads. So, as we begin our review of the sixth chapter of his rebuttal to the Galatians, consider this rendition of his pronouncement as it was rendered in the Nestle-Aland 27th Edition McReynolds Interlinear: “Brothers if also might be taken before man in some trespass you the spiritual ones put in order the such in spirit of gentleness looking carefully yourself not also you might be pressured.” It is almost as if Paul selected twenty-three words and strung them together like a puzzle to tantalize his fellow Gnostics.

While I am not exactly sure what this is supposed to mean, I know that it does not contribute to knowing Yahowah or to engaging in His Covenant. Therefore, the following exercise in linguistics may be for naught...

“And also (kai) brothers (adelphos), if (ean) a man (anthropos) may have previously detected or caught (prolambano – might have previously held) someone (tini) in (en) a false step (paraptomati – a slip up, misdeed, or deviation, trespass or transgression), you all (umeis), as the spiritual ones (oi pneumatikoi – the ones who bear and bring forth the spirit), must be prepared to completely restore (katartizo – you are commanded to make and render wholly mended; from “kata – according to” and “artios – perfectly fit”) that one (ton) such as this (toioutos) with (en – in) a meek and gentle (prautes – humble) spirit (ΠΝΙ / pneumati – placeholder for the Ruwach (however, since Sha’uwl’s spirit bears no resemblance to the Set-Apart Spirit, the lowercase is appropriate)), carefully observing (skopeo – focusing on, closely watching, being concerned, and thinking about) yourself (seauton), so then (kai) you, yourself, may submit and be tempted (ou peirazo – you, yourself, may or may not be tested or trapped having tried to catch a mistake).” (Galatians 6:1)

Ever the paranoid hypocrite, this seems to suggest that Paul knew he had been caught lying to the Galatians. And yet unlike his response to Shim’own Kephas, he wanted those he deliberately deceived to cut him a break. However, since he had told them that he cannot lie, he couched his message in a generic instruction, one that everyone in his original audience would have seen right through.

There are so many things wrong with Sha’uwl’s proclamation, now with an eye to exposing errant Christian theology, let’s tackle these statements one word at a time. The problems begin with “prolambano – may have previously detected or caught.” This is very similar to the Quran asking Muslim children to spy on their parents and turn them in to the authorities if they suspect them of rejecting any of Muhammad’s commands. It was how ordinary people in Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany were controlled. This was the spirit behind the Salem Witch Trials in America. And it is how professors, politicians, priests, preachers, and media spokespeople are compelled to walk a conforming path today because it is the operating mechanism behind Political Correctness.

This is also the spirit behind totalitarian regimes: “We are watching you, and if you step out of line (remember “stoichomen – march in a conforming line following the leader), we will send you off to be reprogrammed.” It is why the National Security Agency is spying on the phone calls and internet clicks of ordinary Americans.

Moving from the Gestapo to the “paraptomati – false step,” we discover that in the Pauline Faith “deviations” from Pauline Doctrine would not be tolerated. No one will be allowed to “slip away or turn aside from the path” which has been articulated by the self-proclaimed messenger of God. It is especially telling that paraptomati is a compound of para, meaning “from,” and pipto, “to descend, being thrust down, prostrating oneself.” Paul is establishing a religion which, like this letter, will not tolerate a rival nor any challenge to his authority or instructions. All those who rebel and offer dissenting views must be caught and thoroughly dealt with. Welcome to the impetus behind the Inquisition.

By the way, Yahowah constantly encourages us to carefully examine the rhetoric and platitudes of religious and political leaders, but not ordinary people. And His standard for this review was always consistent with the breadth of His instructions throughout the Torah and Prophets. As a result, if we were to follow Yahowah’s or Dowd’s advice, we would all be holding Sha’uwl accountable for his deliberate deviations from the Word of God.

Prior to examining this passage, I had wondered how “pneumatikoi – being spiritual and acting spiritually” became synonymous with the Christian religion. But now I realize, as do you, that the concept was sponsored by Sha’uwl. And unfortunately, like faith and belief, it has given rise to a host of erroneous concepts and errant behaviors.

God never asks anyone “to be spiritual,” because the most active “spirit” on this planet is Satan’s. Instead, the standard that God wants us to observe is the Towrah and learn from it so that we are right when it comes to the things of God.

Christians demonstrate what it means to “act spiritual” when they wave their arms in the air at praise services, and when they point to the heavens after achieving some success in an athletic event. Spirituality is on display when someone, ignorant of the purpose of freewill, says “God has a plan for your life” or says “it was all part of God’s plan,” in an ill-advised attempt to blame their misfortune on God, suggesting that their failures were His will. Spirituality is manifest again at funerals when someone claims that a deceased friend was called home. Worse, Christians think that they are demonstrating their spirituality when they insist others do what “Jesus Christ,” did, not recognizing that the Christian caricature they worship was crafted by Paul, and thus is unrelated to God.

Also interesting in this regard, this is one of the few Greek passages where a form of pneuma was actually written out, as opposed to being represented by a Divine placeholder for Ruwach’s (as it is the second time in this sentence). The only thing which distinguishes pneumatikoi from pneuma is the tikoi suffix. Tikto means “to bring forth, to bear, and to produce.” It is used in the context of “a woman giving birth.”

If it were not for the fact that “katartizo – you must be prepared to completely restore” was written in the second-person plural as katartisete, then it would have been a worthy instruction. But this is not our job. It is the Qodesh | Set-Apart Ruwach’s | Spirit’s responsibility to “repair and renew” our souls, “making us totally complete and entirely sound.” Worse, katartisete was written as an active imperative, and thus as a “command” or “commandment” that the subject of this order must perform at the insistence of Paul.

Both times we have encountered prautes, I have translated it in accord with the primary definitions found in almost every lexicon: gentle, meek, and timid. And that is because the favored meanings, while wildly hypocritical, fit Paul’s presentation of Gnostic attributes. However, the secondary connotation is “consideration.” Therefore, “prautes – an appropriate and considered response” is what Twistianity was written to inspire. You have been encouraged to “carefully evaluate the evidence and then respond appropriately.”

With regard to prautes, Aristotle said that the word stood in the middle between getting angry without reason and not getting angry at all. Prautes describes a “measured and considered reaction which is suitable to the circumstance.” It is not passivity or aggression but instead the “fitting reply based upon adequate knowledge and proper understanding.”

Prautes is most often rendered as “meekness or humility,” but the word does not suggest weakness, being impotent, or being lowly or impoverished, because all of that misses the point. Prautes is the courage and character to do what is right regardless of the consequence. It was used in the Sermon on the Mount to describe those who understand the appropriateness of relying upon Yahowah as opposed to themselves. Therefore, prautes is not about meekness as we use that word, but instead about understanding the human condition relative to Yahowah’s Word and then engaging appropriately.

The merit of prautes is that it encourages us to consider the evidence thoughtfully before we respond. It is an “informed and rational reply.” So, now that you know that Sha’uwl’s message is the antithesis of Yahowah’s, who are you going to trust?

The key, of course, to making the right decision is “focus.” We must “skopeo – carefully observe, be concerned and think about,” Yahowah’s Word. But unfortunately, Paul told Christians to “skopeo seauton – focus upon, carefully observe, and think about yourself.”

The reason Sha’uwl wants Christians to be self-aware, guarded, and circumspect is so that “ou peirazo – you, yourself, may not be trapped by trying to catch a mistake” another has made. His message, therefore, cuts both ways. He wants his spies to toe the line he has drawn so that they “aren’t tempted” to reject his dogma. And he is equally insistent that they do not “test his instructions so as to ascertain the truth” for themselves.

Peirazo is from peira, “to conduct a trial.” But it also means “to know by way of personal experience.” It is often translated as “to put to the test,” “to examine,” or “to prove.” But keep in mind; while these concepts are appropriate when it comes to evaluating a message or messenger, peirazo written in the second-person singular, “you,” was coupled with “ou – yourself” in this text which negated these things.

Without the clutter of the Greek, and without excessive amplification, the opening verse of the sixth chapter reads:

“And also brothers, if a man may have previously detected or caught someone in a false step, you all, the spiritual ones, must thoroughly prepare and completely restore the one such as this with a meek and gentle spirit, carefully observing yourself so then you, yourself, may submit and be tempted, having tried to catch a mistake.” (Galatians 6:1)

In the Latin Vulgate, Jerome blazed the trail all others have followed: “Brethren, and if a man be overtaken in any fault, you, who are spiritual, instruct such a one in the spirit of meekness, considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.” Based upon this interpretation, the King James Bible, as a translation of the Latin, and not the Greek, reads: “Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.”

Moving into the more modern translations, the literal New American Standard Bible scribed: “Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted.”

In spite of the fact that there is no reference to “sisters,” “believers” or “godly” in the entire epistle, much less in this verse, the New Living Translation authored: “Dear brothers and sisters, if another believer is overcome by some sin, you who are godly should gently and humbly help that person back onto the right path. And be careful not to fall into the same temptation yourself.” In other words, adhere to church doctrine and don’t you dare think for yourself.

After that romp into the realm of religion, we encounter this pearl of fluidity. In it, Paul introduces yet a third “Towrah.” We had Sarah’s promised liberation from the Towrah, Hagar’s enslavement to the Towrah, and now the Towrah of Christou. And yet, like Yahowah and His Covenant, there is only one Towrah. But beyond a Trinity of Torahs, the preamble to the myth may be even worse than its conclusion.

“For one another (allelon), the (ta) weighty burdens (baros – hardships, heaviness, and oppressive sufferings) you carry, remove, and endure (bastazo – you undergo, bear, and take away) and (kai) thus in this way (houto) you all complete (anapleroo – provide, fulfill, enable, supply, replace, and obey; from “ana – in the midst” and “pleroo – make full, complete, furnish, and supply”) the (ton) Towrah (nomon) of the (tou) Christou (ΧΥ / Christou).” (Galatians 6:2)

The Passover Lamb is part of the Towrah such that they are wholly inseparable. The former cannot be known, appreciated, understood, or capitalized upon without the latter. Dowd fulfilled his own prophecies, becoming the corporeal manifestation of the Word of God. But since Paul has condemned the Torah transcribed by Moseh on Mount Sinai, it is obvious that his mythical “Torah of Christou” is an imaginary replacement crafted to fit his Faith.

And speaking of fantasies, the notion that ordinary people “complete and fulfill” the Torah is only possible in Paul’s religious realm. But in the world Yahowah created, He alone fulfills and completes His Word – and He does it His Way and on His schedule.

No man “bastazo – endures or carries, removes or bears” the “baros – burdens” of others. We cannot remove our own burdens, much less someone else’s. This is God’s job. He alone is qualified. And this makes every aspect of Paul’s instruction fraudulent. Frankly, since Dowd and Yahowah endured pain and separation beyond imagination to fulfill the Towrah on Passover and UnYeasted Bread explicitly to remove and bear our burdens, Paul asking others to perform this same job is presumptuous and insulting.

It is telling to note that rabbis like Sha’uwl were told to avoid reading Yasha’yah / Isaiah 53, so Sha’uwl would never have considered its message while studying to be a Pharisee. And yet it affirms the Passover Lamb’s role in our immortality and Yahowah’s in our redemption. Please consider this enormously important prophecy which begins by revealing the identity of the one who is now explaining it to you – revealing Dowd’s role as the Zarowa’ | Sacrificial Lamb while zarowa’ | sowing the seeds which will take root and grow, producing harvests of saved souls…

“Who (my – an interrogative posing a who, where, why, or when question about a single individual) has affirmed and established, providing a verifiable accounting (‘aman – as a singular male individual has presented trustworthy and reliable evidence to confirm, confidently upholding (hifil perfect active third-person masculine singular)) of our message (la shemuwa’ah ‘anachnuw – our report, news, information, announcement, and revelation by having listened to us)?

And (wa) to whom (‘el my – to whom, asking about one person [from 1QIsa as the MT has on whom]) has the Zarowa’ | the Productive Shepherd, Sacrificial Lamb, Strong Arm Sowing the Seeds for the Harvest (Zarowa’ – the prevailing and effective nature of the one with the strength to resolve challenges, the overall ability of the remarkably important and impactful individual of action who, as a liberator and leader is engaged as a shepherd among the sheep, akin to a ram leading the flock who is fruitful in his ways, accomplishing the mission by sowing the seeds of new life which grow while advancing the purpose of the Arm of God, of the Shepherd, and Sacrificial Lamb; from zara’ – to sow seeds which grow and yield fruit) of Yahowah (Yahowah – the proper pronunciation of YaHoWaH, our ‘elowah – God as directed in His ToWRaH – teaching regarding His HaYaH – existence and our ShaLoWM – restoration) been revealed and made openly known (galah – she was uncovered and exposed, displayed and disclosed (nifal perfect third-person feminine singular))? (Yasha’yah / Yahowah Saves / Isaiah 53:1)

He will arise and be lifted up (‘alah – he will ascend and grow by writing and recording what has happened and what will occur (qal imperfect active third-person masculine singular)), similar to (ka) the Sucker (ha yowneq – the Shoot growing out of the rootstock of an old stump or fallen tree, a more recent and smaller branch), before His appearance to prepare in advance of His arrival (la paneh huw’ – in His presence), much like (wa ka – being comparable to) the rootstock (ha shoresh – the source of nourishment which anchors the tree to the ground, the root of the family line) of the Land after a long drought (min ‘erets tsyah – of the Earth deprived of rain, from a barren landscape which is solitary and alone, apart from Yah).

His approach will not be perceived as particularly pleasing because he will not provide a superficial outline or shallow two-dimensional sketch (lo’ to’ar la huw’ – what he delineates will not be predicated upon some preconceived physical characteristics nor will he be distinguished based upon outward appearances because he will dig well below the surface).

He will not hold a high office, be a nobleman or king, he will not ascribe any value to the perceived status of others, nor will he be majestically attired (wa hayah lo’ hadar – he will not care about adornments, appearances, social status, heads of state, royalty, or being glorified, and he will not seek acclaim [from 1QIsa]) such that we would look to him (wa ra’ah huw’ – so that we would consider him, pay attention to what he is revealing, or perceive him as a witness (qal imperfect)).

There is nothing readily apparent (wa lo’ mar’eh – so there is nothing in plain sight or easily seen, nothing phenomenal in the form of spectacle; from mah – to ponder the who, what, why, when, and how of ra’ah – what is seen, perceived, and considered, or is it by supernatural revelation or visions) such that we would desire him, want to be him, or be pleased by him (wa chamad huw’ – so that we would covet him, idolize him, or express our gratitude toward him (qal imperfect)).” (Yasha’yah / Yahowah Delivers / Isaiah 53:2)

Yasha’yah is saying that the Choter he introduced to Yisra’el in his 11th chapter, is the one who will deliver this message such that it resonates with Yahuwdym. The role is important to Yasha’yah and to Yahowah, which is why it is discussed so often, but that does not mean that Yada, as the Choter and Zarowa’, will be well received.

“He will be scoffed at and ridiculed, dismissed and discredited (bazah – he will be held in contempt and censored, he will be called uninformed, unimportant, viewed as vile, considered worthless, and perceived as despicable (nifal participle – with those who demonstrably and actively disrespect and despise him will be perceived as disgusting)), by a wide variety and a considerable number of individuals who (‘iysh ‘iysh – by a great many people) will try to stop him (wa chadel – who will deliberately isolate and rebuff him, attempting to get him to cease and desist, rejecting and besmirching him to debilitate and incapacitate his efforts; from chadal – to stop, cease, desist, forego, and leave unfinished in the end [while chadel is not suffixed as a verb or with a pronoun, that is the only way to properly convey its primary meaning, which is to stop]).

Even so, Yada will come to know, understand, and acknowledge (wa yada’ – nonetheless, Yada will become familiar with, comprehend, and recognize, discover and disclose (qal noun participle active – actually, genuinely, and literally as a verbal adjective descriptive of an individual making the process of evolving from knowing to understanding to acknowledging active and demonstrative) [from 1QIsaa – the Great Isaiah Scroll unearthed above Qumran – where yada’ is active versus passive in the Masoretic Text]) the implications of sorrow and suffering (mak’ob – the cause and consequence of being harmed and grieved by pondering the impetus behind the anguish of emotional reactions and being traumatized; from mah – to consider the reasons behind ka’ab – agony and angst) of being plagued and afflicted by evil (choly – of being sickened and weakened by a malevolent and malignant pandemic, mortally injured by the malady of holiness; from chalah – to weaken and sicken by an infectious disease, chuwl – to twist and distort, and chalal – to profane by making common and thus to corrupt via the invasive nature of religion and government).

And as such (ka – accordingly and as a result), from him (min huw’), the presence (paneh – the appearance and facing it is turned away) is averted (masther – is avoided (hifil participle active)).’

We will censor him, slandering him as uninformed, unimportant, and disreputable as we scoff at and ridicule him, dismissing and discrediting him (wa bazah huw’ – we will view him as vile, consider him worthless as we perceive him to be despicable, holding him in contempt (nifal participle – those who demonstrably and actively show disrespect and despise him will be seen as disgusting) [from 1QIsa where the verb was scribed with the subject written in the second-person plural, we, rather than third-person singular, he, and then suffixed with huw’ | he as the object]), because (wa) we will not properly assess his contribution by contemplating what he has composed (lo’ chashab huw’ – we will not think and thus we will fail to consider the value of his account, we will not impute the proper credit to the reporting he is offering due to our collective failure to exercise good judgment (qal perfect – when we were actually afforded the opportunity to reconsider, we did not think)).” (Yasha’yah / Yahowah Liberates / Isaiah 53:3)

Introductions made, Yasha’yah / Isaiah, the prophet, revealed that Dowd would carry our guilt away…

“Surely (‘aken – it can be verified as accurate and true that indeed), the malignant and malevolent pandemic of twisted perversions which plague and weaken us (choly ‘anachnuw – the infectious and injurious diseases which sicken us and our religious maladies which mortally wound us by distorting the truth), he will lift from us, accept, and carry away (huw’ nasa’ – he [the Zarowa’] will, himself, sustain on behalf of the relationship and remove at this moment in time, actually forgiving (qal perfect third-person masculine singular active)).

The cause and consequence of our pain and suffering (wa mak’ob ‘anachnuw’ – the questions which anguish us and make us miserable and the implications of our grief; from mah – to consider the reasons behind ka’ab – agony and anguish), he will incur and bear them (sabal hem – he [Dowd] will pull them away, initiating the process to bear them as if they were his burdens to remove (qal perfect)).

And yet (wa), we assess his overall contribution as (‘anachnuw chashab huw’ – we will think and consider him [the Zarowa’] (qal perfect)) poignantly inflicted (naga’ – demonstrably damaged, befallen, and plagued (qal passive participle)) and (wa – [from 1QIsa]) stricken (nakah – beaten and slain, made to suffer (hofal passive – the beatings were imposed upon him in a vivid and demonstrable way)) by God (‘elohym), in addition to being humiliated for his testimony and abused for his response (wa ‘anah – even denied and mistreated for his [Dowd’s] answers and punished for his reply (pual participle passive participle – the object suffers the effect)).” (Yasha’yah / Yahowah Delivers / Isaiah 53:4)

With both Pesach and Matsah, the sacrificial victim is burdened with the guilt of those who benefit from his ordeal. And in this case, the Zarowa’, Dowd, chose to redeem his brethren by accepting the consequence and penalty they would otherwise have been due.

The first Zarowa’, Moseh, would explain the purpose of Passover to the Children of Yisra’el, recording their experience and Yahowah’s Instructions in the Towrah. The second Zarowa’, Dowd, served as the prophetic eyewitness to reveal what he would experience as he fulfilled Pesach and Matsah on behalf of Bikuwrym. The third Zarowa’ is now serving as a Herald to bring this to the attention of Yisra’el before Dowd’s return to fulfill Yowm Kipurym. He is planting the seeds that will grow in preparation for the Shabuw’ah Harvest, Taruw’ah gleaning, and Kipurym Homecoming.

There are two familiar terms – choly and mak’ob – however, the verbs pertaining to them are very different than what we experienced in the previous statement. With the fulfillment of Passover and Matsah, we are ‘aken | assured that the choly | religious perversions which have plagued us were nasa’ | lifted from us and taken away by the Zarowa’. Likewise, while mak’ob | that which was responsible for our pain and suffering was sabal | incurred by Dowd’s nepesh | soul as part of his sacrifice.

“He will be pierced through (wa huw’ chalal – it [Dowd’s corporeal body] will be fatally wounded by the penetration of sharp objects into the body, then profaned, defiled, desecrated, and dishonored (polal passive participle – the one suffering endures the effect in an uncommonly brutal manner)) for us breaching our relationship through religious and political rebellion (min pasha’ ‘anachnuw – for our national, cultural, and societal revolt, our defiant crimes and transgressions, our insurgency against authority, and casting off our former allegiance; from pasa’ – pervasive missteps (pual passive participle)).

Then he will be broken apart and crushed under tremendous pressure (wa daka’ – He [Dowd’s nepesh | consciousness separated from the body] will be placed under tremendous compression and gravity [corrected by referencing 1QIsa]) for our guilt because we were wrong (min ‘awon ‘anachnuw – because we pervert and corrupt as a result of our immorality, iniquity, depravity, and resulting punishment; from ‘awah – to bend and twist, to distort and pervert).

So (wa – also [from 1QIsa]) the punishment (musar – chastisement and rebuke, discipline and correction, the shackles and chains) will be upon him (‘al huw’ – will be on him [the Zarowa’s nepesh | soul]) for our reconciliation (shalowm ‘anachnuw – our complete restoration, our wellbeing and benefit, our tranquility and peace, our safety and salvation; from shalam – restitution and recompense, payment for restoration).

