Questioning Paul - Galatians - 01 - Chrestus - Useful Implement

7/29/2019 Questioning Paul - Galatians - 01 - Chrestus - Useful Implement

1/45

Questioning Paul

Volume 1: The Great Galatians Debate

Is Christianity Right or Wrong?

1

ChrestusUseful Implement

Are You a Useful Tool or a Drugged Victim?

Most Christians have been led to believe that Paul was the principal agent

used by God to create a new religionone predicated upon faith in his Gospel of

Grace. They think that the lone individual who referred to himself as anApostle, and yet who did not walk in Yahowshas footsteps, was authorized to

annul the Torah, its Meeting Times, and its Sabbatheven contradict the actual

Disciples.

If this actually occurred, the means to this miracle is chronicled in Pauls

epistle to the Galatians which serves as the foundation of Christianity. But did this

actually take place? Did Paul annul the Torah, and if so, was his replacement

credible, believable? Is Christianity established on the bedrock of Scripture and

logic or on the shifting sands of one mans unsubstantiated opinions?

In the end it all comes down to GalatiansPauls first letter, as evidenced bythe epistle itself. It is the principle place in the Greek texts where the Torah is

seriously assailed. Without Galatians, there is no credible debate between

Trusting the Torah and Believing the Gospel. While there are critical

passages in Pauls other letters, and most especially in Romans, we will discover

that Galatians provides the most methodical and ingenious approach to

obfuscating Yahowahs previous testimony.

Galatians is one of only two epistles where Yahowahs Sabbath and Feasts

are placed in doubt, the other being Pauls letter to the Colossianswhere the

conflict is more a legacy of errant translations. So without Pauls epistle there isno justification for Sunday Worship, Christmas, or Easter.

Galatians is the place where faith, which has become synonymous with

religion, was first pitted against the Torah, which in turn was considered

symbolic of legalism. It is here, in the fourth chapter of Galatians, that Paul

positions his advocacy for a second, new and different covenant, relegating the

one codified by Moses on Mount Sinai to being of the flesh, a cruel taskmaster

which ultimately enslaves and condemns everyone. It is the first time Jerusalem,


2/45

Judea, and Jews (textually: Yaruwshalaim, Yahuwdah, and Yahuwdym) are

demeaned by someone claiming to speak for their God, with all of them becoming

Pauls and the Churchs foes.

But more than just being ground central for Christianitys disdain for all

things YahowahHis Name, His Word, His Torah, His Covenant, His

Instructions, His Sabbath, His Invitations to Meet, His Land, His Chosen People,

His Way, and even YahowshaGalatians pits Pauls new religion against

everything God loves. Moreover, in the epistle, the Disciple Shimown / Peter is

mercilessly condemned by Paul, and Yaaqob/ James and Yahowchanan / John

are inappropriately demeaned.

But worse, the Acts and Galatians accounts of the Jerusalem Summit, the

most important meeting in the history of The Way, are irreconcilableisolating

Paul from the Disciples. In fact, Galatians is Pauls response, his rebuttal, to

having had his message censured, his authority assailed, and his reputationattacked, by the Disciples in Yaruwshalaim (meaning: source from which

guidance and teaching regarding reconciliation flow). Pauls summation of this

meeting sits in the midst of this epistle, as do the two issues which prompted the

summitthe purpose of the Torah and the merit of circumcision. These themes

dominate Galatians, with Pauls position running in opposition to Yahowah,

Yahowsha, the Disciples, and the Word of God. In due time we will juxtapose

these texts. So do not be concerned if you are currently unaware of this meeting,

or of the incompatible accounts of it.

More important still, Shimowns (Peters) evaluation of Galatians (found inShimown / Peters Second Epistle), contains the single most important verse in

Christendom, as it is the lone place where Pauls epistles are potentially afforded

Scriptural status. So if this lone endorsement falters, if it isnt credible, or if this

isnt what Shimown actually said, then the idea of the New Testament being

Scripture, and being inspired by God, completely vanishes. Evidence for such

a position would be relegated to the murk of myth, and the realm of human

tradition. And that is why we will dissect Shauwls overt condemnation of

Shimown, just as we will study Shimowns direct response to Shauwl under a

linguistic microscope, contemplating the divinely-appointed Disciples view of

the self-proclaimed Apostles message, his claims and letters.