So by his scourging blows (wa ba chabuwrah huw’ – then with stripes from a whip which left him (Dowd’s body) wounded with black and blue welts and deep bruising; from chabar – to league and ally together, to unite and be bound), we will be restored, healed, and repaired (rapha’ la ‘anachnuw – we will be mended and made whole; having all sickness and disease removed promoting complete renewal and restoration).” (Yasha’yah / Yahowah Liberates / Isaiah 53:5)

Had this prophetic portrayal of our salvation through the fulfillment of Pesach and Matsah not included the two references to the Zarowa’, we would not have known that Yasha’yah was speaking of what Dowd would accomplish on our behalf. But with these acknowledgments, we can appreciate how this prophecy dovetails with the 22nd Mizmowr – completing this portrait of our salvation. With the Zarowa’ introduction, we know that Moseh set the stage and explained what would transpire in the Towrah. Dowd then served as the Zarowa’ to honor the Towrah’s promises. And Yada, as the final zarowa’, is attending to what they have sown so that the Miqra’ey of Shabuw’ah, Taruw’ah, and Kipurym meet and exceed Yahowah’s expectations.

As for God’s people, they have been like sheep following the wrong shepherds, becoming an unruly flock of stubborn goats, feasting upon the rubbish of religion and politics – the mitsraym of man. Through self-delusion and the purposeful deception of rabbis, they have stumbled, walking away from God. The consequence of “turning to the way of man” is judgment, resulting in either punishment or death. And this is the stupor from which we strive to awaken them.

“Collectively (kol – all together), we (‘anachnuw) are like sheep in a flock (ka ha tso’n – similar to a herd of goats and migrating animals in a collective), misled and deceived (ta’ah – errant and wandering away, staggered while intoxicated, betrayed, having been misinformed, lost without purpose or goal (qal perfect)), with humankind (‘iysh – people) turning (panah – changing direction and turning) his or her own way (la derek huw’).

And so (wa), Yahowah (Yahowah – a transliteration of , our ‘elowah | God as directed in His Towrah | teaching regarding His hayah | existence) will cause the guilt associated with having twisted and distorted the truth and resulting punishment (‘eth ‘awon – with the revolting crime and resulting liability of rejecting the proper guidance for our lives, especially our tendency to bend and twist, pervert and distort reality) of us all (kol ‘anachnuw) to be associated with him (paga’ ba huw’ – to impact him so that He can make intercession and intervene for us (hifil perfect)).” (Yasha’yah / Yahowah Saves / Isaiah 53:6)

This is the synthesis of the Towrah’s promise as our salvation is provided through the Miqra’ey and by the Zarowa’. And that is why the message presented within Yasha’yah 53 is so vital for us to understand. During Matsah, our guilt was laid upon Dowd’s nepesh | soul and deposited in She’owl to perfect us after his basar | corporeal body served as the Zarowa’ | Sacrificial Lamb on Pesach to extend our lives.

Mankind’s problems are mostly collective rather than individual. As lone sheep, we can be good or bad, playful or mischievous, alert or oblivious. But as part of a flock, we are a horrible lot. The history of civilization is tragic. The more people are brought together by religious practices, political ideology, economic schemes, cultural rites, or conspiratorial notions the worse we become. Our history is plagued with despots and dictators, oppression and slavery, murderous wars and senseless destruction. Gang mentality has brought out the worst in man, such that the larger the herd, the more we are deceived and misled. And that is the reason Yahowah inspired Yasha’yah to write: “Collectively, we are like sheep in a flock, misled and deceived, wandering away betrayed and misinformed.” Collectively, man is Mitsraym because of our propensity to be lost in Babel.

The worst of this was not that it happened, because Dowd, as a prophet, was fully aware of what Rome would do to torture him. It’s that no one would respect his devotion or recognize his sacrifice for the next 2,000 years. Not one among his people would appreciate what he had achieved for them, and the Gentiles would claim that he was still rotting in his grave so that they could credit another. As great as the anguish of flogging, crucifixion, and a trip to hell would have been, the denial and disregard of Yisra’el and the grievous chicanery of the gowym hurt far worse.

“He will be exploited (nagas – he will be traumatized and burdened by a political tyrant, becoming the victim of the oppressors (nifal perfect passive)) and he will respond by being afflicted while suffering humiliating abuse (wa huw’ ‘anah – he will become the answer, allowing himself to be subjected to browbeating and forced to kneel down while being struck, enduring pain and anguish while being mistreated, subjugated and oppressed in response (nifal participle)).

And yet (wa), he will not open his mouth (lo’ patah peh huw’ – he will not respond by making a statement to free himself). Like a lamb (ka ha seh) that is brought to the slaughter (la ha tebach yabal – who is led and directed to being ruthlessly killed), and like a ewe (wa ka rachel – similar to a sheep) that is silent (‘alam – is speechless) before the presence (la panym – facing and in the presence) of its shearers (gazaz hy’ – those who cut off and fleece), so he does not respond verbally (wa lo’ patach peh huw’).” (Yasha’yah / Yahowah Delivers / Isaiah 53:7)

The Romans crucified those who were perceived to be a threat to their authority, anyone who might inspire people to revolt against them and seek freedom. Yasha’yah predicted as much, telling us 777 years in advance of it occurring that the Passover Lamb would be “nagas – exploited and traumatized by a political tyrant – becoming the victim of his oppressors.” And that is what occurred at the hands of Imperial Rome.

The story of Pontius Pilate capitulating to the plot of rabid rabbis and washing his hands of the affair is religious propaganda – an incongruent fairytale conjured by anti-Semitic Christians to justify Replacement Foolology. For the past 2,000 years, Jews have been traumatized by Christians who have falsely accused them of perpetrating a crime that the Romans were guilty of committing.

Yasha’yah correctly presented what would transpire and it played out just that way. For the past 2,000 years, Jews have been accused of perpetrating the wrong crime. They did not plot to kill Dowd; their crime was to deny him! Even worse, after ignoring all of his prophecies pertaining to what he would do and when, rabbis foisted a false messiah – Simon bar Kokhba – in Dowd’s place.

All the while, Imperial Rome forced the King of Yisra’el to bow down before them as they beat him to the precipice of death, torturing the Messiah with their metal-studded whips. They were not only the embodiment of Babel – they were the most monstrous incarnation of the Beast the world had ever known.

One of my favorite insights in this prophetic portrayal of the Zarowa’ | Sacrificial Lamb fulfilling Chag Matsah is that it portrays the Messiah’s silence. He would not address those butchering him. He would neither plead his case nor theirs. There would be no conniving plots, no mock trials, no debate, no Q&A between the potentate de jour and King of Kings. Dowd would say and write nothing, providing no explanation whatsoever to reveal who he was or what he was doing.

Dowd had already said it all, and so had his Father’s prophets. We were told exactly who he was and precisely why he was there. After all, why do you think Yasha’yah / Isaiah 53 was written?

This realization is the antithesis of the fraudulent narratives found in the Christian New Testament where Gospel Jesus is tried twice, once by “high priests” and then by Rome’s procurator, defending himself on both occasions. So, while the mythical misnomer wrapped in Dowd’s accolades opened his mouth, the actual Zarowa’, Mashyach, Ben, and Melek was silent. The reason he did not respond to them should shake the Gentile world to its fabricated core while piercing the hearts and minds of Jews.

The Messiah himself revealed the exact day he would arrive and then explained in excruciating detail what would be done to him. But far more than this, rather than wasting his breath on those who were ignoring him or on the enemy poised to rob him of his sacrifice by misappropriating his renown, the Son allowed his Father to speak for him, prophetically presenting the benefits of what they would accomplish. It was the only sensible solution given the mindset of his people and the belligerence of the Romans.

Unlike Dowd’s first life, where his contemporary, Shamuw’el, wrote vociferously about him, and where Dowd augmented this portrait with a hundred Mizmowr and Mashal – telling his story in his own words – beyond what Dowd had written prophetically, there would be no contemporaneous portrayal of his fulfillment of the first three Mow’edym in year 4000 Yah / 33 CE. There were no naby’ | prophets by this time and there were no additional prophecies to convey. The Zarowa’ was fulfilling them, not issuing them!

This explains why there is such an overwhelming discontinuity between Yahowah’s Towrah, Naby’, wa Mizmowr and the incongruous and contradictory rubbish we find in the Christian New Testament. Those who spoke for Yahowah were prophets who demonstrated that their revelations could be trusted by accurately portraying future events. And they drew our attention to what was separating mankind from God so that we might come to appreciate what would reunite us, thereby directing our focus to Dowd and the fulfillment of the Miqra’ey on behalf of the Beryth.

Whereas the Christian New Testament is little more than an internally contradictory and historically inaccurate hearsay portrayal of religious mythology which was crafted and augmented by those allied with the empire torturing the Lamb – who just so happened to be the Messiah and Son of God.

Yes, indeed, Dowd was exploited and afflicted by Rome. As the Zarowa’ | Lamb, he was butchered by the Beast which would become the Roman Church. He had nothing to say to them. They were the enemy. And ultimately upon his return, he would annihilate them. So why waste words on such a vicious and pervasive anti-Semitic fungus?

By contrast, what really mattered was for Yahowah’s prophets, particularly Dowd and Yasha’yah, to boldly proclaim what would transpire during the four most important days in human history. Yasha’yah had introduced Dowd by name in the 9th chapter, revealing that he was the child who was born, the Son who was given, the great Gibowr who would serve as the living incarnation of the Word of God.

Now, after affirming that the Choter, Dowd’s Basar | Herald, would bring this message to God’s People prior to the Son’s return, Yasha’yah is explaining what the Zarowa’ would experience and achieve. And as is the case with everything Isaiah revealed, it played out exactly as he foretold.

What follows describes the benefits of Pesach and Matsah as an integrated whole rather than an independent option for what is plaguing humankind. Therefore, it is Father and Son who are facilitating our freedom and exoneration…

“Away from (min – out of) coercion and oppression, being restrained by religion and controlled by political authorities (‘otser – hindering limitations and vexing impositions imposed by human institutions to constrain the public and deprive them of freedom), and from judgment (wa min mishpat – from being judged and condemned [corrected through 1QIsa]), he has grasped hold and accepted (laqach – he has selected, received, collected, and taken (pual perfect – with his people receiving the result, which is to be taken away from these things at this moment)) his future family lineage (wa ‘eth dowr huw’ – the generations of his people and those who are related by birth or adoption, his household) who give serious consideration to, question, and think deeply about, then speak to the profoundly important (my syth – who, as a result of this information, diligently focus on this content to contemplate, inquire about, and discuss (poel imperfect)) realization that he will be separated and cut off, ceasing to exist (ky gazar – acknowledgment that for an exceptional and valid reason, he will be divided into two distinctly separate entities as part of the plan and thus excluded (nifal passive perfect)) as part of the land of the living (min ‘erets chayym – away from the Earth and realm of biological life) for my people having breached the relationship through religious and political rebellion (pesha’ ‘am ‘any – for the national, cultural, and societal revolt of my nation, the defiant crimes and transgressions of my family, insurgency against authority, and casting off our former allegiance; from pasha’ – rebellious and revolting nature), plaguing and afflicting him (naga’ la huw’ – infecting and ravaging him [1QIsa reads nakah – smiting, subjugating, chastising and punishing him while the MT has naga’ – assaulting and traumatizing him]).” (Yasha’yah / Yahowah Liberates / Isaiah 53:8)

This begins with Yahowah affirming that the purpose of Pesach and Matsah is to “min – remove us from” “‘otser – being restrained, oppressed, coerced, and controlled by others.” Father and Son are committed to liberating their people from “‘otser – the vexing impositions and restrictions imposed by governments.” God is pro-life and pro-choice as a libertarian.

Far more than freeing us from the debilitating consequences of politics and religion, Dowd’s sacrifice on our behalf, the Zarowa’s fulfillment of Chag Matsah, delivers us from “mishpat – judgment.” The Covenant’s children are acquitted and vindicated, seen as right before God and thus not subject to trial because of what the Messiah achieved.

This is the payoff line of Yasha’yah / Isaiah 53. The Zarowa’ Dowd offered his body and soul to remove the stench and stigma of religion and politics from us so that we would be free from judgment and therefore, enter the Covenant. Our Savior grasped us by the hand and brought us into his Family.

All of this, from Bare’syth to Mal’aky has been presented so that those who give serious thought to what the prophets have shared might be redeemed. We have come to realize and accept that the Zarowa’ was cut off from the living and separated into She’owl so that we might live in harmony with God. Having breached the conditions of the Covenant, we are restored into fellowship in this way. Through his affliction, we are afforded the opportunity to respond to our Father’s invitation and come Home.

The second Zarowa’ came for his people, to save the Children of Yisra’el, just as had the first Zarowa’ nearly 1,500 years earlier from Mitsraym. This was a family affair, still focused upon Yisra’el. Far from justifying the claims made on behalf of the Christian “Jesus Christ,” this prophecy is eviscerating them.

And speaking of Christian nonsense, their Bible publications would have you believe that my, which they correctly translated as an interrogatory in the opening statement of this prophecy, suddenly became a pronoun in Isaiah 53:8. Nonetheless, my asks the question: “How is it, and why is it, that he is continually considered and spoken of as divisive, cutting things in two, then excluded from what was decreed and from the realm of the living because of the rebellion and defiance of My people, stricken and killed for this?”

And yet, this is the foundational claim of Pauline Christianity. Sha’uwl | Paul hoodwinked billions into believing that “Jesus Christ” divided things into two parts, with an Old Testament and New Testament. Then he claims that the Old was discarded, considered obsolete and excluded. Even worse, Paul would claim that rebellious and defiant Jews were responsible for God’s death – as if God can die or that Rome didn’t crucify the Lamb of God. It was all a paper-thin lie, one devoid of a shred of truth. And so Yahowah is asking this question: Do you really believe he was assaulted and afflicted for this?

“Hell no,” is the answer. The Passover Lamb came to reconcile the relationship between Yahowah and Yisra’el, not destroy it. His mission was to save his people from the likes of Rome and Roman Catholics, not hand them over to them to “‘otser – coerce and control.”

What follows is markedly different than what someone might surmise by reading a Bible published by a religious institution. Most have altered God’s words to coincide with the rubbish found in their Gospels. They would have us believe that their “Jesus” died among thieves but was buried with a rich man.” Neither is true, including the absurd conversation between criminals whereby one is told that he will be in paradise with “Jesus” on this day. The truth is far more compelling.

In keeping with the context and the prophet’s intent, the one who would be given is the Zarowa’ Dowd, making this Yahowah’s gift. And this being the case, we should translate qeber consistent with how it is presented in Mizmowr 88. Dowd’s Psalm was written to specifically address the soul’s journey into She’owl to fulfill Matsah. And there, qeber | grave is used synonymously with She’owl | Hell – the darkness of the pit of death for those separated from God and forgotten. This would not only be the most revealing way to present nathan in conjunction with qeber in this context, but it also cannot be rendered as “tomb” or “sepulcher” because there would be no point to the prophecy.

“So then, he offered as a gift (nathan – he actually gave, actively allowed, and genuinely placed, with unfolding implications resulting from the gift over time (qal imperfect active third-person masculine singular)) his internment in the depression of She’owl (qeber huw’ – his grave cast off in the absolute darkness of the lowest depths of the pit, hidden from God and terrorized, among the souls of the deceased who are separated, restrained, and afflicted there because they were corrupted and polluted by the abomination of religion [translated based upon the two appearances of qeber in Mizmowr 88 which details this very moment]) to be with the guilty and convicted who were evil (‘eth rasha’ – with those who were condemned for having been wrong, wicked, and in violation of the standard, with bad people and unGodly souls).

Even though he will have engaged in nothing violent, destructive, or unjust, he will act (‘al chamas ‘asah – although he will not have done anything to wrong or plunder anyone, he will be) in opposition to those who have accumulated a great many things and who have grown exorbitantly rich through exploitation and taxation (wa ‘eth ‘ashar – so among the people who have amassed wealth by taking a tenth of the productivity; from ‘ashar – to gain riches and ‘ashaq – through exploitation, oppression, and crushing violence [derived from treachery and deceit in Yirma’yah 5:27, presented as unredeemable in Mizmowr 49:6, and potentially condemnable in Mashal 28:20] [from 1QIsaa which refers to rich people versus a wealthy individual in the MT]) on his elevated place (bamah huw’ – on his mountain, hill, mount, and ridgeline [a.k.a., Mount Mowryah | Moriah]).

No deceit or dishonesty, nothing misleading, beguiling, or betraying (wa lo’ mirmah – nothing fraudulent, feigned, or false) will be in his mouth (ba peh huw’ – will be spoken by him).” (Yasha’yah / Yahowah Delivers / Isaiah 53:9)

When Yasha’yah received this prophecy from Yahowah, he would have been keenly aware of what Dowd had written in Mizmowr 22 and 88, collectively explaining what would occur on these two days. And it is obvious that Yasha’yah is expecting those of us seeking to understand his narrative to have done the same. With this approach, we not only come to appreciate exactly what the prophet is describing, we actually witness the journey of Dowd’s nepesh | soul into She’owl because the Mizmowr provide an extraordinary presentation of Matsah’s fulfillment.

Qeber, as mentioned previously, is used in the 88th Mizmowr / Psalm to depict “the place where” Dowd’s “soul approached She’owl.” In the Song, qeber represents the location and time where “his soul was troubled, and his life was drawn to She’owl to be reckoned among those who go down to the pit.”

This is Dowd’s ultimate gift to his people. He took their guilt with him into She’owl | Hell and left it there, never to be seen again. The man who was proclaimed tsadaq | right with God and, thus vindicated, would endure Matsah with the most evil among us to find the best in us.

Reliability would be especially important at this time because according to Yahowah, Chag Matsah is the most important of the Miqra’ey. It is why Dowd, alone, was qualified to fulfill them. The initial three Mow’edym provide the means for Father and Son to perfect the Covenant Family, where, by working together, they remove the stain, stench, and stigma of religion from our souls. There is no alternative, and without this gift, eternal life is served in She’owl. This makes Pesach counterproductive without Matsah.

To best understand the relationship between the initial Miqra’ey, recognize that the consequence of religious and political rebellion, which is death, is resolved during Passover by the Zarowa’s redemptive sacrifice. And then the penalty for leading others astray and away from Father and Son, which is eternal incarceration in She’owl, is remedied by UnYeasted Bread. The Messiah endured that sentence in our stead, perfecting our souls in the process.

This explains why nathan | He placed Dowd’s nepesh | soul in qeber | the lightless depression of She’owl where those who advanced the corrupting influence of religion are detained forevermore. The Messiah’s consciousness was incarcerated among the convicted and condemned even though he was carrying our guilt.

Christian translations render the noun qeber as “buried,” even though that would make it a verb. Then they misrepresent ‘ashar as “a rich man” to infer that “Jesus” fulfilled the prophecy of being buried in a rich man’s tomb. The problem with that theory is that, even if Jesus actually existed and if the claim were true, it would be irrelevant where his body was placed because the remains of the Passover Lamb are always incinerated that night consistent with the Towrah’s instructions.

Moreover, ‘eth ‘ashar is not a positive thing. It was used to condemn the Roman Empire and not to acknowledge one wealthy individual with an empty tomb on his hands who was looking for a short-term rental. ‘Ashar depicts the people who had “accumulated a great many things and had grown exorbitantly rich through exploitation and taxation.” It is derived from ‘ashar – to gain riches and ‘ashaq – through exploitation, oppression, and crushing violence. Further, 1QIsaa affirms that it is addressing rich people versus a wealthy individual, thereby spoiling the Christian plot.

Continuing to miss the point, Christian Bibles render bamah as “death” to create the impression of another fulfillment, claiming that he was crucified between thieves. But bamah means “elevated place, a mountain, or ridgeline” and was, therefore, addressing the location which was on Mowryah.

As for lo’ mirmah | nothing misleading or beguiling being spoken by him – such cannot be said of the Church which stole everything from Dowd to justify its existence. However, to be fair, religious Jews are no closer to the truth. They deny what Father and Son have done for them, too – albeit not to the same extent.

What would transpire, and now has been fulfilled, is the result of Yahowah honoring His promise through His Son. Here, we find Yasha’yah speaking for Yahowah to state that it was God’s preference and will to resolve His people’s guilt in this way. And in the Mizmowr, Dowd states that the decision was mutual, with Father and Son being of like mind and in total accord. And yet, no one seems to care about what either wanted or achieved.

There is no denying the realization that Yahowah supported His Son’s choice to serve as the Zarowa’ | Sacrificial Lamb. They realized that through the momentary affliction of one, the guilt of many would be resolved forevermore.

“And yet (wa), it was the will and preference (wa chaphets – it is the inclination and desire in this matter (qal perfect)) of Yahowah (YaHoWaH – an accurate presentation of the name of ‘elowah – God as guided by His towrah – instructions regarding His hayah – existence) for him to be wounded and endure this pressure (daka’ huw’ – for him to be subjected to undergoing the intensely oppressive nature of extreme gravity).

He will suffer injury, be afflicted, and grieve (chalah – he will be sickened and suffer the debilitating disease of the plague as he is weakened throughout the travail), when, as a concession, the Mother (‘im / ‘em – surely in the larger context of an oath performed by the ‘em – Mother [‘im – if and when and ‘em – mother are written identically in Hebrew]), She will render (suwm – She will direct and appoint, determine and place (qal imperfect third-person feminine)) his soul (nepesh huw’ – his consciousness, his capacity to observe by seeing, hearing, and feeling and then responding) to be a reconciling offer to pay the penalty for the culpability and resulting guilt (‘asham – as a sacrifice to resolve the consequence and damage of poor decisions, as well as the resulting impairment suffered from being offensive).

Then he will witness (wa ra’ah – he will see, inspect, view, and observe (qal imperfect) [from 1QIsa]) the result of what is sown, the offspring (zera’ – the seed, fruit, children, and posterity) whose days he will prolong (‘arak yowmym – whose time He will lengthen and maintain (hifil imperfect)).

Therefore, it is the will and intent (wa chephets – so it is the pleasure and delight, the motivation and desire, the willingness and preference (qal perfect) [from 1QIsa]) of Yahowah ( – a transliteration of YaHoWaH as instructed in His towrah – teaching regarding His hayah – existence) to successfully accomplish this task, advancing the ability to prosper and thrive (tsalach – push forward making progress with overpowering force, sweep in suddenly and victoriously winning the case, being profitable and prosperous) ba Yad huw’ | with His Hand and influence (ba yad huw’ – by His direction and support).” (Yasha’yah / Salvation is from Yah / Isaiah 53:10)

With Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym working in unison to provide the benefits of the Beryth, this connection was affirmed when the living embodiment of the Covenant, Yahowah’s Chosen One, volunteered to fulfill the first three Miqra’ey over three successive days. With his Father’s support, Dowd, as the Zarowa’, offered his basar | corporeal body as the Pesach ‘Ayil on the 14th of ‘Abyb in year 4000 Yah / Friday, April 3rd, 33 CE.