In ignorance of the evidence, Christian theologians unanimously side with

Paul over Peter with regard to the Great Galatians Debate. In so doing, they have

established their religion in opposition to Yahowah, Yahowsha, the Disciples,

and the Word of God. In their view, Paul was right to associate the Torah with

bondage, Yahowahs Festival Feasts with Judaism, circumcision with Jews, and

Gods terms and conditions with legalism. For Christians, as a result of Pauls

depiction oftwo covenants in the fourth chapter of Galatians, it is appropriate to


3/45

divide the Bible into two Testaments: one Old the other New, one failed

and counterproductive with the other providing the promise of salvation by

confession and faith. For Christians, solely as a result of Pauls epistles, hell

awaits everyone who observes the Torah, while heaven embraces all those who

place their faith in Pauls Gospel of Grace.

With the stakes this high, with the credibility of the religion of Christianity

resting upon one mans letter, with the salvation of a billion souls at stake, few

things could be as important as considering the possibility that Pauls epistle

might not be trustworthy if he openly contradicted the God he purported to

represent. But if this world-renowned individual pulled off this feat, 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

be among the most brilliantly written thesis of all time.To determine if Paul changed everything, including our understanding of God

and Scripture, even the means to salvation, we are going to examine his words

under the lens of the worlds most acclaimed lexiconswhile referencing the oldest

extant manuscripts. Pauls thoughts will also be scrutinized, juxtaposing each

proposal against Yahowahs position on similar subjects. We will leave nothing to

chance or supposition. And while we are cognizant that billions believe that

Galatians is Scripture, we will be honest, even if the result is offensive.

Regardless of how many religious preconceptions succumb to the evidence, our

pursuit of the truth will be relentlessly rational.

For those who have not read the Letter to the Reader, you should know that at

the onset of this study, I was inclined to think that Paul did no such thing. At the

beginning of what would become an in-depth evaluation of Pauls veracity, I was

predisposed to think that scribal error, misleading translations, unsupported

interpretations, confusion over which nomos Paul was assailing, and an overall

ignorance of the Torahs purpose, had collectively conspired to conceive religious

teachings which were inconsistent with the Apostles intended message. And yet,

it will be Pauls words, not my preconceived ideas, which will determine whether

or not Paul had the audacity to contradict God, undermine His Scripture, and to

establish a New Testament in place of the one he sought to annul. If he did, andif he made his case, then Christianity is on solid footing. If he didnt, billions of

souls have been tragically misled.

In this light, it is instructive to know that Pauls given name was Shauwl. It

is of Hebrew origin, and it means to question. And that is precisely what we are

going to do: question Paul. You should also know that Shauwl is

indistinguishable in the original Hebrew text from Sheowl, meaning the grave,

the pit, and the realm of the dead.


4/45

To arrive at the truth, we, like those who have gone before us, must resolve

which Law Paul was attacking: Natural Law, Roman Law, Rabbinic Law, or

Yahowahs Towrahwhich actually means teaching and guidance. We will

have to closely compare the oldest textual witnesses to our modern-Greek

manuscripts to determine if Pauls words have been affected by scribal error,attributing things to Shauwl that he did not actually say. And after presenting

Pauls letter in English, rendering it as accurately as possible from the oldest

manuscripts, we will have to compare our findings to other translations to

ascertain whether or not translational errors have artificially altered our

impression of Pauls purpose in writing this particular letter.

One of the surprising obstacles we will have to overcome along the way will

become obvious in short order. Pauls letter to the Galatians is poorly written;

reflecting the worst writing quality found in any of the Greek texts. We will

encounter a steady diet of missing words, and worse. Many of Pauls sentencesare incomprehensible. The fact that the wording is well beneath the dignity of

God is something we will wrestle with, even though this doesnt seem to matter to

a religion hell bent on distancing itself from Yahowah, from the Covenant, from

the Torah, from the first four Statements God etched in stone, and from six of the

seven Feasts (Hebrew: Miqraey Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with

God; Greek:EkklesiaCalled-Out Assembly).

Before we embark on this journey, there is something else you should know.

There are those who suggest that there is a possibility that Paul did not write

Galatians. They think that this epistle could have been a clever fraud which was

later attributed to him. In support of this argument, there is phraseology prevalentin Galatians that appears nowhere else in the epistles assigned to Shauwl.