It was then the will and desire of Yahowah for His Son’s nepesh | soul to serve as our Savior. After Dowd’s body was wounded and slain on Passover, his soul endured the extreme gravity of She’owl, experiencing the enormous pressure and responsibility of carrying the guilt of every Child of the Covenant with him into the equivalent of a Black Hole and depositing it there never to be seen again.

As a tangible expression of his Father’s support, the Ruwach Qodesh | Set-Apart Spirit, our Spiritual Mother, took Dowd’s soul from Mowryah to She’owl on the 15th of ‘Abyb, year 4000 Yah to accomplish the mission. Ladened with our guilt, and particularly the plague of religion, his nepesh would suffer grievously in Hell during UnYeasted Bread on behalf of our reconciliation. He paid our penalty, rendering us innocent and, thus, perfect in the sight of God.

On the third day, the 16th of ‘Abyb, Bikuwrym | Firstborn Children on the Towrah’s calendar, the Firstborn of his Father was released from She’owl by the Spirit and returned to Shamaym, where he witnessed the result of what he had achieved. The lives of his people would be prolonged.

More than this, it was the will and intent of Yahowah to assure that the beneficiaries of what His Son had sown, would prosper and thrive, achieving victory over guilt and death. As a result of the Zarowa’ being deployed as the Yad | Hand of God, the mission was accomplished and the benefits of the Beryth | Covenant were successfully delivered.

Should anyone question how I came to these conclusions, interpreting Yasha’yah / Isaiah 53:10 this way, I would encourage them to reconsider the 89th Mizmowr / Psalm where each of these connections was made. There, Yahowah said,

“‘I have established, cutting through separation (karat) the Beryth | Covenant for the Family and Home (Beryth) through ‘Any Bachyr | My Chosen One – the person I prefer and have decided upon (la bachyr ‘any).

I have sworn an oath, and I will affirm this promise seven times over (shaba’) to Dowd | the Beloved (la Dowd), ‘Ebed ‘Any | My Authorized Agent and Coworker who serves on My behalf (‘ebed ‘any). (Mizmowr / Psalm 89:3)

Forevermore, as an ‘Ad ‘Owlam | Eternal Witness to the Restoring Testimony (‘ad ‘owlam), I will prepare and establish (kuwn) your offspring and that which you sow (zera’ ‘atah). In addition, I will construct a home (wa banah) for your throne and seat of honor (kise’ ‘atah) on behalf of all generations throughout time (la dowr wa dowr).’ Selah | Pause now and contemplate the implications (selah).’” (Mizmowr 89:4)

“Beside You, and on Your behalf (la ‘atah), the Zarowa’ | Protective Shepherd and Sacrificial Lamb (zarowa’) with tremendous power, courage, character, and awesome ability (‘im gabuwrah) will be Your strong hand (‘azaz yad ‘atah) raised up high (ruwm) at Your right side (yamyn ‘atah).” (Mizmowr 89:13)

“‘I have raised up and exalted (ruwm) the Bachar | Chosen One (bachar) from (min) the people (‘am). (Mizmowr 89:19) I discovered and then made known, encountered, experienced, and exposed (matsa’) Dowd (Dowd), My ‘Ebed | Coworker (‘ebed ‘any).

Out of (min) Shemen Qodesh ‘Any | My Set-Apart Oil (shemen qodesh ‘any), I have mashach | anointed him (mashach huw’) (Mizmowr 89:20) so that, to show the way to the benefits of the relationship (‘asher), My hand and influence (yad ‘any) will be established and steadfast, authenticated and unwavering (kuwn) with you (‘im ‘atah – addressing ‘am – the people of the family).

In addition (‘aph), ‘Any Zarowa’ | My Protective Shepherd, Strong Arm, and Sacrificial Lamb (zarowa’ ‘any) will empower and embolden you, strengthening you, while enabling your growth (‘amets ‘atah). (Mizmowr 89:21)

Therefore (wa), My steadfast commitment to the truth (‘emuwnah ‘any) and (wa) My unwavering love, persistent devotion, and enduring favoritism (chesed ‘any) are with him (‘im huw’).

In My name (wa ba shem ‘any), his light will radiate and enlighten, and his brilliant horn, symbolic of his status and strength, and of his role as the protective ram among the sheep during Taruw’ah (qeren huw’) will be lifted up, raised on high, and exalted (ruwm). (Mizmowr 89:24)

He, himself, will call out to Me and welcome Me, announcing (huw’ qara’ ‘any), “You are my Father (‘ab ‘any ‘atah)!” (Mizmowr 89:26) I (‘any), also (‘aph), will bestow him as a gift, appointing and making him (nathan huw’) Bakowr ‘Any | My Firstborn (bakowr ‘any), as ‘Elyown | Almighty God, the Highest and Uppermost (‘elyown) in comparison to the kings and rulers (la melekym) of the Earth (‘erets). (Mizmowr 89:27)

And I will establish (wa sym) his seed, that which he sows, and his offspring (zera’ huw’), as an eternal witness forever (la ‘ed | ‘ad). And (wa) his position of honor (kise’ huw’) will be equated to the days of heaven (ka yowm shamaym). (Mizmowr 89:29)

Accordingly (wa), My unwavering love, unmitigated favoritism, affection, and generosity (chesed ‘any), I will never revoke, disassociate, or remove from him (lo’ parar min ‘im huw’).

I will never betray who I am by communicating something which is misleading or untrue, nor will I ever contradict or undermine (wa lo’ shaqar) My steadfast commitment to uphold the truth and remain accurate and reliable (ba ‘emuwnah ‘any). (Mizmowr 89:33)

I will never dishonor or betray (lo’ chalal) Beryth ‘Any | My Covenant Family (beryth ‘any), nor will I ever alter, disguise, or change, rearrange, or modify (wa lo’ shanah) that which has gone forth from (mowtsa’) My lips (saphah ‘any). (Mizmowr 89:34)

‘Echad | There is Only One (‘echad) to whom I have affirmed the truth by having made a promise, thereby validating My commitment which will be affirmed seven times (shaba’) by Qodesh ‘Any | My uniquely Set-Apart nature (ba qodesh ‘any). If not to, through, and regarding (‘im la) Dowd | the Beloved (Dowd), I am delusional and will be proven a liar (kazab).’” (Mizmowr / Psalm 89:35)

Always, and without exception, the most appropriate way to interpret the Word of God and reflect upon Yahowah’s metaphors is by comparing related prophetic pronouncements. The 89th Mizmowr is essential to understanding Yasha’yah 53.

To appreciate what occurred on the Miqra’ of Matsah, it’s important to recognize that Dowd’s body was not crushed on Passover. It was whipped, pierced, and hung, but it was not subjected to the undue pressure of intense gravity. Therefore, it was Dowd’s soul which suffered this indignity in She’owl on the Shabat of UnYeasted Bread. Moreover, this is what God wanted. Our Father supported His Son’s decision to endure the worst of She’owl to spare his people. There is no greater love, no greater act of devotion, or greater display of confidence and courage.

Throughout this presentation of the fulfillment of the initial three Miqra’ey in the Yowbel year of 4000 Yah, I have consistently written “Pesach and Matsah leading to Bikuwrym” because that is how they work. When we enter the doorway to life during Passover and cross the threshold of perfection during UnYeasted Bread, we are ready to be adopted by our Heavenly Father and Spiritual Mother on Firstborn Children. And this is the very transition being recognized by the concluding statements of Yasha’yah 53:10. The Ruwach Qodesh | Set-Apart Spirit releases Dowd’s nepesh | consciousness from She’owl during Bikuwrym | Firstborn Children, allowing the Son to return to Shamaym | Heaven.

From that perspective, the Zarowa’ will witness the result of what he has accomplished. He has sown the seeds which will produce a thriving and growing family whose days will be prolonged forevermore. This was God’s intent from the beginning, a mission He predicted 777 years prior to His Son’s fulfillment. Those who answer His Invitations to be Called Out and Meet during Passover and UnYeasted Bread, with an appreciation of what Father and Son have accomplished, will be adopted into the Covenant Family.

In a future volume, Mow’ed | Appointments, of Yada Yahowah, we will witness this all play out through the eyes of the Prophet Zakaryah | Remember Yahowah. He revealed…

“Yahowah (YaHoWaH) will rescue and deliver, save and protect (yasha’), Yahuwdah’s (Yahuwdah) homes and households (‘ohel) first and foremost, and in the initial phase (ba ha ri’shown), so that (la ma’an) the honor and glory (tiph’areth) of the House (beyth) of Dowd (Dowd) and the splendor (wa tiph’areth) of the inhabitants of (yashab) Yaruwshalaim (Yaruwshalaim) are not surpassed by (lo’ gadal) Yahuwdah (Yahuwdah). (Zakaryah 12:7)

On that day (ba ha yowm ha huw’), Yahowah () will defend (ganan) the inhabitants of (yashab) Yaruwshalaim (Yaruwshalaim) and have their backs (ba’ad). So, it will exist (wa hayah) that the wavering and weak-kneed (kashal) among them (ba hem) on that day (ba ha yowm ha huw’) will be likened unto (ka) Dowyd (Dowyd). And the House of Dowyd (wa beyth Dowyd) will be like God (ka ‘elohym), similar to a spiritual implement and heavenly messenger (ka mal’ak) of Yahowah (Yahowah) in their appearance (la paneh hem). (Zakaryah 12:8)

‘And it will come about (wa hayah) at that time (ba ha yowm ha huw’) that I will seek to hold responsible and thus accountable, thereby choosing (baqash) to decimate and exterminate (la shamad), all of (kol) the Gentiles (ha gowym) who will have come against (ha bow’ ‘al) Yaruwshalaim | Source of Guidance on Reconciliation (Yaruwshalaim). (Zakaryah 12:9)

And (wa) for a time, I will pour out (shaphak) upon the House (‘al beyth) of Dowd (Dowyd), and upon (wa ‘al) those who dwell in (yashab) Yaruwshalaim (Yaruwshalaim), the Spirit of compassion and acceptance (ruwach chen) for those requesting mercy and clemency (wa tachanuwn).

Then (wa), they will be able to look (nabat) to Me (‘el ‘any) accompanied by the one who (‘eth ‘asher) they had reviled and pierced (daqar), and (wa) they will lament (saphad) over him (‘al huw’) just like (ka) one cries (misped) over the most uniquely special child and valued life (‘al ha yachyd), anguished and infuriated (wa marar) over him (‘al huw’), consistent with (ka) the anguish suffered over (marar ‘al) the firstborn (ha bakowr).’” (Zakaryah / Remember Yah / Zechariah 12:10)

Our Father offered His Son on Pesach. Our Spiritual Mother rendered his soul unto She’owl on Matsah as an act of compassion so that we would become acceptable. Then on Bikuwrym, God’s Firstborn Son took his rightful place at His Father’s side.

Now that Dowd’s soul has been rendered as a guilt offering on our behalf on the Miqra’ of Matsah, it’s time to celebrate Bikuwrym with its spiritual reunification and relational reconciliation with the Father. In so doing, we find ourselves in the company of the foremost Zarowa’, Yahowah’s Son, the returning Messiah, Dowd.

“Out of (min – as a result of and from) the miserable circumstances and vexing challenges endured (‘amal – the hostile situation, the exceedingly unpleasant, grievous, and distressing ordeal experienced) by his soul (nepesh huw’ – his consciousness, making him completely aware of his circumstances such that He is responsive to what he is enduring), it will witness (ra’ah – it will observe and see (qal imperfect)) the light (‘owr – the brilliant illumination and enlightenment [from 1QIsa – not in MT]), thereby (wa – as such [from 1QIsa and 4QIsa]) abundantly satisfying and completely fulfilling what was required (saba’ – content to have overwhelmingly exceeded what was necessary (qal imperfect)).

And through this knowledge and understanding of him (wa da’ath huw’ – as a result of being perceptive and discerning regarding him, recognizing and acknowledging the information which leads to comprehension of the relationship with him; from yada’ – to know in a relational sense, to be familiar with and acknowledge (qal active infinitive construct – actively, literally, and continually learning about Him throughout time [written as presented in 1QIsa])) and what he has done to justifiably vindicate and validate what is right (tsadaq – to acquit and validate and verify what is correct), My servant (‘ebed ‘any – My coworker and associate [from 1QIsa]), the Righteous One (tsadyq – the means to acquittal by being correct), will bear (huw’ sabal – will sustain and incur then drag off and carry away (qal imperfect)) for many (la ha rab – for a great number) the guilt they derived from their distortions and perversions (wa ‘awon hem – their tendency to be wrong and the liability they incurred from their twisting and bending the truth).” (Yasha’yah / Salvation is from Yah / Isaiah 53:11)

Matsah leads to Bikuwrym just as the Spirit leads the soul back Home – from the darkness to the light. Reunited with Yahowah, Dowd’s nepesh has completed what was intended, having fulfilled what was required to redeem the Covenant’s children.

Yahowah wants us to be aware of what His Son has done to save us so that we are properly positioned to capitalize upon the blessings offered through Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children. However, his sacrifices are for naught so long as his people remain unaware of what he has provided. And it is for this reason that we translate these prophecies, contemplate their meaning, and then share their intent with God’s people.

Typically, when we see tsadyq | right, righteous, and upright describing an individual, it is addressing Dowd. And so, it is once again directing our attention to the Zarowa’s nepesh – which is seen animating the Passover Lamb and fulfilling UnYeasted Bread. And by being tsadaq | right, Dowd became the perfect choice.

With the transition from the darkness to the light, the ‘ebed | associate and servant God wants us to da’ath | appreciate the One who has done what was required to vindicate his people from their ‘awon | religious distortions and political corruptions, is Dowd’s nepesh. This means that the Zarowa’ is our Savior.

This was Yahowah’s HalahuYah moment. All of the planning and suffering had borne fruit. By fulfilling Pesach and Matsah, with His beloved Son, the one He had called Tsadaq | Right was now Bikuwr | His Firstborn – just as He had promised. Yahowah had saved mankind with the man He most loved.

It is a result of Dowd’s brilliance, by seeking to comprehend his life and lyrics, that we come to appreciate what this remarkable man means to Yahowah. God would have done it all for His Chosen One, alone! Dowd was the be-all, do-all, and for-all of Yahowah’s Family, defining what it means to be Yahuwd | Beloved of Yah. He is the lone individual Yahowah said, “He is my son (ben ‘any) and I am his Father (wa ‘any ‘ab huw’).”

God anointed him Mashyach | Messiah on three occasions. Yahowah chose David to be Melek | King of Yisra’el and then to return as King of Kings. He is the Ra’ah | Shepherd’s Shepherd – the ultimate Zarowa’ | one who leads and protects the flock while sowing the seeds of truth. And then he became the Sacrificial Lamb.

As the Yad | Hand of God, Dowd began defending His people when he was eight – slaying the foulmouthed and uncircumcised Philistine with a single stone. He matured into the Tsemach | Branch through whom we would all grow and become productive. He was Yahowah’s foremost ‘Ebed | Servant because he was the epitome of what it means to be Tsadyq | Right.

Yes, there are three Zarowa’, all important in their own way, but the man in the center of Yahowah’s focus and revelation is Dowd | His Beloved. And that is why God announced 300 years in advance of this prophecy, 1,000 years prior to its fulfillment, that Dowd would be His Bikuwr | Firstborn. In this role, Dowd | David has rightfully earned a disproportionate share of the inheritance Yahowah is offering to the Children of His Covenant. And therefore, God is celebrating the moment His promise to His Son became a reality.

This declaration in Yahowah’s voice may suggest that it will be another, someone in a different time, a student of Dowd, who will bring this exclamation point to His people so that they too will understand. If so, he is likely the same individual introduced at the beginning of the prophecy. His mission is being fulfilled.

This is the crescendo of the most important event in our lives. We become right with God and are vindicated based upon who and what we know and understand. Coming to recognize, appreciate, and accept what Yahowah and Dowd did for us on Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children leads to our acquittal. Dowd’s soul endured She’owl on Matsah to remove our ‘awon | every mistake, making us tsadaq | right and thus vindicated.

Returning to first person, the Father draws a connection between His Son and the inheritance provided to the Children of the Covenant…

“‘Therefore (la ken – this is right, just, honest, true and verifiable that as a result, assuredly), I will allocate and disburse a share (chalaq – I will apportion and assign, allot and distribute, a portion of everything through separation (piel imperfect)) to him and through him (la huw’ – at his direction during his approach), for many in great abundance (ba ha rab – with a significant number of enriched individuals) such that (wa ‘eth) they will be empowered (‘atsuwm – they will be strengthened and potent, able to accomplish their intended purpose).

He will share (chalaq – He will apportion, assign, and allocate, dividing and disbursing) the valued property and possessions (shalal – that which is gained and is of tremendous benefit, the plunder and spoils taken when the enemies of Yisra’el and Yahowah are vanquished) in the orderly succession of events as a benefit of the relationship (tachath ‘asher).

To resolve the plague of death (la ha maweth – as a consequence of the pandemic disease which infects entire populations and at the point of death), he poured out and exposed (‘arah – he left destitute and abandoned) his soul (nepesh huw’ – his consciousness, projecting his ability to perceive, experience, and respond).

And therefore, with (wa ‘eth) the rebellious and revolting (pasha’ – the defiant and offensive, the indignant and disloyal), it was numbered for a time (manah – it [Dowd’s soul] was destined, assigned, appointed, and counted at this instance (nifal perfect)). Thereby (wa), he lifted up and carried away (huw’ nasa’ – he forgave (qal perfect)) many who had gone astray (cheta’ rab – numerous who had once been wrong and had previously missed the way [plural in 1QIsa]).

For their transgressions (wa la pesha’ hem – to resolve their offenses and missteps [for the misled in 1QIsa versus those who mislead in the MT]), he has interceded (paga’ – he has intervened to spare them (hifil imperfect – he enables their ongoing reconciliation)).’” (Yasha’yah / Yahowah Saves / Isaiah 53:12)

To which Yasha’yah / Isaiah 54:1 adds: “Sing for joy (ranan – rejoice, expressing your appreciation),…”

If somehow, someone missed what Yahowah had announced previously regarding the way He and His Son, the Zarowa’, would provide the benefits of the Covenant, God has summarized the process. We will inherit our share of the universe because Dowd resolved our guilt. He was counted among the religious in She’owl so that we might enter Shamaym. He interceded on our behalf, going down so that we could be lifted up.

There are those who believe that this statement says that the unnamed individual, who is obviously Dowd based on the description, timing, title, and context, will receive the largest share of “a spoil.” But the spoiled are gone. Moreover, while Dowd will inherit the Earth, he is going to share it with every brother and sister in the Covenant. We are Family. It is the Covenant’s purpose to enrich Yahowah’s children. It is among the benefits of the relationship.

Moreover, Dowd is the ultimate gift. He is the Messiah and Savior his people have been seeking. The Beloved is the benevolent leader the world has long sought. His Mizmowr are replete with the right answers. And he is going to return, clean house, remove the trash, restore the land’s former grandeur, and welcome us all back home.

This will occur at the proper time, predetermined to coincide with the fulfillment of Yowm Kipurym | the Day of Reconciliations in year 6000 Yah (October 2nd, 2033). It is then that the days will be prolonged as we sail past year 7000 Yah and into infinity – just as the seven-plus-one formula of Sukah suggests. All the while, we will be camping out with our Heavenly Father.

For this return to ‘Eden to occur, the “chata’ rab – erroneous nature of the many missing the way” must be expunged from the Earth. And it is the great defender of His People who Yahowah had designated for the job – the greatest of the Zarowa’. Sing for joy.

Yahsha’yah’s soaring prophecy explains the nature of, and the reason for, what would occur on Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children. The fate of one’s soul rests on these events and one’s willingness to accept the Father and Son’s provisions. They bring the Towrah promises and Dowd’s fulfillments together.

These revelations prove that Yahowah inspired His prophet. This eyewitness account explaining what would occur was written seven centuries before the events described became manifest. The specificity of the prophecies and the exactitude of their fulfillment reveal how we should interpret unfulfilled predictions. God is precise and He selects His words with great care so that they reveal profound truths.

When we view Yahowah’s Word as a whole cloth, we come to understand that there is just one story – that of God facilitating a relationship with mankind. The seven Festival Feasts, the Invitations to be Called Out and Meet, provide the way Home, a journey that Father and Son personally enabled at a tremendous cost. Observe Passover and UnYeasted Bread so that your soul is included in the harvest of Firstborn Children.

In absolute contrast to what we have just read from Yahowah’s esteemed prophet Yasha’yah, Paul’s drivel was a colossal failure and disgrace. This is the difference between God and man. So why is it that billions believe Sha’uwl?

The Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear published: “Of one another the burdens bear and thusly you will fill up the law of the Christ.” It is what Jerome wrote in the Vulgate as well: “Bear ye one another’s burdens: and so you shall fulfill the law of Christ.” So, we should not be surprised to see this repeated in the KJV: “Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” I don’t think so.

Recognizing the hubris and pain associated with even pretending to do what Dowd had done, the NLT arbitrarily changed “complete” to “obey.” “Share each other’s burdens, and in this way obey the law of Christ.” But that would require observing, not “obeying” the Torah.

Having digressed from utter nonsense to being utterly wrong over the course of two sentences, let’s approach the third with a touch of skepticism. Therefore, in our quest for accuracy, please note that we find “eiper – since if / if indeed” in Papyrus 46 in place of the Nestle-Aland’s “ei gar – because if,” at the beginning of the next sentence.

“Since if (eiper – if indeed or if after all) someone (tis) supposes and presumes (dokei – is of the opinion or is reputed) to be (einai) somebody (ti) he is (on) nothing (meden). He deceives (phrenapatao) himself (eauton).” (Galatians 6:3)

Paul should have worn this as a sign around his neck – and perhaps written it on his mirror. He claimed to be God’s exclusive apostle to the world, deceiving all who believed him.

Sha’uwl wrote this for the same reason that he used dokei previously in this letter, besmirching the disciples Shim’own, Ya’aqob, and Yahowchanan. He viewed those whom Gospel Jesus chose and trained as rivals and as a threat.

This statement further indicts Sha’uwl. It affirms that he was fully aware of the derogatory implications of “dokei – supposes and presumes” when he wielded it against the disciples in order to demean their status. So, since Sha’uwl seems to know what the word meant here, he knew what it meant there.

Remember Galatians 2:9: “And having recognized and become familiar with the Charis of the one having been given to me, Ya’aqob, Kephas, and also Yahowchanan, the ones presently presumed and supposed (dokei – of the opinion and imagined) to be leaders, the right place of honor and authority they granted to me, and to Barnabas fellowship as a result. We to the nations and ethnicities, but they to the circumcision.” Therefore, those who would cut Paul a break here, cannot use the word correctly without foregoing their integrity.

As for the established translations, we find this in the NAMI: “If for thinks some to be some nothing being he deceives mind himself.” From this, Jerome wrote: “For if any man think himself to be some thing, whereas he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.” Once again demonstrating that the KJV was a translation of the Latin Vulgate, not the Greek text, we find: “For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.” Writing their own Bible, the NLT scribed: “If you think you are too important to help someone, you are only fooling yourself. You are not that important.”

After incriminating himself, the Father of Lies boasts:

“But (de) the (to) work (ergon – deeds, assigned tasks, accomplishments, and performances) of himself (heauton) he must examine (dokimazo – he is commanded to scrutinize and demonstrate worthy, proving meritorious (present active imperative third person singular)) [each (ekastos – every) omitted from P46], and (kai) then (tote) to (eis – into) himself (auton) alone (monos – to the exclusion of all others) he (to) boasts and brags (kauchema – justification for pride and praise, exaltation and glory). That person will possess and hold (echo – will have and experience (future active indicative third person singular)) [and (kai) omitted in P46] not (ouk) to (eis) the (ton) other (heteron – another).” (Galatians 6:4)

Playing with the pieces of the same puzzle, the NAMI assembled: “The but work of himself let approve each and then in himself alone the brag he will have and not in the other.” The LV proposed: “But let everyone prove his own work: and so he shall have glory in himself only and not in another.” Parroting Jerome, the KJV said: “But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.”

Smoothed out and streamlined a bit, my interpretation of Paul’s previous statements is quite similar to the translations, even though we would view the implications very differently:

“And also brothers, if a man may have previously detected or caught someone in a false step, you all, the spiritual ones, must thoroughly prepare and completely restore the one such as this with a meek and gentle spirit, carefully observing yourself so then you, yourself, may submit and be tempted, having tried to catch a mistake.” (Galatians 6:1)

For one another, the weighty burdens you carry, remove, and endure and thus in this way you all complete the Towrah of the Christou. (Galatians 6:2)

Indeed, if someone supposes and presumes to be somebody, he is nothing. He deceives himself. (Galatians 6:3)

But the performances and accomplishments of himself, he must examine and prove meritorious, and then to himself, alone, at the exclusion of others, he can boast and brag, having the justification for pride and praise, and not for any other.” (Galatians 6:4)

If this is what Paul meant to say, and it probably is, then we have to question his mental stability. It is yet another moronic attempt to negate the Towrah, this time by claiming believers complete the Towrah by removing burdens, divesting themselves of the benefit of Matsah.

The last two statements are at cross purposes with each other. One says that if someone presumes that they are important, then they are deceiving themselves. But then he says that we should examine everything we have done so that we can boast and glorify ourselves.

Beyond the duplicity, there is an additional problem. We should not be boasting about what we have done. What we do on behalf of God should never be about us, especially to the exclusion of others. Our words and deeds should be focused on encouraging people to consider Yahowah’s words and deeds.

And yet, knowing Paul, the first of these four statements was designed to indemnify himself and impugn his rivals. And the second was postured to annul Yahowah’s Towrah and Dowd’s sacrifice.

This would leave Paul alone. So, he is trying to justify boasting, claiming that if you consider the scope of his work that he is worthy of exultation.

Recognizing this problem, the NLT simply changed the text to keep Paul from looking like an egomaniacal lunatic who had just contradicted himself. “Pay careful attention to your own work, for then you will get the satisfaction of a job well done, and you won’t need to compare yourself to anyone else.”

Speaking of hallucinogenic schizophrenia, after telling his audience that they should remove and bear other people’s burdens, as if they, themselves, were fulfilling the Towrah, Sha’uwl says that everyone will carry their own load. Some would call that an internal or self-contradiction.

“For (gar – because then) each and every one (ekastos), their (to) own individual and distinct (idion – unique and separate, belonging to oneself) burden (phortion – load, cargo, and obligations) they will carry and bear (bastazo – will accept, undergo, endure, and remove).” (Galatians 6:5)

In the real world, Yahowah has already removed the burdens of all those who have engaged in His Covenant. But to know that you would have to read His Towrah.

Beyond the fact that Paul has contradicted himself regarding a command he has just issued, and beyond the realization this negates the Messiah’s fulfillment of UnYeasted Bread, bastazo was rendered in the future tense and the indicative mood (making it a reality from the writer’s perspective). That means that Paul is saying that they “will actually continue to bear and endure” their “burdens” into the future. In other words: there will not be any forgiveness. And unfortunately, for those who believe Paul, he finally got something right.

These translations are an accurate reflection of Sha’uwl’s errors. NAMI: “Each for the own pack will bear.” LV: “For every one shall bear his own burden.” KJV: “For every man shall bear his own burden.”

But in league with those who benefit financially from Christianity, therefore willingly alter the words written in Galatians to make Paul appear credible, the New Living Translation perpetuates the deception that Sha’uwl was inspired by God. As coconspirators, they published a text that they knew was not accurate: “For we are each responsible for our own conduct.” There is no possible way the Greek scholars responsible for translating Galatians thought that “phortion – burden” meant “responsible,” or that “bastazo – carry” meant “conduct.” This is fraud, a knowing and willful deception, perpetrated for money. It is criminal.



No matter how one slices and dices these words, written as a command, this next statement is a problem, especially in this context…

“But (de) one must share, because you are being ordered to participate in association with others, to support (koinoneito – everyone is commanded to join together as partners with others to contribute to) the one (o) who is outspoken, making the ears ring, verbally informing (katechoumenos – reporting the instruction and teaching orally; from kata – according to and echos – loudmouthed rumors and noisy reports) the (ton) word (logos), instructing (katechounti – communicating and teaching) in (en) all (pas) good, excellently and beneficially (agathois – a worthy and deserving way, outstanding and exceptional, useful and advantageous, and of course right).” (Galatians 6:6)

We are in the sixth chapter of Galatians, and there have been fewer than six passages cited from Yahowah’s Towrah and Prophets thus far – and none correctly. Equally astounding, we have not seen a single citation from Gospel Jesus – not a solitary word six chapters into Christianity’s foundational declaration. And as shocking as that seems, it isn’t actually that surprising since the Gospels wouldn’t exit for decades and Jesus never existed.

Recognizing that the Towrah verses which have been cited have all been misquoted and twisted, it’s obvious that the “word” Sha’uwl wants to be promoted and supported is his own. His purpose has been to demean the Word of God, obsolescing and besmirching the Towrah. There is no chance whatsoever that Sha’uwl was motivating the Galatians to share the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. And at this point, he had not yet co-opted Mark or Luke to compose their complementary Gospels. Therefore, the Devil’s Advocate was ordering, actually commanding since koinoneito was written in the imperative mood, the Galatians to recite what he had preached and written.

Paul was the man making ears ring.

If the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear is right, then Paul was also saying that the one being instructed should do the instructing. That is like asking a class of children to educate their teacher (a.k.a. a liberal American classroom). NAMI: “Let be partner but the one being instructed the word to the one instructing in all good.” Jerome agrees with them in the LV: “And let him that is instructed in the word communicate to him that instructeth him, in all good things.” And therefore, the KJV regurgitates this same upside-down notion of the students informing their instructor: “Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.”

Apparently suffering writer’s block, the NLT serves as a revision of the King James: “Those who are taught the word of God should provide for their teachers, sharing all good things with them.” This unique twist of the text is quite revealing. It says that “those who are taught the word of God,” which is code for “Evangelical Christians,” “should provide for their teachers, sharing all good things with them,” which is code for “pay your pastor a generous salary and provide him with a nice house and a munificent living allowance.” Not surprisingly, the authors of the NLT were money-grubbing preachers.

This next line comes out of the wild blue yonder. Devoid of context or an intelligent transition, the “Apostle” who has devoted himself to mocking God and treating His Word with contempt, said:

“You must not become misled and stray (me planaomai – you are commanded not to wander away deceived, deluded, or mistaken) because a god (ΘΣ) is not sneered at or ridiculed (ou mykterizo – he is not mocked nor treated with contempt, derided). For then (gar – for), whatever (o) if (ean) a man (anthropos) may sow (speiro – might potentially scatter), this (touto) also (kai) he shall reap (therizo – he will harvest).” (Galatians 6:7)

God is mocked all the time. Christians call Him “Lord,” an epithet for Satan, rather than referring to Him by His name. They mock God when they pray to “Jesus Christ” and when they credit or blame God for everything, trivial or significant, good or bad, that occurs in their lives.

Sha’uwl has been sneering at Yahowah from the onset of this letter. He has derided and ridiculed His Towrah, treating the Word of God with utter contempt, suggesting that it enslaves and that it was annulled – even that it was impotent.

As a result of these letters, Christians uniformly turn up their noses at the Almighty’s seven annual Invitations to Meet. It is hard to imagine wandering further from the truth than saying that there are two covenants, not one, or that the Covenant memorialized on Mount Sinai was established with Hagar and leads to slavery. And what could be worse than replacing the relationship God is offering with religious delusions?

So once again, Sha’uwl is being a blatant hypocrite. He has been doing the misleading, the straying, the deceiving, and the deluding. He has been the one sneering, ridiculing, mocking, and deriding. But ever the clever one, he wants the faithful to believe that the informed, honest, and courageous men who are rejecting him for the fraud he has become are the liars while he is telling the truth. The practice of projecting one’s faults on rivals is common in politics, where those who are crafty falsely accuse their opponents of the crimes they, themselves, are guilty of committing. That is what is happening here.

Beyond duplicity and hypocrisy, in the world God conceived, as a result of Passover and UnYeasted Bread, we do not have to reap what we have sown. We can be perfected and forgiven. Only those who deliberately lead souls away from God, as Paul has done, will reap what they have sown. Sha’uwl will spend his eternity in the place that shares his name: She’owl.

In an ongoing effort to preclude Christian apologists from dismissing Twistianity on the basis of my amplified and literal translations of the oldest Greek manuscripts, I will continue to provide you with at least four other renderings for your consideration. The scholarly NAMI published: “Not be deceived God not is mocked. What for if might sow man this also he will harvest.” The Roman Catholic LV promoted: “Be not deceived: God is not mocked. For what things a man shall sow, those also shall he reap.” The Protestant KJV proclaimed: “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” And last and least, the Evangelical NLT printed: “Don’t be misled—you cannot mock the justice of God. You will always harvest what you plant.”

If God’s justice cannot be mocked, then why has every Christian publisher joined with Paul in rejecting His Name, His Towrah, His Covenant, and His Invitations?

Speaking of reaping that which one sows, Sha’uwl continues to cultivate his agricultural theme while advancing his Gnostic beliefs. He is wrong, however, because while flesh decays, we will not have bodies in heaven. Just as is the case with the notion of bodily resurrection, a physical nature would be counterproductive.

“Because (oti) the one (o) sowing (speiron – scattering seed) into (eis) the (ten) flesh (sarx – corporeal nature or physical body) of himself (eautou), from (ek – out of) the (tes) flesh (sarkos – the physical body or corporeal nature) will reap (therizo – will harvest) corruption, destruction, and dissolution (phthora – depravity and death, decay which leads to perishing). But (de) the one (o) sowing (speiron) into (eis) the (to) spirit (ΠΝΑ / pneuma – Divine Placeholder for the Ruwach), from (ek – out of) the (tou) spirit (ΠΝΑ / pneuma) will reap (therisei – will harvest) life (zoe) eternal (aionios).” (Galatians 6:8)

To his credit, this is the first time in six chapters that Paul has written something that reads well. It even sounds nice. Too bad it is not true.

In his own sneaky way, Sha’uwl was saying: the circumcised are cut off. But in truth, this is nothing more than Gnostic propaganda. We actually reap many wonderful things from our corporeal nature, and the greatest of them is children born into a loving family. In the bodies Yahowah designed on our behalf, we can use our eyes and ears to read and recite His Word, getting to know our Creator in the process. And so it is through our human nature that we come to know, love, understand, respect, and trust the Source of life.

For Galatians 6:8 to have been useful, Paul would have had to have done what the Gospel of John alleges Gospel Jesus did in his discussion with Nicodemus and explain the process of spiritual birth. But that was not Sha’uwl’s intent. For him, “the flesh” remains synonymous with the tangible and concrete nature of “the Towrah” (in part because of his insistence against circumcision), and “the spirit” is represented by the unseen and nebulous ether of “faith.” Therefore, he is saying that sowing the seeds found in God’s Word leads to destruction and decay, while those who place their faith in the spirit of his writing will find life eternal. The opposite is, of course, true. But not entirely so, because, in the way Sha’uwl intended believers to understand it, if they were to consider sowing as being actively engaged in planting and nurturing the lies of Pauline Doctrine, then they “will reap eternal life.” Unfortunately, it will be in She’owl.

And while it is a technical point, we do not “sow into the Spirit.” We can sow the seeds of truth by conveying Yahowah’s Word, and we can invite the Ruwach Qodesh into our lives, but that is as far as we can go in this direction. Everything else flows the opposite way, from God to us, not the other way around. Therefore, the notion of “sowing into the Spirit” isn’t sound literally, operationally, metaphorically, allegorically, or “Scripturally.”

The following translations are accurate, but yet their message is not. NAMI: “Because the one sowing in the flesh of himself from the flesh will harvest corruption the but one sowing in the spirit from the spirit will harvest life eternal.” LV: “For he that soweth in his flesh of the flesh also shall reap corruption. But he that soweth in the spirit of the spirit shall reap life everlasting.” KJV: “For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.” NLT: “Those who live only to satisfy their own sinful nature will harvest decay and death from that sinful nature. But those who live to please the Spirit will harvest everlasting life from the Spirit.” We are not called to “please the Spirit,” we are only asked not to belittle Her. And while our Spiritual Mother plays a crucial role in our perfection, “eternal life” isn’t the result of anything we do, including “living to please the Spirit.”

Not finished, Satan’s gardener continues to plow the fields of deception. In this case, after having recast and inverted good and evil, he encourages believers to harvest a field of human souls on behalf of his faith.

“But (de) the one (to) doing (poiountes – performing behaviors and working assigned tasks) good (kalon – advantageous, fine, fitting, beneficial, beautiful, sound, and handsome) we do not become malicious (me egkakomen – we do not give in to harmful emotions or disparaging behaviors; from ek – out of and kakos – a bad nature, injurious actions, pernicious thinking and destructive feelings). Because (gar) on occasion (kairo – in an opportunistic time or specific season), for oneself (idio – on one’s own, separately) we will reap (therisomen – we will harvest), not (me) being discouraged by being bound (ekluomenoi – being weary, exhausted, or collapsing as a result of ties which bind; from ek – out of and luo – binding ties and bandages).” (Galatians 6:9)

Egkakomen was a bit of a riddle until I realized it was a compound of “ek – from” and “kakos – a bad nature or wrong mode of thinking.” Kakos speaks of “injurious actions, a pernicious attitude, and destructive emotions,” and thus of “maliciousness.” But following “me – not,” it becomes a double negative, thereby denouncing the very thing Galatians has become.

Based on several factors, it is obvious that Paul was taking another swipe at Yahowah’s Towrah. He has already called what he perceives to be the old system “malicious,” and he made a career out of claiming that the Towrah “binds and controls” us. Therefore, in Pauline Christianity, as well as in Greek Gnosticism, the spirit is both good and liberating while the evil flesh enslaves.

There is another insight worth exploring because the seven Miqra’ey are not only directly associated with the “reaping” of saved souls, these “propitious harvests” are all celebrated “in season.” Specifically, three of the seven are designated as harvests (Firstborn Children, Seven Shabats, and Trumpets) and a fourth, Shelters, is symbolic of a covered shelter or storehouse of saved souls. Therefore, since Sha’uwl has told Christians to ignore Yahowah’s Harvests, and impugned the Towrah which presents them, he is now offering a substitute – not unlike what Christmas and Easter have become.

Paul’s hypocrisy is showing. He has led the faithful to believe that “working away at assigned tasks” was the bane of the Towrah? But now, works are good, so long as the workers are doing what Paul demands of them.

Having considered some of the many concerns surrounding this statement, let’s review the Christian renditions. NAMI: “The one but good doing not we give in to bad in season for own we will harvest not being loosed out.” LV: “And in doing good, let us not fail. For in due time we shall reap, not failing.” KJV: “And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.” NLT: “So let’s not get tired of doing what is good. At just the right time we will reap a harvest of blessing if we don’t give up.”

There are problems that arise in these translations which we should not ignore. First, it is God’s job, not ours, to reap the harvest of saved souls. And second, far too many people go out ill-prepared and just spin their wheels endlessly. It is like the person who has read some of the quotes in God Damn Religion and then runs off to debate Muslims in chat rooms and wonders why they aren’t making any progress.

While there is nothing wrong with trying, those who are prepared get better results with considerably less effort. That is not to suggest that pertinent information and logical reasoning prevail with those still mired in religious delusions. All a prepared person can hope to accomplish is to provide a trigger that encourages open-minded individuals to approach their search for the truth from a different perspective. The better prepared you are, however, the better the chances are that you will eventually find a topic which resonates with your audience. Further, once you make the transition in your mind from knowing to understanding, you are equipped to enlighten the world.

This particular problem resonates throughout Paul’s letter. He throws all manner of poorly identified and unsupported things against the wall, hoping that something will stick. But he has not presented sufficient evidence to educate anyone or to prove any of the points he has sought to make. He seeks faith because, in his world, understanding is not possible.

A long time ago, when I was a salesman in the retail consumer products industry, I overcame my personal limitations (I was very shy) by being better prepared than my competition. I studied my customers, researched my factories, dissected my products, compared them to the competition, and then invested countless hours preparing and tailoring my presentations for each unique customer. Then, after the buyer responded favorably and purchased products from the firms I represented, I invested many more hours following through on the logistics of the shipment, making sure nothing went wrong. I was prepared and thus prevailed.

Before we leave Paul’s field of lies, this appears to be an opportune time to share something from this “Apostle’s” most famous prophecy, one specifically related to a harvest, because it proves that he was a false prophet. Since the purpose of religion is to control and fleece the masses, clerics achieve this goal in large part by artificially allaying people’s fears over the death of loved ones. The founder of the Christian religion mistakenly said:

“But (de) we really do not want or take pleasure in (ou thelo – we do not actually will, enjoy, or propose (present active indicative (denoting something that is actual))) you all (umas) being ignorant and irrational (agnoeo – ignoring and paying no attention and thus not knowing, being mistaken and failing to understand (present active infinitive (acting as a verbal noun))) brothers (adelphos) concerning (peri – about and because of) the ones sleeping (ton koimomenon – those who are deceased (present passive participle (a verbal adjective))). So that you might not grieve (ina ue luphesthe – in order that you may not be sad or distressed (present passive subjunctive (suggesting a possibility))), just as (kathos – to the same degree and inasmuch as) also (kai) the ones remaining (oi loipos – the rest who are left over and lacking (present active participle nominative)), the ones not possessing (oi me echo – those not holding or clinging to (present active participle)) hope (elpis),...” (1 Thessalonians 4:13)

Hope, like faith, is likened to religion because both are bred in “agnoeo – ignorance.” But since we will soon discover that Sha’uwl was wrong with regard to his prophecy, why would anyone who isn’t ignorant trust his reassuring words in this regard?

Also, how would it be possible, recognizing that this was his first letter to the second community he visited, for those who had passed away before his arrival to benefit from his faith? Was Paul trying to win the favor of the living by promising to save the dead?

Speaking of death, God cannot die, and thus believing that He did is neither accurate nor beneficial. It is one of Christendom’s deadliest deceptions. Dowd died twice, and yet he will live forevermore – many of us with him and because of him.

“For if (gar ei – because under the condition) we really believe (pisteuo – we actually have faith (present active indicative)) that (oti – because namely) Iesous (ΙΥ) actually died (apothnesko – was physically dead (aorist indicative (at some unspecified time in the past) indicative (in reality))) and (kai) genuinely stood up (anistemi – actually was caused to stand (aorist indicative)), thus likewise (houtos – it follows in this way) also (kai) being God (o ΘΣ), the ones put to sleep (koimeoentas – have been caused to be deceased (aorist passive (meaning that they were acted upon at some unspecified time in the past))) by or through (dia – because) of the (tou) Iesou (ΙΥ), will actually lead (ago – will really bring, take, carry, and guide) (future indicative)) with Him (oun auto).” (1 Thessalonians 4:14)

In keeping with the religious mythology echoed at most Christian funerals, Paul said that “God” was responsible “for putting people to sleep” and thus for their death. Sha’uwl’s theology continues to be wrong.

Beyond the errant notion that God is the reason we die, the verb “ago – to lead” is a strange choice. While it was written in the third person singular, since it was not designated as masculine, it cannot be “he” or refer to “the Iesou.” So, who is guiding and bringing whom?

If you would like a better appreciation of God’s perspective of what happened on Passover, UnYeasted Bread, and Firstborn Children, and if you would like to understand how these fulfillments apply to you and your relationship with God, you are invited to read the Miqra’ey | Invitations, Qatsyr | Harvests, and Mow’ed | Meetings volumes of Yada Yahowah. There you will discover that Yahowah’s Spirit departed from Dowd’s body and soul on the upright pole so that his basar could die serving as the Passover Lamb. His soul descended into She’owl, carrying our guilt with him, all for the express purpose of enabling the promise Yahowah had made to perfect the children of the Covenant. His soul, then released, was reunited with the Spirit to celebrate Firstborn Children, enabling God to adopt us into His family.