In support of Galatians being from Paul, we must recognize that the book of

Acts reveals that the Apostle had the kind of contentious relationship with the

Galatians which is reflected in this epistle. We are told that the Galatians went

from seeing Paul as the incarnation of a Greek god to wanting to stone him.

Second, Shimown / Peter, in his second letter, evaluates an epistle Paul had

written to the same audienceone that we learn from his greeting in First Peter

must be Galatia, because it is the only community where their audiences overlap.

So, based upon the Disciples letter, we know that Paul wrote a letter to the

Galatians. And if not this epistle, then the authentic letter has been lost. But more

than that, the language Shimown (He Listens) uses to describe Galatians,

accurately reflects the contents we find in the surviving copy.

Third, the issues raised at the Yaruwshalaim (Jerusalem) Summit serve as

the centerpiece of Pauls epistle. After reading Lukes (from the Latin Lucas)

testimony in Acts, its hard not to see Galatians as Pauls response to this meeting,


5/45

and his desire to position himself as favorably as possible. In fact, it will become

obvious that this letter was written immediately after that meeting, long before

tempers cooled. And that means that Paul would have had twelve subsequent

opportunities to distance himself from Galatians had it been a fraud because his

open letters to the Thessalonians, Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, Colossians,and Philippians, as well as the personal notes to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon

came later as did most of his testimony in Acts. Never once is he heard

denouncing the authenticity of Galatians, but is instead found building his case

against the Towrah and its Covenant based upon the foundation he laid therein.

Fourth, Galatians is all about Paul, about his childhood, his religious

education, his questionable call, his self-proclaimed mission, his adversarial

preaching, his suspect credibility, and his personal trials and tribulations. Within

its text, we find Paul referring to himself as the parent of his faithful spiritual

children, as the perfect example to follow, as a person who can do no wrong, andas someone who cannot lie. So if Paul didnt write it, Galatians was either scribedby his publicist, or by someone who spent the better part of their life polishing

Pauls sandals.

Fifth, the oldest extant codex containing Pauls epistles, Papyrus 46, places

Galatians in the midst of the other letters attributed to Shauwl. In order of their

appearance in the codex, these epistles include: Romans, Hebrews, 1st

and 2nd

Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1st

Thessalonians.

And since P46 is dated between 85 and 125 CE, we know that one of the earliest

assemblies to collect portions of the Greek texts believed that Paul had penned

this letter.

Sixth, Paul had a propensity to sign his letters so that his audience would

have some assurance that he was the author. But with Galatians, he did more than

just sign his name. Much of the last chapter attests to have been written by his

own hand, and in really big letters.

And seventh, Pauls signature term is charis, which is transliterated into

English as Grace, based upon the Roman name Gratia. Apart from Pauls

letters, the use of charis can only be attested by an ancient manuscript in one

other place in the whole of what is known as the Christian New Testament.

Therefore, the frequency of the use of the name of the Greek goddesses in this and

other letters suggests that this pagan aspect of Christianity came from Paul.

And this leaves us with a third alternative, that Paul was indeed the author,

but that he never intended this letter to be circulated, much less to be considered

Scripture. He was clearly angry, and may well have dashed off an emotional

response that, from a more sober perspective, he would have wadded up and

thrown away. Most of us have written letters like this; and many have had the


6/45

good sense to hold on to them long enough to read them again once our passions

have subsided.

The only benefit of distancing this epistle from Paul, should it prove to be a

false witness, is that it would not tarnish the remainder of the letters attributed to

him. But even then, the potential benefit would be fraught with peril, in that it

would open the floodgates to questioning the appropriateness of everything in the

so-called New Testament. And that is because the Galatians epistle was written

in first person. It is based upon the life of the self-proclaimed Apostle Paul. So if

it is a counterfeit, the letter is not only a complete fraud, the authorship, and

therefore authority, of more than half of the Christian New Testament becomes

suspect. But in reality, as we will discover in the last chapter of this review, there

is very little difference between Galatians and the rest of Pauls letters. It is

readily apparent that the same individual wrote them and that he was promoting

the same message.And yet, ultimately the only question which really matters is whether or not

Galatians is true. Is it the inspired Word of God, and thus Scripture, or not? If it is

valid, so is Christianity. But if it is false, the religion is brought down with it.