The implication in this next statement is that Sha’uwl is attempting to quote something Gospel Jesus said. If true, it would be the first time in any of his letters, but it was not to be. Nothing of the sort is attributed to the mythical misnomer. In fact, his depiction of the Taruw’ah Harvest was remarkably different. So why do you suppose Paul, other than speaking for his “Lord,” has been using “we” instead of “I” throughout this doctrinal prediction?

“For this (gar touto) to you all (umin), we actually say (legomen – we speak (first-person plural, present indicative)) in (en) a word (logo – a statement (singular)) of the Lord (kuriou – of the Master, the one who owns, controls, and possesses slaves (genitive and thus possessive)), that we (oti emeis), the ones (oi) living (zontes – alive (present active participle)), the ones (oi) presently left and currently remaining (perileiphomenoi – left behind; a compound of peri meaning concerning, and leipo, being left behind, being inferior, wanting, and forsaken (present tense, passive (currently being acted upon), participle (serving as a verb and adjective))) unto (eis) the (ten) arrival and presence (parousia) of the (tou) Lord (kuriou – Master who possesses, owns, and controls slaves), by no means might we possibly go prior to (ou me phoasomen – certainly not and never may we arrive beforehand, come to by preceding (first-person plural, aorist (as a snapshot in time) subjunctive (indicating a possibility))) the ones (tous) having slept (koimeoentas – having been put to sleep and having been caused to die (aorist passive (meaning that they were acted upon at some unspecified point in time))).” (1 Thessalonians 4:15)

Feel free to speculate as to why Sha’uwl used the double negative ou and me in succession. When written in this form, ou typically represents “no” and me means “not or lest.” But when combined, rather than read as a negation of a negation, ou me can convey a “strong prohibition,” communicating “never, not at all, by no means, and certainly not,” which is how it was rendered above.

You may want to contemplate the reasons for Paul’s claims that his Lord caused so many people to die, why Paul refers to death as “sleep,” why the fate of the sleeping is universal and favorable, and why they must precede the living. I suspect that it was a ploy, one designed to promote the merits of his faith so that it would be more readily accepted. He told his audience what they wanted to hear. The fact that it was inaccurate, inconsistent, and irrational did not matter. By the time those who foolishly believed him figured it out, it would be too late to voice a complaint.

We can also speculate on the identity of Paul’s “Lord and Master.” But while doing so, consider the inherent conflict between representing a Lord, who is someone who “possesses, owns, and controls slaves,” and discounting the Torah because it was allegedly “controlling and enslaving.”

We should consider why Sha’uwl claimed to speak for his god and yet neglected to cite any of said god’s instructions. And for those foolish enough to believe that Sha’uwl was speaking for Yahowah about His Taruw’ah Harvest, why didn’t he quote what God had His prophets write about this Miqra’ | Invitation in His Towrah | Teaching, in Yasha’yah | Isaiah, Zakaryah | Zechariah, or Mal’aky | Malachi? Not only did he miss the date by a scant 1,966 years, he had the wrong Miqra’ because the next yet unfulfilled harvest for Gowym and Yahuwdym is Shabuw’ah | the Promise of the Shabat and not Taruw’ah | Trumpets which is exclusively for Yahuwdym and Yisra’elites. Yahowah had a great deal to say about this Spiritual Harvest of His children and Sha’uwl got it all wrong.

If we were to make our way past all of those inherent inadequacies, inconsistencies, and internal conflicts, it is undeniably clear that Paul predicted that he would be among “the ones presently left and currently remaining (perileiphomenoi – scribed in the present tense and passive voice (telling us that they were currently being acted upon)) up to the arrival and presence of the Lord.” However, he was not even close. He died alone and miserable nineteen centuries before the fulfillment of the still-future Shabuw’ah and Taruw’ah. Moreover, his promise was hollow to those who were sleeping and living.

Yahowah had long since established in His Word that the two loaves of bread raised up to God and the harvest of different varieties of wheat as standing grain serve as symbols of the Shabuw’ah Harvest as the Time of Israel’s Troubles escalates into the final seven years of the ordeal. The Taruw’ah Gleaning of olives, symbolic of Jews, follows seven years later. Moreover, it was predicated upon the concept of being a troubadour to trumpet the message of Father and Son. Therefore, while the association of these harvests with a showphar, or ram’s horn in Hebrew, is accurate, it was not prophetic. As for the rest, it is inaccurate. Further, the “call of the archangel” is reminiscent of Islam.

“Because, himself (oti autos), the Lord (o kurios – the Master who possesses, owns, and controls slaves), in (en – with) a command (keleusma – a shout, order, signal, and call) in the voice (en phone – in the sound and language) of the leading messenger (archaggelou – of the chief representative, the ruling envoy), and in (kai en – the with) a trumpet (salpiggi) of god (ΘΥ theou), will descend, stepping down (katabaino – will come down; a compound “kata – down from” and “basis – stepping”), separated from (apo) of heaven (ouranos), and the ones lifeless (kai oi nekros – so the ones deceased) in (en) Christo (ΧΥ) will actually stand (anastesontai – will really rise) first (protos – before).” (1 Thessalonians 4:16)

Actually, the Trumpet’s Gleaning of Jews occurs ten days before the conclusion of the Time of Ya’aqob’s Troubles (the Tribulation in Christian parlance). It’s the Shabuw’ah Harvest that precedes it.

Further, it was the Messiah Dowd who served as the Passover Lamb, not Christo, and his service was more than sufficient. And in the end, it is Dowd | David who will return as Shepherd, Messiah, and King.

The order of who rises first, if indeed there is a difference, will be completely irrelevant in association with eternity. Therefore, this was spoken to accommodate religious sensibilities. And as a result, Christians believe that their dearly departed are already in heaven, looking down on them and waiting for their arrival. However, there are no Christians in Heaven. (That may not be what you want to hear, but it is the truth. And unlike Paul, I am not promoting myself or a religion.)

Lastly, the reason for the colorful detail, the command, the voice, the archangel, the trumpet, and the stepping down, and soon left behind, seized, air, a meeting, and in the clouds, is to provide the semblance of knowledge. Muhammad painted heaven, hell, and the day of judgment with similarly vivid strokes.

In the conclusion of his errant portrayal, Sha’uwl predicted through the use of “emeis – we” and through his selection of verbs that he would be alive when this “harpazo – violent snatching away” occurred. Since he was wrong, he was a false prophet.

“Then later (speita – thereafter) we (emeis – the first-person personal plural pronoun includes the speaker who is Sha’uwl), the ones (oi) currently alive (zontes – living (present active participle)), the ones (oi) left behind and remaining (perileipo – surviving (present passive participle)) at the same time (hama – together in association), with them (sun autois) we will actually be violently seized and snatched away (harpayesomeoa – first-person plural future passive indicative of harpazo – will be attacked, controlled, drug away, spoiled and plundered forcibly by thieves) in (en – with) clouds (nephele – obscuring atmosphere) to (eis) a meeting (apantesis – a rendezvous or encounter of those going in opposite directions; from “apo – to be separated” and “anti – to be against or opposed”) of the Lord (tou kuriou – of the Master who possesses, owns, and controls slaves) into (eis) air (aer).

And (kai) thus (outos – likewise and in this manner) always (pantote – at all times) with (syn) Lord (kurio), we will actually be (esomeoa – we will really exist (future indicative)).” (1 Thessalonians 4:17)

It will be a long wait for those anticipating a rendezvous with “the Lord” in the clouds. And these questions linger: why take the dead and the living to a place of obscurity where nothing can be seen, where no one can stand, where light is diminished, and where it is cold, neither on earth nor in heaven? Why did he neglect to say whether this encounter would be for souls or reconstituted bodies? Why not explain when this is going to occur? Why not reveal why some will go and others will be left behind? Why not explain what reaction should be expected on earth as this occurs based upon how many go bon voyage? After all, Yahowah debunked all of these things many centuries before Paul penned this letter.

At issue, “harpazo – will be violently attacked, controlled, dragged away, spoiled and plundered forcibly by thieves” is not the kind of word one would normally associate with a Miqra’ey, although it’s a perfect depiction of Satan’s (a.k.a. the Lord’s) idea of a good time. And what is particularly interesting is that Gospel Jesus used a derivative of harpazo in Matthew 7:15, “harpax – exceptionally self-promoting and self-serving,” to describe wolves such as Sha’uwl:

“At the present time, you all should be especially alert, being on guard by closely examining and carefully considering, thereby turning away from (prosechete apo – you all should choose to beware, presently paying especially close attention, actively and attentively watching out for and guarding yourself against, so as to separate yourself from (present active imperative)) the false prophets (ton pseudoprophetes – those pretending to be divinely inspired spokesmen, from pseudo – deliberately false, lying, deceitful, and deceptive and prophetes – one who speaks of hidden things, declaring what he claims to have received from God) who (hostis) come to you, currently appearing before you (erchomai pros umas – who approach you, moving toward or up to you, making public appearances or statements against you (the present tense reveals that the false prophet is currently in their midst, the middle voice indicates that he is self-motivated, that his statements are affecting him, and that the more assertive he becomes, the more he is influenced by his aggressiveness and claims (i.e., one lie leads to another), while the indicative mood affirms that this is actually occurring)) from within (esothen – as an insider and thus from the same race, place, or group) by (en) dressing up in sheep’s clothing (endyma probaton – cloaked in the outer garments of sheep (note: the root of probaton is probaino – to go beyond, to go farther and forward, to go on and on, overstepping one’s bounds)), yet (de – but) they actually are (eisin – they correspond to, represent, are similar to, and exist without contingency as (present active indicative)) exceptionally self-promoting, self-serving, and swindling (harpax – vicious, carnivorous, and thieving, robbing, extorting, and destructive, ferocious, rapacious, and snatching; extracting and compelling under duress; from harpazo: to violently, forcibly, and eagerly claim and then seize for oneself so as to pluck and carry away; itself a derivative of haireomai – to take for oneself, choosing to be)) wolves (lykos – fierce individuals under dangerous pretenses who are vicious, cruel, greedy, destructive, overreaching, voracious, avaricious, acquisitive, and insatiable men impersonating beasts of prey).” (Matthew 7:15)

Recognizing these problems, it is telling that Paul concluded his false prophecy with this related command: “As a result (oste – therefore), you all must presently summon and plead with (parakaleite – you are all commanded to call out a summons while begging and imploring (present active imperative)) each other (allelon – one another) in (en – with) these (toutois) statements (logois – words, speeches, and treatises).” (1 Thessalonians 4:18)

It would be his statements that Christians would henceforth proclaim, not God’s. As Roman Catholics, they would summon the world to their Lord and to their Church. For many, it was convert or die.

Now that we know Paul was a false prophet in addition to being a deceitful messenger, and that he wanted believers to value and extol his words rather than the Word of God, let’s return to Galatians. There we find Comrade Paul, the Devil’s Advocate, telling everyone to start working for the benefit of his faith:

“As a result (ara), therefore (oun), likewise (hos – in the same way and time), on this occasion (kairon – period of time, moment, season, or opportunity), we are presently able to experience (echo – we really possess, hold onto, and currently have (first-person plural, present indicative)) the potential to work (ergaxometha – we may presently do business and perform, perhaps laboring) for the (to) advantageous (pros – as is necessary and needed) generous benefit (agathos – for the good) of all (pas), but (de) especially and exceedingly (malista – chiefly and above all) benefiting (pros) those belonging to (tous oikeios – the relatives, immediate families, households, and members) the (tes) Faith (pisteos – religion or belief).” (Galatians 6:10) (In P46, the verb “might work” was scribed as a noun, “ergaxometha – work.”)

According to Paul, work is enslaving when we choose to act upon the Towrah’s guidance for our own benefit and enrichment. However, when we work for Paul’s Faith, our labor is advantageous. That’s duplicitous and hypocritical. Although, it is handy because now Christians can strive for their own enrichment.

With Yahowah’s Covenant, other than choosing to respond and participate in accordance with His instructions, man does not make any contributions because Father and Son have done all of the work. But here, man is the one laboring. And the beneficiary is Paul’s religion. Rather than God empowering His Family, Paul wants to exceedingly benefit members of the Faith he, himself, founded.

The Nestle-Aland 27th Edition McReynolds Interlinear renders the passage: “Then therefore as season we have we might work the good toward all especially but toward the households of the trust.” This reveals that, after investing the first three-quarters of this epistle criticizing “works,” calling them unproductive, ignorant, and enslaving, Paul is now promoting them as good. So much for consistency. But to be fair, or unfair depending upon your perspective, Paul wants everyone to do what he commands and not what Yahowah requests.

The Catholic Latin Vulgate reads: “Therefore, whilst we have time, let us work good to all men, but especially to those who are of the household of the faith.” Therefore, the KJV says: “As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.” Toeing a similar line for a change, the New Living Translation published: “Therefore, whenever we have the opportunity, we should do good to everyone—especially to those in the family of faith.”

In his own words, Sha’uwl wrote:

“And also brothers, if a man may have previously detected or caught someone in a false step, you all, the spiritual ones, must prepare and restore the one such as this with a meek spirit, carefully observing yourself so then you, yourself, may submit and be tempted, having tried to catch a mistake.” (Galatians 6:1)

For one another, the weighty burdens you carry, remove and endure. Thus, in this way, you all complete the Towrah of the Christou. (Galatians 6:2) Indeed, if someone supposes or presumes to be somebody, he is nothing. He deceives himself. (Galatians 6:3)

But the performances and accomplishments of himself, he must examine and prove meritorious, and then to himself, alone, at the exclusion of others, he can boast and brag, having the justification for pride and praise, and not for any other. (Galatians 6:4)

For each and every one, their own individual and distinct burden they will carry and bear. (Galatians 6:5)

But one must share, because you are being ordered to participate in association with others, to support the one who is outspoken, making ears ring, verbally reporting the word, instructing in everything good and beneficial. (Galatians 6:6)

You must not become misled and stray because a god is not sneered at or ridiculed, nor is he mocked or treated with contempt. For then, whatever if a man may sow, this also he shall reap. (Galatians 6:7)

Because the one sowing into the flesh of himself, out of the body will reap corruption, destruction, and depravity and death. But the one sowing into the spirit, from the spirit will reap life eternal.” (Galatians 6:8)

But the one doing good, we do not become malicious or disparaging. Because on occasion, for oneself we will reap, not being discouraged by being bound, bandaged, and exhausted. (Galatians 6:9)

As a result, therefore, likewise, on this occasion, we are presently able to experience the potential to work for the advantageous generous benefit of all, but especially and chiefly benefiting those belonging to the Faith.” (Galatians 6:10)

I could not have imagined when we began this journey together that it would be this disorienting and dark. This has been the rollercoaster to Hell.



Twistianity

Devil’s Advocate

…Plague of Death

13

Peritemno | Circumcised

Cut Off…

Sha’uwl’s next line is perplexing. Most scholars assume that it means that he has taken the papyrus and quill away from whoever was serving as his amanuensis, and he was attempting to write these words in his own hand. If so, it did not help.

And yet with letters the size of his ego, he did establish his trademark. Galatians has been Paul’s epistle. He composed it and will be held accountable for it as well as for everything he said and did after it. His really big letters have earned eternal incarceration in She’owl.

The reason Paul took the pen from his amanuensis, and the reason he will repeat this practice at the conclusion of subsequent letters, is because he was schizophrenic and paranoid. He assumed that everyone was out to get him, just as he was conniving to undercut and discredit rivals, real and imagined. So, this became one of several ways that Paul sought to demonstrate that he penned this rude and crude attack on God and our sensibilities.

But this method of concluding his insanely vicious assault made it ever more personal – it was Paul against everyone from Yahowah down to everyone else he would badger over the next fourteen years and haunt thereafter. But how was Sha’uwl’s grand signoff going to be of any benefit? No one in Galatia, or anywhere else, would have recognized his handwriting. And even if the first letter was to set a standard, these people never received another. And as for others, the Ephesians, Thessalonians, and Corinthians would not have had a copy to compare their first rant from Paul to his opening salvo in Galatia. Moreover, once the first copy is made, Paul’s really big letters written with his own hand would be as valuable as yesterday’s newspaper repurposed at the bottom of a birdcage.

What follows also serves as yet another affirmation that Galatians was Sha’uwl’s first letter. He is telling believers to closely examine his handwriting so that they would be able to recognize it when they see it again, and thus be able to determine if subsequent letters were bona fide Pauline. Just because it made no sense, didn’t mean he didn’t intend it this way…

“You must look at and become acquainted with (idete – you all are ordered to see, notice, and become familiar with, paying attention to (written in the aorist active imperative as a command)) how old, tall, and great (elikois) to you (umin) the letters (grammasin – written alphabetic characters) I wrote (egrapha – I actually inscribed with pen) with (te) my (emos) hand (cheir).” (Galatians 6:11)

We cannot say for sure if Paul was bragging that his penmanship was great or lamenting that his eyesight was so poor that his letters were large. But we do know that Paul was attempting to certify that he, himself, was responsible for every word of what we have read.

If we are to prioritize the oldest witness, Paul wrote “elikois – as old as and as tall as,” not “pelikois – how large and how great.” Elikos is from elix, “a comrade of the same age, height, and status,” and thus elikos is said to mean “as great as,” in addition to “as old and tall.”

While the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear doesn’t add anything to the equation with: “See how great to you letters I wrote in the my hand,” should Jerome be right, we cannot blame the scribe for butchering Paul’s epistle. The Latin Vulgate reads: “See what a letter I have written to you with my own hand.” If this is correct, then Sha’uwl wrote all of this, from beginning to end, and what’s more, he’s proud of it. It’s akin to the Serpent bragging that he was able to play ‘Adam and Chawah for fools.

Following the Catholic’s lead, or more accurately, plagiarizing him, Francis Bacon and the team he assembled to produce the King James Version, wrote: “Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand.” Here, Galatians is being called substantive as opposed to great.

Always entertaining, and sometimes even accurate, the novelists at the New Living Translation authored this in all caps (I suppose to be faithful to the text): “NOTICE WHAT LARGE LETTERS I USE AS I WRITE THESE CLOSING WORDS IN MY OWN HANDWRITING.” That’s hilarious. In modern social media parlance, Paul is now screaming at us.

Whether this next statement is the second sentence Paul wrote in his own handwriting or the seventh from the last in his “great and large letter,” we still have to make corrections based on the oldest witness. Papyrus 46 adds a placeholder for Iesou after another for a title, whatever that may have been. And while there is also a conflict regarding the mood of the final verb (indicative as opposed to subjective), “may” or “might” work better in this context than “really” or “actually.” And recognizing this confusion, I am going to disregard the passive voice of the verb (as reflected in the NA27 and LV) because it renders the concluding clause senseless.

Corrections aside, Sha’uwl | Paul continues to be as Yahowah had described him to us 666 years in advance of this intoxicating man scribbling these words. The Devil’s Advocate had become completely obsessed with male genitalia and apoplectic over circumcision.

In the first edict Paul wrote with his own hand, with pen poised above the papyrus he was holding, he demeaned the Galatians, misrepresented their motives, and contravened Yahowah’s instructions on circumcision. Then gleefully staining the reeds with his indelible mark, the Plague of Death elevated an irrelevant object to cult status while negating the purpose of Passover.

This is the toxicity this man dispensed with his own hand...

“As much as (hosos – as great as, as far as, or as many as, even to the degree that) they currently desire (thelousin – they actually take pleasure in, propose, and presently enjoy) to make a good showing (euprosopesai – to make a favorable impression) in (en) this (houtos) flesh (sarx) to actually compel and force (anagkazousiv – to obligate and necessitate) you all (umas) to become circumcised (peritemno) merely (monon – only and just) so that (hina to) the cross (στρω / stauro – placeholder for Upright Pillar but later changed to cross) of the (tou) Christou Iesou (ΧΥ ΙΥ / Christou Iesou – placeholders used by early Christian scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement and Iesou) they presently may not pursue (me dioko – they currently might not follow and strive toward, running after).” (Galatians 6:12)

It would be reminiscent of what Yahowah warned us about so many years ago…

“Woe, this is a strong warning regarding (howy) the one who causes his companions and compatriots to drink (shaqah ra’), thereby associating them with (saphach) this antagonizing venom which is poisoning you (chemah), while also pursuing his passions (wa ‘aph) by intoxicating (shakar) for the purpose of (ma’an) looking at (nabat ‘al) their genitals (ma’aowr). (Chabaquwq / Habakkuk 2:15)

You will get your fill of (saba’) shame and infamy, a little and lowly status (qalown), instead of (min) honor and glory (kabowd) by choosing to continually intoxicate (shathah) because, in addition (gam), you (‘atah) also (wa) are desirous of showing them to be unacceptable by going roundabout using circular reasoning regarding them becoming circumcised (‘arel muwsab).

Upon you is (‘al) the binding cup (kows) of Yahowah’s () right hand (yamyn), therefore, (wa) public humiliation and a lowly status, ignominy (qyqalown), will be your reward (‘al kabowd).” (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:16)

This was one of many things Yahowah correctly predicted regarding Sha’uwl | Paul and the consequence of his deadly and deceptive position on circumcision.

Since Paul likes to name-drop, had he been real, Gospel Jesus would have been circumcised. So Paul is saying that no one should follow his example. He is also saying that the sign of Christendom, which is the cross, is nullified by those who accept the sign of the Covenant, which is circumcision. And this means that Paul’s religion and Yahowah’s relationship are in irreconcilable conflict.

What is particularly sickening about all of this is that Sha’uwl has misappropriated credit due Dowd, including his Passover and UnYeasted Bread sacrifices to make it appear as if he and Sha’uwl were on the same side, when they are adversarial. And that is one of the most beguiling aspects of Paul’s Faith. He has established the preposterous illusion that the religion he conceived and was promoting was founded by “Jesus Christ.” And billions of souls have succumbed to this deceitful and deadly proposition.

But let’s be clear – there were no Gospels at this time, and thus no way for someone in Galatia to know anything about the myth Sha’uwl was promoting other than through unsupportable hearsay. And this realization affirms that Paul’s letter was about Paul, and no one else. If he had wanted to promote the legend that became Gospel Jesus after the Gospels were written three to five decades thereafter, he would have written extensively about him, beginning his letter by explaining what the purported man-god, Iesou Christou, had said and done. But instead, Sha’uwl was fixated on the infamy of Paul.

The big letters are not making a big difference. Sha’uwl’s premise and conclusion continue to be wrong. Moreover, he is a hypocrite many times over. He was also circumcised. He circumcised Timothy. ‘Abraham was circumcised. Yitschaq was circumcised. And Ya’aqob was circumcised – so was Dowd and every one of Yahowah’s prophets.

By stating his point this way, it is obvious that “desiring to make a good showing in this flesh” is to be read “making it appear as if they are observing the Towrah.” Observing the Torah was then cast as an excuse not to pursue the benefits of Dowd’s Pesach and Matsah sacrifice. Sha’uwl is continuing to distinguish between and separate the Towrah and Messiah as opposed to connecting them, especially Pesach with its ‘Ayil and Zarowa’.

Second, while “Jews” can be accused of many things, “forcing you all to become circumcised” has never been one of them. Over 99.9% of Jews are circumcised eight days after birth, so Jews cannot be compelling other Jews to get circumcised. And Jews have never sought to convert a community of Gentiles. Circumcision is not a source of pride among Jews or something Jews are prone to show off, making Paul’s claim absurd in the extreme.

Even if there were such a thing as the mythical “Judaizer,” the notion that the Towrah-observant would “obligate and compel” others to become circumcised so that they could avoid pursuing a pagan symbol such as the “cross” is also ludicrous. The opposite is true because Yisra’elites observe Passover, which is what the “Christian cross” has obscured. As a result of these grossly inaccurate and fallacious statements, the only informed and reasoned conclusion is that Paul was ignorant, irrational, and insane.

Third, no one, not Yahowah, not the Messiah, not the most fundamentalist rabbi, nor the most ardent Christian, ever postured the notion that “circumcision” was a substitute for Passover. However, according to God, a man who is not circumcised cannot benefit from Pesach and should not participate because it would be counterproductive without Matsah. By avoiding circumcision, the benefit of Passover, which is eternal life, is forestalled as is the path to perfection and adoption during UnYeasted Bread and Firstborn Children.

Fourth, circumcision is not only the sign of the Covenant, it is the fifth of five conditions for participating in the Covenant. Therefore, while circumcision does not, in and of itself, enable someone to become part of Yahowah’s family and, therefore, to benefit from the Miqra’ey, without doing so, there can be no relationship with God or entry into Heaven. And therefore, men and boys who are not circumcised cannot be saved. God is unequivocal on this issue and Paul is clearly wrong.

And fifth, by associating “the flesh” and “circumcision” in this way, Sha’uwl is reinforcing the madness behind his mantra. The Torah can be dismissed as being of the flesh, and thus seen as inferior to Gnostic Greeks, because it encourages circumcision. Sure, it’s a weak argument and a flimsy case, and based on invalid Greek religious and philosophical perceptions, but misrepresenting one of Yahowah’s symbols while ignoring and rejecting the rest of His instructions was sufficient to lead billions of souls away from God.

The NAMI, LV, KJV, and NLT all translate “they may not pursue” in the passive voice with a tertiary definition, suggesting that Paul wrote: “they may not be pursued or suffer persecution.” “As many as want to put on good face in flesh these compel you to be circumcised alone that in the cross of Christ not they might be pursued.” For this rendering to be accurate, one would have to believe that Paul’s foes encouraged circumcision in order to avoid being pursued and harassed. And yet this inverts the historical record such that Jews are persecuting Christians, as opposed to the actual legacy of Christians continually harassing Jews.

While Christian apologists might protest, suggesting that Gentile followers of the Way were acquiescing to circumcision to avoid being persecuted, that argument will not fly either. Back in Paul’s killing days, he harassed Jews (who were circumcised on the eighth day after birth), not Gentiles. And he did so for the crime of acknowledging the association between Yahowah and the Messiah fulfilling Chag Matsah which was blasphemous according to the rabbis. At this time, the overwhelming preponderance of those who recognized what Dowd had done were Yahuwdym, not Gowym, as was reflected in their affinity for the Towrah. And since they were born Jews, circumcision was a given, not something which was compelled later in life.

Reflecting this same inverted notion, and perhaps fanning its flames, the Catholic Latin Vulgate reads: “For as many as desire to please in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised, only that they may not suffer the persecution of the cross of Christ.” Surely Jerome was not attempting to equate the pain of circumcision with the anguish of crucifixion?

The KJV parroted the Roman Catholic publication: “As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.” But if this is the case, if Paul wants us to believe that his foes encouraged circumcision to avoid Christian persecution, then he is again a false prophet because this is the opposite of what transpired.

As usual, the NLT has a novel rendition of this sentence – one which bears very little resemblance to the actual text they were purporting to translate: “Those who are trying to force you to be circumcised want to look good to others. They don’t want to be persecuted for teaching that the cross of Christ alone can save.” Since Paul has positioned himself as someone who was persecuted for “teaching that the cross of Christ alone can save,” this variation of the text presents Paul’s foes as cowards.

It should be obvious, but salvation is not derived from a cross. Nor can it be achieved through Passover alone. In fact, attending Pesach and Matsah together will not get the job done. The restoration of our relationship with Yahowah is predicated upon getting to know Him and then the decision to participate in His Covenant Family. And for that to occur, we must accept all five requirements. One of those instructive conditions, walking to Yahowah to become perfected, puts us on the pathway through the Miqra’ey to God’s Home. And that journey begins with Pesach – a gift that remains out of reach to those who are uncircumcised and non-Covenant.

There are two additional discrepancies in this next sentence between Papyrus 46 and the Nestle-Aland 27th Edition. The opening word is “houte – neither” instead of “houde – not even,” although neither option makes any sense. One says that those who were observing the Towrah were “not even” circumcised, which is an internal contradiction, and the other establishes a “neither-nor” option which is not provided in the text. Further, the verb peritemnomenoi was rendered in the perfect passive participle, and thus conveys: “those who have already been circumcised” as opposed to “who is being circumcised.”

While it is a gnat among camels, no one boasts about being circumcised or brags about circumcising others. It is a private choice that parents make regarding how they intend to raise their children. It is made in quiet contemplation as mother and father commit themselves to share God’s Covenant within their home.

What follows is every bit as preposterous, providing further evidence of Paul’s psychopathy….

“For (gar – because then) neither / none of (houte) the ones (oi) already having been circumcised (peritemnomenoi) themselves (autoi) carefully observe (phulasso – focus upon so as to be protected and preserved by) the Towrah (nomon – nourishing allotment which facilitates an inheritance; used throughout the Septuagint to convey “towrah – source of teaching, instruction, direction, and guidance”).

To the contrary and nevertheless (alla – but certainly), they presently want and take pleasure in (thelousin – they purpose and desire, even enjoy) you all (umas) becoming circumcised (peritemnesthai) in order that (hina) in (en – with) the flesh (te sarx) of yours (umetera) they may boast (kauchesontai – they might brag and be glorified).” (Galatians 6:13)

Paulos was by his own admission so uncontrollably conceited that Satan had to demon-possess him to rein him in. The very man who had the audacity to contradict God and start his own religion just called those with the good sense to observe God’s Towrah “boastful.” Like almost every politician today, Sha’uwl was a complete hypocrite – a buffoon ever ready to project his foibles on his rivals.

Sha’uwl has covered this ground before, so other than to demean the Covenant’s Children in a completely hypocritical fashion, this is redundant. But since he has once again contradicted Yahowah’s testimony, here are the facts: In the Towrah, Yahowah asks parents to circumcise their sons on the eighth day as a sign and symbol of a mother’s and father’s commitment to raising their children so that they become God’s children.

‘Abraham did as Yahowah requested – and on the very same day that he was asked, he circumcised himself and Ishmael, along with every male who was born in his home. And while that single act did not save him, it demonstrated the appropriate attitude and mindset of following Yahowah’s Instructions – something those who would like to be adopted should consider adopting. Unlike Paul, ‘Abraham respected what Yahowah had to say – he trusted God – and as a result, Abraham relied upon Yahowah’s Guidance. And that is what saved him.

The process of discounting Yahowah’s instructions, and renouncing His symbols, not only displays a bad attitude, and thus irritates God, it stunts our growth. But worse, when we openly criticize, even ignore, conceal, change, or corrupt elements of Yahowah’s plan, we dim the lights, blur the signs, and put stumbling blocks on the path to salvation. That is what Paul is doing here.

Adult circumcision is a personal choice between a man and God. After thoughtful contemplation of Yahowah’s guidance on the matter, we are free to accept or reject the conditions He has established for entry into His Family and Home. It is never compelled and no one ever gloats. Paul’s claims misrepresent reality and are delusional.

While every man, woman, and child has the opportunity to ignore God’s request, embrace it, or decry it, no one has the right to change it. It is His Home, and this is one of His rules. If you do not like it, you are free to go elsewhere. But do not buy into Paul’s rhetoric and think that you can impose yourself on the Almighty, believing He will accept those who reject Him. It does not work that way.

The NAMI rendering of this abomination is as follows: “But not for the ones being circumcised themselves law they will guard but they want you to be circumcised that in the your flesh they might brag.” Jerome had a somewhat similar take on this verse in his LV to my own: “For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law: but they will have you to be circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.” And following his lead, the KJV reported: “For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.”

Taking this ball and running with it, the NLT suggested: “And even those who advocate circumcision don’t keep the whole law themselves. They only want you to be circumcised so they can boast about it and claim you as their disciples.” This is more of a commentary than a translation, which would be fine if it were honestly marketed as such.

What these folks are all missing, including Paul, is that Yahowah is the one who is advocating circumcision. The choice to be circumcised has nothing to do with the opinions of others. We either agree with God or not.

Circumcision, while one of many things Yahowah prescribes in the Towrah, is unique because it is one of the conditions we must accept to engage in a relationship with Him. So, while we are all free to speculate as to why He prescribed it, it would be unwise to suggest that His advice is outdated and passé, or that Paul’s advice is better.

The Torah is Yahowah’s Operating Manual for humankind. It includes words to teach us and symbols to guide us. Circumcision is one of these word pictures. Just as Yahowah “cut a covenant with ‘Abraham,” one in which ‘Abraham agreed to separate himself from Babylon and be set apart unto God, trusting Him with his family, we can cut ourselves in on this same relationship. It is the offer of a lifetime. We are being invited to join Yahowah’s family. We do so by following His instructions.

Yahowah’s Covenant is an open invitation. It is between you and God.

The path Yahowah has provided home is not, however, open to human copyedits or alterations. And speaking of these, the oldest witness to Paul’s letter reveals a third “me – not,” this one following “may it not become” to make it “not boasting” in this next statement.

Therefore, the ultimate hypocrite and demagogue continued to expose his schizophrenia…

“But (de) for me (emoi), may it not become (me genoito) not boasting (me kauchasthai – bragging), if (ei) not (me) in (en) the (to) cross (στρω / stauro – placeholder for pointed upright stake) of the (tou) Lord (ΚΥ / kuriou – placeholder for Master, Owner, and Controller) of ours (emon), Christou Iesou (ΧΡΥ ΙΗΥ – placeholders used by early scribes for Christou | Drugged or Chrestou | Useful Implement and Iesou), by (dia) whom (ou) my (emoi) world (kosmos – universe, earth, or world system) has been actually crucified (ΕΣτρΑΙ / estaurotai – placeholder for being affixed to a death stake) and likewise, I (kago) to world (kosmo).” (Galatians 6:14)

For anyone seeking evidence that Sha’uwl did not include the placeholders in the autographs of his letters, we have it now. The στρω placeholder was designed to convey a divine status to the image of a dead god on a stick. The verb upon which it was based, conveyed the idea of a torturous death on a pointed pole.

Likewise, ΚΥ is a placeholder used in the Septuagint to convey either Yahowah’s name or “Upright One” who is the “Foundation and Upright Pillar of the Tabernacle.” These are concepts that are only understood based upon the deployment of ‘edon throughout the Towrah – a book Sha’uwl has relentlessly demeaned.

It saddens me to realize that Christians believe that the man who routinely contradicted the legend that would become Gospel Jesus and demeaned Yahowah’s Word “bragged in the cross,” rather than in his own perverted message, or that he was somehow “crucified” with the Messiah – someone he never knew. Yes, he crucified himself with his own words, but that does not count.

The first several chapters of this letter were crafted to defend and glorify Paul. However, if the self-proclaimed messenger of God were focused exclusively on what happened on Passover, his personal reputation, status, and authority would have been irrelevant. All that would have mattered was presenting what the Messiah Dowd had accomplished by fulfilling the Towrah’s promises on behalf of the Covenant’s children on the Miqra’ey of Pesach, Matsah, and Bikuwrym. But that is the antithesis of what we have endured throughout Galatians.

Further, there is no connection between Sha’uwl and Dowd’s sacrifice. Paul’s sacrifices, whatever they may have been, are completely irrelevant. Even if Paul had told the truth rather than convolute it, his actions cannot save anyone. It is shameful that he continues to present himself as if he were a co-savior. Paul was not crucified, not on this day or any day – and even if so, it would not amount to a hill of beans. Sha’uwl could have been crucified many times over, and it would not have benefited anyone other than the rats scurrying around the torture stake in Rome scheming about who would get the first bite of his rotten carcass.

Passover provides life. Crucifixion kills.

Passover is our Father’s and His Son’s gift to us, one which frees the Covenant Family from the sting of captivity and death. Crucifixion was Rome’s agonizing means to dissuade anyone from seeking to be free of their control. To forego Passover and celebrate a crucifixion instead, as Paul is doing, is revoltingly macabre and incurably stupid.

The cross is a degrading and humiliating implement of excruciating pain, horrifying death, and government subjugation. The image of a dead god on a stick is the most disgusting insult to God to ever come from man’s perverted religious mindset. Those who believe they will be saved by this implement are sadly mistaken – and the fact that there are billions of them does not make it any better.

The NAMI touts: “To me but not may it become to brag except in the cross of the Master of us Jesus Christ through whom to me world has been crucified and I to world.” Jerome, setting a literary precedent for paraphrasing the text, wrote the following in his LV: “But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ: by whom the world is crucified to me, and I to the world.” The textually unjustified “God forbid” statement found in both the LV and KJV serves as an indictment against the KJV claim that it is a translation of the Hebrew and Greek: “But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.”

Continuing to buff and polish Paul’s image, the NLT proposed: “As for me, may I never boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. Because of that cross, my interest in this world has been crucified, and the world’s interest in me has also died.” It appears as if the NLT translators had never read Paul’s letters. But alas, if only: “the world’s interest in me had also died.”

Like a bad habit that will not go away...

“But (gar – because then) neither (oute) circumcision (peritome) someone (ti) is (estin) nor (oute) uncircumcised (akrobystia), on the contrary (alla – but yet nevertheless certainly) a new (kaine – previously unknown) creation (ktisis).” (Galatians 6:15)

Just a moment ago, Sha’uwl claimed that those who were circumcised negated their salvation, but now it does not matter. For those who prefer honesty and consistency, this is known as an internal contradiction. And both opinions were invalid.

The only thing which had been “newly created” was Paul’s Faith, known as Christianity. It is “alla – contrary” to Yahowah’s guidance on everything from circumcision to the Covenant.

Had Paul wanted to be helpful here, as opposed to contradictory and argumentative, he would have said: By closely observing the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, we can know Yahowah and come to understand how and why His Son, Dowd, our Messiah and Zarowa’, returned to fulfill the Towrah’s promise as the Passover Lamb to make us immortal, opening the door for the children of the Covenant. By respecting His instructions, and by relying upon the seven-step path home He has provided, we can be adopted into Yahowah’s Family and find ourselves enriched and empowered by God.

Or barring that, he could have encouraged his audience to read the Towrah, Naby’, wa Mizmowr by translating it into Latin and Greek, while explaining God’s intent. He should have done as I have throughout the Yada Yahowah Series and conveyed the proper pronunciation of Yahowah’s name, enumerated the conditions and benefits of the Covenant, written about the purpose and fulfillment of the Invitations to be Called Out and Meet, and then shared Dowd’s role as the Messiah, Son of God, and Zarowa’ in honoring those promises. But he did just the opposite. And as a result, billions have forfeited their souls to a forger and fraud.

When we are invited into Yahowah’s family on “Bikuwrym – Firstborn Children,” we are reconciled into the Beryth and restored into fellowship with God, but that is not to say that “we become a new creation.” We are not recreated, but instead, our souls are adopted. This is the same concept at work in Yirma’yah / Jeremiah 31, whereby the Covenant with Yisra’el and Yahuwdah will be reestablished and reaffirmed, not replaced.

It has become increasingly obvious that Paul required a “new creation,” one that became known as the “New Testament.” He not only opposed the existing Covenant but had striven to annul Yahowah’s testimony. And yet how can his new creation be valid if its premise contradicts the testimony of God? And how can it be accurate when Yahowah explained that the final renewal of His Covenant will be with Yisra’el, not Gentiles, and that it will be predicated upon the incorporation of the Towrah into their lives? Seriously, folks, what precludes billions from being informed and rational?

As we have learned, Galatians was written as a rebuttal to the dressing down Sha’uwl received when he was called to Yaruwshalaim to confront those who had actually witnessed what Dowd had accomplished. They were concerned about him because he was denouncing circumcision, the Covenant, and the Towrah. This letter has been Sha’uwl’s | Paul’s response. Rather than align his pronouncements so that they were consistent with God’s teachings, the Plague of Death invented his own religion. In the process, he demeaned everything associated with Yahowah: from His teaching to His people.

If this is what Paul scribed with his own hand, he should not have bothered. NAMI: “Neither for circumcision some is not uncircumcision but new creation.” Trying to redeem the mother of his religion, Jerome proposed the following in the Latin Vulgate: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision: but a new creature.” The KJV merely plagiarized him: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.” Gospel Jesus could not have been his inspiration because he was both circumcised and Towrah-observant. And paraphrased in Elizabethan English, Yahowah said that “uncircumcised not availeth,” in that uncircumcised men are explicitly excluded from participating in Passover and His Covenant, and thus expressly excluded from eternal life as part of Yahowah’s Family.

Speaking for themselves and Paul, but most certainly not Yahowah or His Son, the NLT promised: “It doesn’t matter whether we have been circumcised or not. What counts is whether we have been transformed into a new creation.” So why do you suppose Yahowah bothered with the Towrah or the Covenant – with Moseh, ‘Abraham, Dowd, and the Children of Yisra’el?

The oldest witness of Paul’s extraordinary penmanship says that he scribed “stoicheosin – might follow” in the next line as opposed to “stoichesouin – will follow.” But the question remains: who or what are they to follow?

The only person Paul has asked the Galatians to “imitate” is himself. He has not asked them to follow in the footsteps of the Messiah Dowd or even of Gospel Jesus – both of whom would have been largely unknown to the Galatian audience. In fact, Paul has assailed, belittled, convoluted, and concealed the path that the Son of God followed.

“And (kai) as many who are (osoi) in this (to touto) rule and standard (kanoni – principle) imitating this and marching in conformity by following along (stoicheosin – will proceed arranged in military ranks, and may walk compliantly in someone’s footsteps, harmoniously imitating (as in “onward Christian soldiers”)), peace (eirene) upon (ep) them (autous) and (kai) mercy (eleos – compassion and affection, loving kindness and clemency), and also (kai) upon (epi) the (tou) Yisra’el (‘Israel – a transliteration of Yisra’el, meaning “Individuals who Engage and Endure with God”) of the (tou) God (ΘΥ).” (Galatians 6:16)

Paul’s Greek was so bad that his intent was often obscured, but it is there, nonetheless. After building a false premise on monstrous delusions, the Father of Lies is introducing his magnum opus – Replacement Foolology. The uncircumcised were a New Creation: the Yisra’el of God. If Jews were not going to capitulate, he would simply replace them.

Since “this rule” is defined by his previous statements, that circumcision is either condemning or irrelevant, then Paul is asking believers to fall in line and consider Yahowah’s Word meaningless. All that mattered was to believe Paul’s claim that Passover had been replaced by crucifixion and that crosses save.

We first encountered “stoicheion – initial teachings and basic elements of the physical world which were improperly formed and underdeveloped, representing the first step in the worldly system of pagan mythology” in Galatians 4:3, where it was deployed to demean the Torah. It was there that we learned that stoicheion was derived from stoicheo, which spoke of “soldiers marching off (as in away from the Torah) from one place to another (as in from the “Old Testament” to the “New Testament”).

We also discovered that stoicheo was similar to Yahowah’s depiction of His “mal’ak – spiritual messengers” who are: “tsaba – relegated to a command-and-control regimen where they follow orders.” And that’s important because it is Satan’s quid pro quo: he wants mankind treated as he was treated. So hypothetically, stoicheo’s “submit and obey” connotation was meant to be derogatory when applied to God, but it’s just fine when believers relinquish the benefits of informed freewill and fall in line with Sha’uwl’s satanically-inspired commands. It is little wonder Christians act like lemmings and the nonconformist is considered a heretic and silenced.

More telling still, the rule most important to Paul, the one he wants all believers to walk in conformity with, following his example, is: Believe what I say. According to the Devil’s Advocate: “eleos – mercy” is afforded to those who accept his standard which requires rejecting Yahowah’s standard.

And truthfully, there is only one “rule,” one “measure,” one “standard” which matters according to Yahowah – His Towrah | Teaching. Even His Son, Dowd, was measured and perfected by this standard. It is how he prevailed on our behalf.

And yet Paul has said that Christians should measure truth by the standard born out of his duplicitous and irrational rhetoric. Unfortunately, those who believe him will discover too late that his promises deliver neither “peace” nor “mercy.”

Sha’uwl’s ending clause was intentionally provocative. In a long litany of damning doctrines, this may have been his most debilitating. There is only one Yisra’el, and that name already includes ‘el, which is God’s title. This makes Sha’uwl’s sentence read: “‘Yisra’el – Individuals who Engage and Endure with God’ of the God.”