This conclusion is inescapable because Galatians, even more than Pauls

other letters, is devoted to systematically demeaning and demoting the Torah and

its Covenant. So, without Galatians there is no way to justify Christianitys

corruption and ultimate violation of the first four Statements Yahowah etched in

stoneas they would still stand. This would include the recognition that

Yahowah is Gods only name, that Yahowah, Himself is our Savior, and that theSabbath remains set-apart. Without Galatians there would be no way to explain

Christianitys opposition to Yahowahs seven Miqraey Invitations to be Called

Out and Meet with Godas they would still delineate the path to eternal life, to

salvation, adoption, and reconciliation. Without Galatians, Romans, and Hebrews,

there would only be one Covenant which has yet to be renewed, and thus no room

for a New Testament,or a Gospel-based religion.

Without Galatians, Yahowahs Torah, as is affirmed throughout the Psalms

and Prophets, remains the sole means to liberate humankind from religious and

political oppression. But with Galatians, the Torah is mankinds foe, the path to

enslavement and condemnation.

Without Galatians the Gospel of Grace would be superseded by the

promise of the Torah, and its healing and beneficial message. Without Galatians,

our association with God would be based exclusively upon the Torahs

everlasting Covenant, upon knowing Yahowah and relying upon His Guidance.

Without Galatians, admission to heaven would be predicated upon responding to

Yahowahs invitations to meet with Him as these are articulated in the Torah and


7/45

affirmed by Yahowsha. Without Galatians, faith, is irrelevant, as is the religion

of Christianity, because the God who authored the Torah can be known.

And in this regard, faith is the opposite of trust. Trust emerges from a

discerning evaluation of the evidence, while faith thrives in the absence of

information and reason.

So, while there will be some lingering debate regarding the authenticity of

this epistle, we will proceed as if Galatians is genuine. And while we may never

be able to adequately resolve whether or not the epistle was written by Paul, at

least in the minds of those predisposed to think otherwise, we will be able to

determine with absolute certainty whether or not it was inspired by God. And in

the end, that is all this study portends to determine.

Since the religion of Christianity has severed its relationship with Yahowahs

Torah and its Covenant, should Pauls epistle to the Galatians prove to be

unreliable for any reason, the religion of Christianity falls, as it can be neither

inspired nor true. It is that simple, that clear cut.

While we will analyze every word of Galatians, from Shauwls greeting to

his handwritten closing statement, our review of Christendoms foundational

treatise will commence at the same place Christians begin their assault on theTorah. That occurs in Galatians 3, verses 10 through 14. So, lets take a moment

and consider the King James Version (Christianitys most influential bible

translation) and New Living Translations (the religions most recent and liberal

variation and among the most popular) depictions of these passages, juxtaposed

against a literal rendering of the earliest first-century manuscript of Shauwls

letter.

Reason dictates that if the following KJV and NLT translations are accurate,

then the Torah, is Gods way of cursing humankindnot saving us. And if this

is true, Yahowah and Yahowsha are liars. The King James reads: For as many

as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do

them.(3:10)

More clearly presented, albeit, less aligned with the Greek text, the New

Living Translation published: But those who depend on the law to make them

right with God are under his curse, for the Scriptures say, Cursed is everyone


8/45

who does not observe and obey all the commands that are written in Gods Book

of the Law.(3:10) If they are correct, Gods Word is Gods curse.

Based upon the words Shauwl selected, this is what he actually wrote: For

as many as who exist from assigned tasks and activities of the law orapportionment, they areundera curse, becauseit has been writtenthat: A

curse upon all whodo notremain alive in and who do notpersevere withall

the things that have been written in the scroll of the Torah, to do them.(Galatians 3:10) (Please note: for those more accustomed to the amplified

translations which make Yada Yah unique, replete with the Hebrew and Greek

text, they exist for every passage we will review, even these, when they reappear

in the natural flow of the Galatians letter.)