Yisra’el is a racial designation bequeathed by Yahowah upon the descendants of Ya’aqob. Our DNA determines if we are the offspring of Yisra’el, not circumcision, not faith, and most certainly not Paul.

Based upon what Sha’uwl has written thus far, it is obvious that he intended to rob the Chosen People of the distinction Yahowah had afforded the Children of Yisra’el, taking it away from them and giving it to the adherents of his new religion: Christianity.

“As a result, therefore, likewise, on this occasion, we are presently able to experience the potential to work for the advantageous generous benefit of all, but especially and chiefly benefiting those belonging to the Faith.” (Galatians 6:10)

You must look at and become acquainted with how great and especially exemplary the letters I have written with my own hand to you. (Galatians 6:11)

As much as they currently want to make a good showing and favorable impression in this flesh to actually compel and force, obligating and necessitating you all to become circumcised merely so that the cross of the Christou Iesou they presently may not pursue. (Galatians 6:12)

For none of those already having been circumcised themselves carefully observe the Towrah. To the contrary, they just want to take pleasure in you all becoming circumcised in order that in the flesh of yours they may boast. (Galatians 6:13)

But for me, may it never be that I stop boasting, if not in the cross of the Lord of ours, Christou Iesou, by whom my world has been actually crucified and likewise, I to the world. (Galatians 6:14)

But neither circumcision someone is nor uncircumcised, on the contrary, a new creation. (Galatians 6:15)

And as many who are in this rule and following this standard, imitating this by marching in conformity and following along, peace upon them, and mercy, and also upon them the Yisra’el of God.” (Galatians 6:16)

Speaking of provocative, by writing the Greek word “eleos – mercy” at the end of a letter in which a new religion was established based upon the Greek goddesses Charis – Charities, known as Gratia or Graces in Latin and English, Paul proved conclusively that his elevation of the pagan goddesses to Christian legend was deliberate. “Eleos – mercy, compassion, affection, loving-kindness, and clemency” accurately represents the Hebrew chanan. If Paul had been promoting Yahowah’s mercy, he would have used ‘eleos instead of charis. It was not only the perfect word to convey the nature of Yahowah’s “merciful” gift, he was aware of the term and its meaning because he used it in Galatians 6:16.

And yet instead, the man, who listened to and heeded the words of Dionysus, promoted the names of pagan goddesses familiar to Greek and Roman ears. In so doing, especially while simultaneously blending in a hefty dose of Gnosticism, Paul established the religious model Catholicism would follow. The Roman Catholic Church, by its own admission, was able to assimilate cultures en masse into Paul’s religion because clerics were always willing to amalgamate pagan gods, rites, and holidays into the faith. This is a devastating blow to those who promote: “Grace alone.”

As we conclude our review of this statement, you will notice that the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear acknowledged the existence of “tou – of the, or of this” before “theos – God,” when they scribed: “And as many as in the rule this will walk peace on them and mercy and on the Israel of the God.” The Catholic Vulgate published: “And whosoever shall follow this rule, peace on them and mercy: and upon the Israel of God.” So why did the Catholics impose so many additional rules if ignoring circumcision was sufficient? Thirteen hundred years later, the Authorized Protestant KJV promoted: “And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.”

Paul did not write “God’s peace and mercy,” nor did Paul suggest that these gifts came from God. But they did come to the same conclusion regarding Replacement Foolology. NLT: “May God’s peace and mercy be upon all who live by this principle; they are the new people of God.” Are the Tyndale publishers so anti-Semitic that they think they are justified in removing “Yisra’el”? Do you suppose they replaced Yisra’el because they believe that they have become “God’s new people?” Have they not proved my point – that this was intended to promote replacement theology whereby Pauline Christians became the recipients of all of the promises made to Yisra’el? But if so, why do Christians universally ignore the basis of those promises: the Towrah?

That is quite the conundrum. The promises Christians claim they inherited are presented in the Towrah. If the Towrah is invalid, so are the promises. But since the Towrah is valid, Paul’s letters, which serve as the basis of the religion, are not worth the papyrus they were written upon.

The same Sha’uwl who went out of his way to antagonize and harass his foes (the most prominent of whom were the disciples of Gospel Jesus), who made a career out of abusing members of Yahowah’s family, who demeaned his audience, calling them idiots and traitors, like all insecure individuals, had chronically thin skin and would not tolerate reprisals. This next statement is a command.

“Furthermore, from now on (tou loipos – for the remainder of time, henceforth), do not let anyone continue to (medeis parecho – allow no one to cause (present active imperative)) cause trouble or difficulty (kopous – bothersome hardships and laborious toils, exhausting tasks and wearisome works; from kopos – sorrowful beatings as a source of troubles) for me (moi).

For I (ego), indeed (gar – because), bear the scars and brands (ta stigma – the tattoos demarking a slave owned by a particular master, a soldier controlled by a general, or a religious devotee) of the (tou) Iesou (ΙΗΥ / ‘Iesou via placeholder), in (en) the (to) body (soma) of me (mou), I actually bear (bastazo – I genuinely and presently carry, endure, remove, provide, and undergo).” (Galatians 6:17)

In this vast swamp of delusional megalomania, this may be the most egotistical and depraved statement Sha’uwl has yet postured. Not only can’t he be bothered, but the Galatians have also been ordered to prevent anyone from giving Satan’s Messiah any trouble, now and forevermore. This is because he personally claims that he actually bears the scars and brands of “Iesou,” an individual he never so much as even met. As lies go, this one is as egotistical and psychotic as they come.

Sha’uwl is presenting himself as Gospel Jesus’ savior, the one bearing his burdens. But unlike the Messiah and Son of God who willingly labored on our behalf, Sha’uwl does not want to be troubled.

Incidentally, when “loipos – furthermore, from now on, and for the remainder of time as inferior” was used in the context of Shim’own / Peter’s evaluation of Paul’s epistles, it was convoluted to mean “other” by almost every English translation. And that was to infer that all of Paul’s “graphe – written” letters were “scripture,” based upon a transliteration of the Latin word for “written.” However, now as a result of these translations of loipos, we know that it was not a result of the supposed scholars being unaware of what the word actually meant. They were trying to deceive you.

NAMI: “Of the remaining labors to me no one let hold to I for the brands of the Jesus in the body of me bear.” LV: “From henceforth let no man be troublesome to me: for I bear the marks of the Lord Jesus in my body.” KJV: “From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.” NLT: “From now on, don’t let anyone trouble me with these things. For I bear on my body the scars that show I belong to Jesus.”

This wannabe “Apostle” clearly needs an attitude adjustment. Can you imagine the Passover Lamb, our Savior, telling someone, “If you bother me again, I’ll have nothing to do with you?” Such a command does not bear the mark of God.

Since Sha’uwl has raised the specter of brands cut or tattooed into the skin, by virtue of Qara’ / Called Out / Leviticus 19:28, we know that Yahowah is opposed to both. Therefore, it is interesting that the man who has preached against God’s instructions to cut one’s foreskin as a sign of the Covenant has now proclaimed that he bears a stigma in his body, all in direct conflict with the Towrah.

It should also be noted that Muhammad issued the same command on similar grounds. He ordered Muslims to stop bothering him (while he was having sex with children in the apartments surrounding his mosque) because he bore the mark and sign of Allah’s prophet – in his case, a hairy mole.

It is also revealing that, while the Quran does not mention circumcision, almost every Muslim man is circumcised – regrettably along with two hundred and fifty million Muslim girls. The obvious implication is that Muhammad was born to Jewish parents who circumcised him on the eighth day. Then Muslims were told to follow his example in the Sunnah because Muhammad stated that circumcision was a “law for men.”

Christian apologists will no doubt capitulate that a stigma is a “brand or tattoo,” but they will protest that figuratively (albeit by way of religious editing) the word can convey the idea of a “scar” – but that is only as a result of cutting the brand into the skin. Disregarding this fact, they will say that Paul was actually claiming that he bore scars on his body because he spoke on behalf of “Jesus Christ.” But Paul never actually spoke on behalf of Gospel Jesus. He didn’t exist at the time and misquoting him once doesn’t count.

Further, Sha’uwl’s morbid and self-flatulating claims to have been whipped, drowned, and stoned to death many times over were no more credible than the rest of his errant testimony. If you recall, each time Paul has tried to recount his personal past, he has either contradicted or convicted himself. (Although to be fair, knowing what we have come to know about Paul, and appreciating the consequences of his false teachings on billions of Christian souls, given the opportunity, I have done my best to strike a mortal blow to his credibility.)

But there is good news. We have finally reached the end of Galatians. Unfortunately, Paul’s concluding comments contain the names of three false gods, five if you consider the replacements of Dowd’s name and titles to create a false god. The first of these is especially incriminating, because just a couple of statements ago, the Devil’s Advocate acknowledged that he was aware of a perfect Greek alternative to “Grace,” that being: “eleos – mercy.” Disregarding it, and promoting the pagan goddesses yet again, Sha’uwl wrote the following on behalf of his Lord:

“Becoming the (‘H) Grace (Charis – Charities; the name of the Greek goddesses of lovemaking and licentiousness, from who the Roman Gratia, or Graces, were named) of the (tou) Lord (ΚΥ / Kuriou – Master who possesses, owns, and controls slaves), our (emon) Iesou Christou (ΙΗΥ ΧΡΥ / ‘Iesou Christou – via placeholders), with (meta) the (tou) spirit (ΠΝΣ / pneumatos – via a placeholder) of you (umon) brothers (adelpoi). Amen (Amen – the name of the Egyptian sun god, as reflected in Amen Ra and Tutankhamen).” (Galatians 6:18)

If there was ever a place where an article was deadly, it is here. “Tou – of the” before the placeholder ΚΥ precludes the symbol from representing Yahowah’s name in this sentence. And that means Paul purposefully left him out of this salutation.

More devastating still, since “the Lord” is Satan’s title (derived from the Hebrew “Ba’al – Lord) and since Sha’uwl wrote “emon – our” before he personally scribed “Iesou Christou” with his own hand, we must assume that he was speaking of his and his Lord’s personal creation of the mythical “Jesus Christ” – a caricature which bore no resemblance to the actual Zarowa’, Mashyach, and Ben ‘El, and thus to the Towrah. Paulos’ “Jesus Christ” was neither God, Savior, nor, most especially, the Passover Lamb. The only thing which mattered did not matter to Paul. It is the birth of Replacement Foolology.

Also, Sha’uwl wrote “the Charis / Charities of the Lord.” And that is actually a valid association, properly identifying the Greek goddesses with Dionysus, the Greek god upon which his religion was conceived. Paul has come full circle from his conversion to his corruption.

Continuing to clean up Paul’s mess, it should be noted that he forgot to include a verb in his parting statement. Further, while mankind has a “nepesh – soul,” humankind does not have a “pneumatos – spirit. The Ruwach Qodesh, or Set-Apart Spirit, is from God. She is not “with the spirit of you.” And since Sha’uwl has just asked believers to be spiritual, it has become obvious that the spirit of Christianity is averse to God.

When transliterated and capitalized, rather than translated, “Amen” is the name of a pagan god – the sun god of Egypt. Had the Greek transliteration (amane) of the Hebrew word ‘aman (also pronounced aw·mane) been translated as “trustworthy and reliable,” then the pagan association would have been eliminated. But alas, it has become deified. Christians typically complete their prayers: “In god’s name, I pray, Amen,” making “Amen” the name of the Christian god. And this problem is exacerbated in Paulos’ concluding clause by the fact that Yahowah’s name was specifically excluded from a salutation which began and ended with pagan monikers.

One last time, let’s consider the scholarly Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear: “The favor of the Master of us Jesus Christ with the spirit of you brothers, amen.” As we conclude, please notice that our trilogy of Christian publications transliterated the name of the Roman goddesses “Grace,” but then translated as “kuriou – Lord” rather than acknowledge the placeholder. They ignored the placeholders for Iesou Christou. Then, adding insult to injury, they respectfully transliterated “Amen,” even capitalizing it, demonstrating that it wasn’t a common Greek word but instead the name of an Egyptian god.

The Catholic Latin Vulgate therefore reads: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brethren. Amen.” The Protestant Authorized King James Version promoted: “Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.” And the Evangelical Christian paraphrase and commentary known as the New Living Translation authored: “Dear brothers and sisters, may the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.”

The final stanza of Sha’uwl’s personal vendetta against Yahowah, His Towrah, His Beryth, His Miqra’ey, and His ‘Am, Yisra’el, reads:

“And also brothers, if a man may have previously detected or caught someone in a false step, you all, the spiritual ones, must thoroughly prepare and completely restore the one such as this with a meek and gentle spirit, carefully observing yourself so then you, yourself, may submit and be tempted, having tried to catch a mistake. (Galatians 6:1)

For one another, the weighty burdens you carry, remove, and endure and thus in this way you all complete the Towrah of the Christou. (Galatians 6:2)

Indeed, if someone supposes and presumes to be somebody, he is nothing. He deceives himself. (Galatians 6:3)

But the performances and accomplishments of himself, he must examine and prove meritorious, and then to himself, alone, at the exclusion of others, he can boast and brag, having the justification for pride and praise, and not for any other. (Galatians 6:4)

For each and every one, their own individual and distinct burden they will carry and bear. (Galatians 6:5)

But one must share, because you are being ordered to participate in association with others, to support the one who is outspoken, making the ears ring, verbally informing and orally reporting the word, instructing in everything good, excellent, and beneficial. (Galatians 6:6)

You must not become misled and stray because a god is not sneered at or ridiculed, nor is he mocked or treated with contempt. For then, whatever if a man may sow, this also he shall reap. (Galatians 6:7)

Because the one sowing into the flesh of himself, out of the body will reap corruption, destruction, and depravity and death. But the one sowing into the spirit, from the spirit will reap life eternal. (Galatians 6:8)

But the one doing good, we do not become malicious or disparaging. Because on occasion, for oneself we will reap, not being discouraged by being bound, bandaged, and exhausted. (Galatians 6:9)

You must look at and become acquainted with how great and especially exemplary the letters I have written with my own hand to you. (Galatians 6:11)

As much as they currently want to make a good showing and favorable impression in this flesh to actually compel and force, obligating and necessitating you all to become circumcised merely so that the cross of the Christou Iesou they presently may not pursue. (Galatians 6:12)

For none of those already having been circumcised themselves carefully observe the Towrah. To the contrary, they just want to take pleasure in you all becoming circumcised in order that in the flesh of yours they may boast. (Galatians 6:13)

But for me, may it never be that I stop boasting, if not in the cross of the Lord of ours, Christou Iesou, by whom my world has been actually crucified and likewise, I to the world. (Galatians 6:14)

But neither circumcision someone is nor uncircumcised, on the contrary, a new creation. (Galatians 6:15)

And as many who are in this rule and following this standard, imitating this by marching in conformity and following along, peace upon them, and mercy, and also upon them the Yisra’el of God.” (Galatians 6:16)

Furthermore, from now on, do not let anyone continue to cause trouble or difficulty for me.

For indeed, I bear the scars and brands of the Iesou, in the body of me, I actually bear, endure, and undergo. (Galatians 6:17)

Becoming the Charis | Grace of the Kurios | Lord and Master, our Iesou Christou, with the spirit of you brothers. Amen.” (Galatians 6:18)

“Grace,” “Lord,” “spirit of you,” and “Amen,” indeed.



It is with a heavy heart that I provide you with this final summary of Galatians’ 149 verses. When God’s Word is used as the standard, Sha’uwl’s message is found to be:

Accurate (0.7%): 5.9

Irrelevant (5.4%): 1.2, 1.13, 1.14, 1.19, 1.21, 2.15, 4.20, 6.11

Insufficient (2%): 1.18, 3.1, 5.5

Half Truth (6.7%): 3.8, 3.16, 3.17, 3.26, 4.4, 4.6, 4.22, 4.30, 5.22, 6.3

Unintelligible (10%): 1.7, 2.14, 3.20, 3.29, 4.11, 4.13, 4.18, 4.21, 4.29, 5.7, 5.8, 5.11, 5.13, 5.15, 5.26

Inaccurate (75.2%): 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, 1.15, 1.16, 1.17, 1.20, 1.22, 1.23, 1.24, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 2.16, 2.17, 2.18, 2.19, 2.20, 2.21, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15, 3.18, 3.19, 3.21, 3.22, 3.23, 3.24, 3.25, 3.27, 3.28, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.5, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 4.12, 4.14, 4.15, 4.16, 4.17, 4.19, 4.23, 4.24, 4.25, 4.26, 4.27, 4.28, 4.31, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6, 5.10, 5.12, 5.14, 5.16, 5.17, 5.18, 5.19, 5.20, 5.21, 5.23, 5.24, 5.25, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 6.10, 6.12, 6.13, 6.14, 6.15, 6.16, 6.17, 6.18

Paul made one statement which was completely accurate. “Little yeast the whole batch yeasts.” Therefore, less than 1% of Galatians was correct.

Paul made eight statements which were totally irrelevant and three more in which he provided insufficient information about what he wrote to have had any value. Collectively, this waste of papyrus and ink comprised 7.4% of the epistle.

There were fifteen statements which were essentially incomprehensible, albeit there were many more which bordered on indecipherable. And while the entire letter from beginning to end was poorly written, the utterly unintelligible sentences represented another 10% of the total. If we were to add these to those which were simply inarticulate and incoherent, we would have a perfect match for the Quran.

But more than anything, Paul was wrong. A stunning one hundred and twelve statements were inaccurate, which is to say that there were elements which contradicted God’s Word. His propensity to deceive was on display in a stunning 75% of all Galatians’ passages.

Therefore, our introductory challenge has been resolved. I had proposed that if Paul pulled off the miraculous feat attributed to him, if he managed to supersede something as well-known and revered as the Torah, and if he supplanted it with something as nebulous and mystical as faith and convinced the world that he had done so without contradicting God, Galatians would have to have been the most brilliantly written thesis of all time. It was not.

Beyond this sorry state of affairs, my ill-advised hopes were dashed. Properly identifying whether Paul was assailing Rabbinic Law or Yahowah’s Towrah did not reconcile a single statement throughout this letter. And while the translators took great liberties with regard to Paul’s words, the plethora of religious deceptions which have been disseminated as a direct result of this epistle cannot be blamed on errant translations. Therefore, my preconceived notions were shattered. Paul played me for a fool, just as he has billions of Christians before me.

The verdict is undeniable: Paul spoke for himself, and he was inspired by a spirit in direct opposition to Yahowah, His people, and Towrah – especially God’s Son. He was most often wrong. And the one time he was right, the truth only served to make his lies more beguiling. That is the best possible face we can put on the evidence.

The Great Galatians Debate is over. You can trust the Creator of the universe or a tentmaker, the Author of the Torah or someone who rejected the Torah. Perhaps it’s just me, but since the Author of life authored a book, it might be in our interest to consider what He had to say.



For one last time, please hold your nose, here is the letter upon which the religion of Christianity was conceived and from which all Christians were doomed...

“Paulos, an apostle, not of men, not even by the means of man, but to the contrary on behalf of Iesou Christou and Theos, father of the one having awakened him out of a dead corpse, (Galatians 1:1) and all the brothers with me to the called out of the Galatias, (Galatians 1:2) Charis | Grace to you and peace from Theos, father of us and Kurios | Lord Iesou Christou, (Galatians 1:3) the one having given himself on account of the sins of us so that somehow, he might gouge and tear out, uprooting us from the past circumstances of the Old System which had been in place and is disadvantageous and harmful, corrupt and worthless, according to the desire and will of Theos and father of us, (Galatians 1:4) to whom the opinion regarding the glorious appearance of the shining light, a manifestation of Theos’ reputation, by means of the old and the new systems, Amen, let it be so. (Galatians 1:5)

I am astonished, wondering in this way how quickly you changed, becoming disloyal apostates and traitors away from your calling in the name of Charis | Grace to a dissimilar healing messenger (Galatians 1:6) which does not exist differently, or conditionally negated, because some are stirring you up, confusing you, proposing to pervert the healing message of Christou, (Galatians 1:7) but to the contrary, if we or a messenger out of heaven conveys a beneficial messenger to you which is contrary to what we delivered as a good messenger to you then a curse with a dreadful consequence exists. (Galatians 1:8)

As we have said already, and even just now, repetitively I say, if under the condition someone communicates a useful message to you contrary, even greater than that which you received, it shall be as a result of my command, a curse with a dreadful consequence. (Galatians 1:9)

For because currently, is it men I am presently persuading, actually using words to win the favor of, seducing and appeasing for Theos? And by comparison, do I seek to please and accommodate humans? Yet nevertheless, if men I am accommodating and exciting, being lifted up as a slave of Christou, certainly it not was me. (Galatians 1:10)

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

Because indeed, you heard of my wayward behavior in a time and place in the practice of Judaism, namely that because throughout, showing superiority, surpassing any measure of restraint, and to an extraordinary degree, better than anyone else, I was aggressively and intensely pursuing, persecuting, oppressing, and harassing the called out of God, and I was and am devastating her, continuing to undermine, overthrow, and annihilate her. (Galatians 1:13)

And so I was and continue to progress, accomplishing a great deal, and I persist moving forward in the practice of Judaism, over and beyond many contemporaries among my race, zealous and excited, devoted and burning with passion to belong to the traditions and teachings handed down by my forefathers. (Galatians 1:14)

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

I did not ascend into Yaruwshalaim with the goal of being with or against the Apostles before me, but to the contrary I went away, withdrawing to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. (Galatians 1:17) Then later in the sequence of events, after three years time, I ascended up to Yaruwshalaim | Jerusalem to visit and get acquainted with Kephas and remained against him fifteen days. (Galatians 1:18) But other of the Apostles, I did not see. I did not pay attention to them, nor concern myself with them except Ya’aqob | Jacob, the brother of the Kurios | Lord. (Galatians 1:19)

But now what I write to you, you must pay especially close attention in the presence of Theos | God, because I cannot lie. (Galatians 1:20) Thereafter, I came to the regions of Syria and also of Cilicia. (1:21) But I was not known and was disregarded, either ignored or not understood, not even unrecognized personally by my appearance as an individual by the called out of Yahuwdah | Judah in Christo. (Galatians 1:22)

But then they were constantly hearing that the one presently pursuing and persecuting us at various times, now he presently proclaims a profitable message of faith where once he was attacking, continuing to annihilate, ravaging and destroying. (Galatians 1:23)

And so they were praising and glorifying me, attributing an exceptionally high value and status to me, considering me illustrious and magnificent, magnifying me for Theos | God. (Galatians 1:24)

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

I went up from uncovering an unveiling revelation which lays bare, laying down to them the good messenger which I preach among the races according to what is mine alone, uniquely and separately. But then as a result of the opinions, presumptions, and suppositions, into foolishness and stupidity, without purpose, it was thought that I had run. (Galatians 2:2) To the contrary, not even Titus, a Greek individual, was compelled, forced, or pressured to be circumcised. (Galatians 2:3)

But then on account of the impersonators who faked their relationship and were brought surreptitiously into the group to spy upon and plot against the freedom from conscience and liberation from the constraints of morality that we possess in Christo Iesou in order that us they will actually make us subservient, controlling us for their own ends, (2:4) to whom neither to a moment we yielded, surrendered, or submitted in order that the truth of the Theos | God may continue to be associated among you. (Galatians 2:5)

But now from the ones currently presumed and supposed to be someone important based upon some sort of unspecified past, they were actually and continue to be nothing, completely meaningless and totally worthless, to me. It carries through and bears differently in the face of Theos with regard to man not taking hold or receiving, because to me, the ones currently presuming and dispensing opinions based upon reputed appearances, were of no account. Worthless was their advice and counsel in the past. (Galatians 2:6)

Contrariwise, the objection and exception, having been seen and perceived because, namely, I have been believed to have been entrusted with the profitable message and as the good messenger of the uncircumcised inasmuch as Petros | Rock of the circumcised. (Galatians 2:7)

Because then namely, the one having previously functioned in Petro to an apostle for the circumcision, it was actually functioning also in me to the nations and ethnicities. (Galatians 2:8)

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

Only alone by itself the lowly and poor, the worthless beggars of little value that we might remember and possibly think about which also I was eager and quick to do the same. (Galatians 2:10)

But when Kephas came to Antioch, I was opposed to and against his presence. I stood in hostile opposition because he was convicted and condemned, even ignorant. (Galatians 2:11)

Because, before a certain individual came from Ya’aqob / James, he was eating together with the different races, but when he came, he was withdrawing and was separating himself, out of fear of the circumcised. (Galatians 2:12) So they were hypocritical, and also the remaining Yahuwdym | Jews. As a result even Barnabas was led away and astray with them in their duplicitous hypocrisy. (Galatians 2:13)

Nevertheless, when I saw that they were not walking through life rightly with the truth of the profitable message and good messenger, I said to Kephas in front of all: ‘If you Jews are actively being racists, how do you compel and force the ethnicities into being and acting Jewish? (Galatians 2:14) We are Jews by nature and are not from the social outcasts of sinful and heathen races. (Galatians 2:15)

I have come to realize, albeit without investigation or evidence, that by no means whatsoever is any man made right or vindicated by means of acting upon or engaging in the Towrah if not by belief and faith in Iesou Christou. And we of Christon Iesoun, ourselves believed, in order for us to have become righteous. We have to have been acquitted and vindicated out of faith in Christou, and not by means of acting upon or engaging in the Towrah. Because by means of engaging in and acting upon the Towrah, not any flesh will be acquitted or vindicated, nor be made righteous. (Galatians 2:16)

But if by seeking to be made righteous and innocent in Christo, we were found ourselves also to be social outcasts and sinners, shouldn’t we be anxious that Christos becomes a guilty, errant, and misled, servant of sin? Not may it exist, (Galatians 2:17) because if that which I have torn down and dissolved, dismantled and invalidated, abolishing and discarding, this on the other hand I restore or reconstruct, promoting this edifice, I myself bring into existence and recommend transgression and disobedience. (Galatians 2:18)

I then, because of the Towrah’s allotment and law, myself, genuinely died and was separated in order that to Theos | God I might currently live. In Christo I have actually been crucified together with. (Galatians 2:19)

I live, but no longer I. He lives then in me, Christos. This because now I live in the flesh. In faith I live of the Theos and Christou, the one having loved me and surrendered for me, entrusting authority to me, yielding and handing over to me the power to control, influence, and instruct exclusively of himself because of me. (Galatians 2:20)

I do not reject the Charis | Grace of the Theos because if by the Torah we achieve righteousness then, as a result, Christos for no reason or cause, without benefit and in vain, he died. (Galatians 2:21)

O ignorant and irrational, unintelligent and unreasonable, Galatians, who bewitched and deceived you, and who are you slandering, bringing this evil upon you, seducing yourselves? (Galatians 3:1)

This alone I want to learn from you: out of accomplishments of the Towrah was the spirit received by you or alternatively out of hearing and belief? (Galatians 3:2) In this way you are ignorant and irrational, lacking in knowledge and unable to think logically. Having begun with the spirit, now in flesh are you completing? (Galatians 3:3)

So much and for so long you have suffered these things, vexed and annoyed without reason or result, chaotically without a plan. If indeed this really happened and you were so thoughtless, achieving nothing, being without reason or result. (Galatians 3:4)

The one therefore then supplying you with the spirit and causing it to function, was it this operation of powers in you by acting upon and engaging in the tasks delineated in the Torah or out of hearing faith? (Galatians 3:5)

Just as and to the degree that Abram believed and had faith in the Theos | God so it was reasoned and accounted to him as righteousness. (Galatians 3:6) You know as a result that the ones out of faith, these are the sons of Abram. (Galatians 3:7)

Having seen beforehand by contrast in the writing that out of faith makes right the people from different races and places, the Theos | God, he before the profitable messenger acted on behalf of Abram so that they would in time be spoken of sympathetically in you to all the races. (Galatians 3:8)

As a result, the ones out of faith, we are spoken of favorably, even praised together with the faithful Abram. (Galatians 3:9) For as long as they exist by means of doing the assigned tasks of the Torah, they are under a curse, because it is written that: ‘All are accursed who do not remain alive and persevere with all that is written in the scroll of the Torah, doing it.’ (Galatians 3:10)

So with that Torah, absolutely no one is vindicated or saved alongside God. It becomes evident: ‘Those who are justified and righteous, out of faith will live.’ (Galatians 3:11) But the Towrah exists not out of faith. Instead to the contrary, ‘The one having done and performed them must live by them.’ (Galatians 3:12)

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

As a result, to the people from different races, the beneficial word of Abram might become in Christo Iesou that the promise of the spirit we might take hold, being possessed through faith. (Galatians 3:14)

Brothers, according to man I say nevertheless a man having been validated with an agreement; no one rejects or actually accepts added provisions. (Galatians 3:15) But to Abram these promises were said, ‘And to the offspring of him.’ It does not say: ‘And to the seeds,’ like upon many. But to the contrary, as upon one, and to the seed of you which is Christos. (Galatians 3:16)

But this I say, ‘A promised covenant agreement having been ratified beforehand by the God, this after four hundred and thirty years, having become Towrah does not revoke it so as to invalidate the promise.’ (Galatians 3:17) Because if from the Towrah the inheritance is no longer from a promise, but to Abram by a promise he has favored the God. (Galatians 3:18)

Then, why the Towrah? Until the seed which might come to whom it has been promised having been commanded by messengers in the hand of a mediator and middleman. (Galatians 3:19) But now the middleman, he is not of one, but the God, he is one. (Galatians 3:20)

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

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

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

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

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

Because everyone is a child of God. You all exist that way out of Faith in Christo Iesou. (Galatians 3:26) Indeed, then, as many as to Christon, you all were actually at some point baptized. To Christon you were all clothed or plunged. (Galatians 3:27)

No longer is there Yahuwd | Jew nor Hellen | Greek. No longer is there slave nor free. No longer is there male and female. This is because now all of you exist as one in Christo | Christ Iesou | Jesus. (Galatians 3:28) So then, if you all are Christou | ‘Christian,’ then consequently, you are Abram’s seed. You exist representing promise as heirs, receiving the inheritance. (Galatians 3:29)

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

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

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

But because you are sons sent out by the god, the spirit into the hearts of us shouts, ‘Abba’ – the Pater | Father. (Galatians 4:6) So as a result, you no longer exist as a slave, but to the contrary a son. But now if a son and an heir by the chance casting of lots through a god. (Galatians 4:7) Certainly, by way of contrast, on the other hand then not having known, perceived, or acknowledged Theos, you were enslaved to nature not existing as gods. (Galatians 4:8)

But now having known Theos, but more and by contrast, having been known under Theos | God, how have you returned, changing your beliefs back upon the incapacitating and incompetent, even infirmed, worthless, belittling, and terrifying, submitting before dying in the elementary teachings and rudimentary principles of religious mythology which, reverting back again and again, you are choosing to be controlled as a slave (Galatians 4:9) by observing and attending, days, and months, and seasons denoting proper and specific times, and years? (Galatians 4:10)

I am afraid and fear for you that maybe somehow, without reason and for nothing, I have grown tired and become discouraged, struggling to demonstrate additional effort toward you. (Galatians 4:11)

You all must become like me because I am actually commanding it. Then I, as an emphatic priority as a result, like you, we all become brothers and fellow believers. This is the means I want to compel, to bind, and to control you all. In no way were you wronged, harmed, or treated unjustly as a result of fraud by me. (Galatians 4:12)

But you realize that because of an incapacity and limitation in the flesh, I announced this profitable messenger of the good message to you all previously. (Galatians 4:13) My temptation to prove my integrity and my submission to another, my true nature, in my flesh, you did not ridicule, despise, or reject. To the contrary like a spiritual messenger of god, you received and believed me as Christon Iesoun. (Galatians 4:14)

Consequently then, the declaration of blessedness and the pronouncement of happiness is yours. I witnessed and testified because of you that, if possible and competent, your eyes having gouged and plucked out, you gave them to me. (Galatians 4:15) So as a result, a hostile and despised adversary of yours I have become by telling the truth to you. (Galatians 4:16)

They are jealous of you, not rightly, but to the contrary, they want to exclude and separate you, in order that you might be jealous of them. (Galatians 4:17) But it is good and right to be jealous while good and right at all times. And not only alone in my presence with you. (Galatians 4:18)

Children of mine, whom also I have birth pangs, having engaged in the labor of childbirth as far as that which might be formed becoming Christos in you all. (Galatians 4:19)

But I would purpose to be present, to arrive and to come with you now and to change, altering the nature and character of my voice and language because I am at a loss, perplexed and puzzled, doubting and embarrassed, and I don’t know what to do with you. (Galatians 4:20)

Speak to me those proposing to exist under the control of the Towrah: can’t you hear what the Towrah is saying? (Galatians 4:21) For it has been written that Abram had two sons, one from the slave girl and one from the free. (Galatians 4:22) Certainly, from the slave girl have been born those according to flesh. From the free, by way of a promise. (Galatians 4:23)

Whatever is being spoken of allegorically, these then exist as two covenants – two testaments – one from Mount Sinai into subservience, slavery, and bondage, giving birth to whoever exists as Hagar. (Galatians 4:24)

Accordingly, now Hagar exists as Mount Sinai in Arabia, therefore corresponding to the present Yaruwshalaim. She is enslaved because of being associated with her children. (Galatians 4:25) But the Yaruwshalaim above is in opposition. Free and independent is the one who is our mother. (Galatians 4:26)

For indeed, it has been written, ‘Be glad infertile one, the one not giving birth, violently throwing an angry fit while viciously ripping things to pieces, cry aloud for not suffering the birth pains because many are the children of the desolate, more than of the man possessing.’ (Galatians 4:27)

But you are brothers according to Yitschaq | Isaac. You are of promised children. (Galatians 4:28) Otherwise just as at that time accordingly, flesh having given birth pursued and persecuted this according to the spirit and so it continues even now. (Galatians 4:29)

Nevertheless, what says the Writing, ‘Throw out and expel the slave girl and the son of her for will not receive by lots the son of the slave girl with the son of the free.’ (Galatians 4:30)

Therefore, brothers, we are not children of slave girl, to the contrary, the free. (Galatians 4:31) This freedom and liberty of ours by becoming Christos, it freed and released us. So, you all are directed to stand firm. Therefore, also, never again associate with the yoke of subservience and slavery. You were held based upon a grudge against you all, controlling you and forcing you to surrender to someone who bears ill-will, who is resentful, violent, and quarrelsome. (Galatians 5:1)

You pay attention. I, Paulos, myself say to you all that if on the condition that you may be circumcised, Christos is totally worthless and completely meaningless, not in the least bit helpful or useful for you. (Galatians 5:2) Then, furthermore, repeating myself, I testify, insisting and protesting to every man being circumcised that he actually is obligated to do and perform the entire and complete Towrah. (Galatians 5:3)

You have invalidated and rendered inoperative, abolishing the purpose of the separation of Christou, whosoever is in unison with the Towrah. You having been declared righteous, and having been vindicated with the Charis / Gratia / Graces, have fallen away and have been forsaken. (Galatians 5:4) Because indeed, we in spirit out of faith, hope. Righteousness we await patiently. (Galatians 5:5) In Christo Iesou neither circumcision is someone capable, nor is the uttermost part of the penis. On the contrary, through faith love operating. (Galatians 5:6)

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 distress, confusing, bewildering, and mystifying you, he will undergo and endure the judgment. He will be condemned and punished, no matter who this individual might be. (Galatians 5:10)

But now, brothers, if I, nevertheless myself preach circumcision, why and for what then am I pursued and persecuted? As a result of this offending trap and scandalous stumbling block, it invalidates the crucifixion. (Galatians 5:11) And also, oh 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 sedition. (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 of the 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 of you bite and you devour, watch out, for if not under one another, you might be consumed. (Galatians 5:15)

But I say in spirit, you are all commanded to advance. Therefore, the desire and passion of the flesh you must deny, lest you may come to an end. (Galatians 5:16) For indeed, because the body’s desires and passions are forbidden. This is because they are against the spirit.

And so then the spirit is in opposition to the physical world and to the physical body because each of these is hostile and adversarial in order to negate what conditionally you might presently propose and want, even enjoy, of these potential behaviors, then somehow doing an assigned task. (Galatians 5:17) However, if you are in spirit, you are not guided under the control of or subject to the Towrah. (Galatians 5:18)

So now it is evident, clearly seen, and widely known that the works and assigned tasks of the flesh indeed exist as sexual promiscuity and fornication, being dirty, sensuality, (Galatians 5:19) the likeness of an outward appearance of what can be seen and perceived, the use and administering of medicines, hostile antagonism, enmity and feuds, strife and dissension, even debate and quarrelling, devotion and jealousy, the desire to make sacrifices, selfish ambitions, running for an elective office, and rivalries, discord and division, especially a second option, the freedom to choose for oneself, (Galatians 5:20) corruption, intoxication, public partying or a festive assembly, and what may be similar to this which I previously spoke to you inasmuch as I said before that the likes of those carrying out and committing these practices, the reign and kingdom of God, they will not inherit. (Galatians 5:21)

But the fruit of the spirit is: love, happiness, peace, patience, mercy from an upright implement, being good through generosity, faith, (5:22) gentleness, meekness, and humility, self-control over one’s sexual appetite. With regard to such, there is no Towrah. (Galatians 5:23)

But the ones of the Christou, the flesh has been crucified with the sufferings, the deep desires, and longings. (Galatians 5:24) If we live for spirit, for spirit we march in a line, living in conformity. (Galatians 5:25)

Not that we might come to exist vainly or boastful, sharing opinions which are baseless, provoking and irritating one another, each other jealous and envying. (Galatians 5:26)

And also brothers, if a man may have previously detected or caught someone in a false step, you all, the spiritual ones, must thoroughly prepare and completely restore this one with a meek and gentle spirit, carefully observing yourself so then you, yourself, may submit and be tempted, having tried to catch a mistake. (Galatians 6:1)

For one another, the weighty burdens you carry, remove, and endure, and thus in this way you all complete the Towrah of the Christou. (Galatians 6:2) Indeed, if someone supposes and presumes to be somebody, he is nothing. He deceives himself. (Galatians 6:3)

But the performances and accomplishments of himself, he must examine and prove meritorious, and then to himself, alone, at the exclusion of others, he can boast and brag, having the justification for pride and praise, and not to be shared with any other. (Galatians 6:4) For each and every one, their own individual and distinct burden they will carry and bear. (Galatians 6:5)

But one must share, because you are being ordered to participate in association with others, to support the one who is outspoken, the one making ears ring, the one verbally informing and orally reporting the word, instructing in everything that is good, excellent, and beneficial. (Galatians 6:6)

You must not become misled and stray because a god is not sneered at or ridiculed, nor is he mocked or treated with contempt. For then, whatever if a man may sow, this also he shall reap. (Galatians 6:7) Because the one sowing into the flesh of himself, out of the body will reap corruption, destruction, and depravity and death. But the one sowing into the spirit, from the spirit will reap life eternal. (Galatians 6:8)

But as for the one doing good, we do not become malicious or disparaging. Because on occasion, for oneself we will reap, not being discouraged by being bound, bandaged, and exhausted. (Galatians 6:9) You must look at and become acquainted with how great and especially exemplary the letters I have written with my own hand to you. (Galatians 6:11)

As much as they currently want to make a good showing and favorable impression in this flesh to actually compel and force, obligating and necessitating, you all to become circumcised, merely so that the cross of the Christou Iesou they presently may not pursue. (Galatians 6:12)

For none of those already having been circumcised, themselves, carefully observe the Towrah. To the contrary, they just want to take pleasure in you all becoming circumcised in order that, in the flesh of yours, they may boast. (Galatians 6:13)

But for me, may it never be that I stop boasting, if not in the cross of the Lord of ours, Christou Iesou, by whom my world has been actually crucified and likewise, I to world. (Galatians 6:14) But neither is someone of the circumcision nor uncircumcised, but to the contrary a new creation. (Galatians 6:15)

And as many who are in accord with this rule and following this standard, imitating this by marching in conformity and following along, peace upon them, and mercy, and also upon them the Yisra’el of God.” (Galatians 6:16)

Furthermore, from now on, do not let anyone continue to cause trouble or difficulty for me. For indeed, I bear the scars and brands of Iesou, in the body of mine, I actually bear, endure, and undergo them. (Galatians 6:17) Becoming the Charis | Grace of the Kurios | Lord and Master, our Iesou Christou, with the spirit of you brothers. Amen.” (Galatians 6:18)

God ought not be presented as a contradictory, unintelligible, and irrational hypocrite, but that is what He must be if we are to believe Paul spoke for Him.



RESOURCES

YadaYah.com

BlogTalkRadio.com/Yada

Facebook: Yada Yahowah

X: Yada Yahowah

Instagram: Yada Yahowah

YouTube: @YadaYahowah

Rumble: Yada Yahowah

Printed Books: Amazon.com (Craig Winn)

Contact: email@YadaYah.com

Cover photo is the property of Yada Yahowah

Ver. 20240915

Craig Winn. Twistianity: Devil’s Advocate.

Craig Winn. Questioning Paul: Devil’s Advocate.

1st edition. www.yadayah.com, 2007.

2nd (revised) edition. www.yadayah.com, 2008.

3rd edition. www.yadayah.com and Claitor’s Publishing Division, 2012.

4th edition. www.yadayah.com and Claitor’s Publishing Division, 2013.

5th edition. www.yadayah.com and Amazon, 2017.

6th (revised) edition. www.yadayah.com and Amazon, 2020.

7th (revised) edition. www.yadayah.com and Amazon, 2023.

Revised and renamed 1st edition. www.yadayah.com and Amazon, 2024.

Copyright © Craig Winn 2024

Copyright Statement - About Us (www.yadayah.com)

Devil’s Advocate

Yahowah reveals that if someone like Paul establishes himself as an interpreter of revelations, he is a false prophet. If he claims to have performed miracles as proof of his calling, as Paul has done, or if he encourages us to accept other gods such as his Iesou Christo, he is a false prophet. If he fails to affirm our love for Yahowah, whom Paul contradicted and demeaned, or subtracts from or adds to the Towrah, he is a false prophet…

“Observe (shamar) every (‘eth kol) word (dabar) which shows the way to benefits of the relationship (‘asher) that I am (‘any) instructing (tsawah) you with (‘eth ‘atah) for the purpose of (la) engaging with it and acting upon it (‘asah), never adding to it (lo’ yasaph ‘al – through a New Testament) nor subtracting from it (wa lo’ gara’ min – replacing it).

Indeed, if (ky) a prophet (naby’) stands up trying to establish himself (quwm) in your midst (ba qereb) as an interpreter of revelations (chalowm chalam), and provides (wa nathan) a sign (‘owth) or (‘o) miracle (mowpheth) for you (‘el ‘atah), and that religious miracle worker (ha ‘owth ‘o ha mowpheth)…says (la ‘amar), ‘Let us go after (halak ‘achar) other (‘acher) gods (‘elohym) which (‘asher) you have not known (lo’ yada’), serving and worshiping them (wa ‘abad), do not listen to (lo’ shama’ ‘el) the words (dabar) of that prophet (ha huw’ naby’) or (‘o) interpreter of revelations (ha huw’ chalowm chalam). This is (ky) the test (nasah) of Yahowah (Yahowah), your God (‘elohym), for you to know (la yada’) whether it affirms your (ha yesh) love (‘ahab) for Yahowah with all (ba kol) your heart (leb) and (wa ba kol) soul (nepesh).

Therefore (wa), a prophet (ha huw’ naby’) or (‘o) interpreter of revelations (ha huw’ chalowm chalam) is deadly (muwth) if (ky) he has spoken (dabar) rebellious renunciations (sara’) against (‘al) Yahowah your God…the One who redeemed you (wa ha padah) from the house (min beyth) of servitude and worship (‘ebed).

His desire is to seduce and scatter you (la nadach) from (min) the way (ha derek) which beneficially leads to the relationship (‘asher) with Yahowah, your God… And so (wa) you should choose to remove (ba’ar) that which is incorrect (ha ra’) from your midst (min qereb).” (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 13:1-6)