Recognizing that the preceding translation is a literal rendering of Papyrus

46, the oldest extant manuscript of Shauwls letter(dated to the late first or early

second century), its hard to explain the KJVs and NLTs considerable variationfrom it. Rather than saying thatthose who depend on the law to make them right

with God are under his curse, Shauwl cited a Torah passage which says the

opposite: A curse upon all who do not remain alive in and who do not

persevere withallthe thingsthathave been writteninthe scrollof the Torah,

for the purpose of acting upon them. According to the Scripture passage

Shauwl quoted, without the Torah, there is no life.

Shauwl misquoted Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 27:26, which reads:

Cursed (arar invoking harm upon oneselfand causing ones life to become

embittered (scribed in the qal passive indicating that this condition is broughtupon oneself as a result of inaction)) is whoever relationally (asher) is not

restored andestablished (lo quwmsupported so as to rise and abide, standing

upright and affirmed (scribed in the hiphil imperfect indicating that we are

restored over time based upon our responses)) in association with (eth) the

words (dabarymstatements, message, and accounts) of this, theTorah (zoth

ha towrah this specific and exclusive source from which direction, teaching,

guidance, and instruction flow), for the purpose of (la so as to approach by)

acting upon them (asah eth engaging in them, profiting from them, and

celebrating with them (scribed in the qal infinitive which indicates a literal

interpretation with an actual purpose)). Andthe entire (wa kol) family (am) said(amar chose of their own volition to literally affirm and completely

acknowledge without reservation (scribed in the qal perfect consecutive which

conveys something which is literal, complete, and volitional)), This is true,

acceptable, and reliable (aman upholding, nourishing, and affirming).

(Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 27:26)

Interestingly, the verse Shauwl mangled in Galatians undermines the

Christian argument, as well as his own position, because it obliterates the idea that


9/45

the Torah is pass. But even if observing the Torah wasnt presented as the lone

means to becoming restored and established, as God has just stated, if the

Almighty was actually a capricious prankster, and if His Torah was really a curse

as Paul and others have claimed, then citing it as evidence for that conclusion

would be irrational, because nothing God said could be trusted.

Christian apologists, steeped in Pauline Doctrine, will say that the Torah isnt

a pick and choose sort of thing, and that to be redeemed you would have to do

everything it says all of the time, or else youll be cursed by it. But that is not the

message conveyed in this Dabarym / Deuteronomy passagenor by Yahowsha.

God knows that we cannot be perfect, which is why He provided the means to

recovery in the heart of the Torah. But since Paul severed the relationship

between the Torah and the Maaseyah, and then completely rejected the path to

salvation Yahowah provided through His seven Called-Out Assemblies, most

Christians are unaware of the Torahs redemptive properties.As a result of Pauline Doctrine, the overwhelming preponderance of

Christians dont recognize that when Yahowshasaid I am the Way, the Truth,

and the Life, that the Maaseyahs Way and His definition of Truth, were

both embodied in observing and following the Torah. And that is why at the

conclusion of His Sermon on the Mount He called the Torah the narrow way to

Life. Simply stated, by fulfilling Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits,

Yahowsha facilitated the gift of salvation Yahowah promised and provided in the

Torah. But by severing this connection, by disassociating Yahowsha from

Yahowahs Word, the Maaseyahs life, His testimony, and His sacrifice become

as meaningless as the faith Christians place in them.

Moving on to Shauwls next thought, as it is found in the King James, we

find: But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for,

The just shall live by faith. (3:11) Updated for modern sensibilities, the New

Living Translation passage reads: 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. (3:11) And yet Pauls first point was anything but

clear, because he cited a passage which contradicted his premise. But more

telling still, the Scriptures dont actually say anything about faith, much less

that it leads to being just or righteous.

Therefore, both positions are illogical. Even if no one was justified by the

Torah that would still not infer that the just or righteous shall live by faith. Rather

than cause and consequence, these ideas are unrelated. It is like saying: red

wagons dont workso it is evident we should put our faith in blue tricycles. More

to the point, if Gods Torah cannot be relied upon, in whom are we toexpress our

faith?


10/45

And as I had mentioned, the Scriptures DO NOT say, It is through faith

that a righteous person has life. The passage Shauwl truncated this time

actually reads: Behold, the puffed up; his soul is not considered to be upright

in him. The upright and vindicatedlivebytrusting that which is trustworthy

(by finding security and safety in that which is firmly established, consistentlyfaithful, always steadfast, dependable, honest, and true). (Chabaquwq /

Habakkuk 2:4)

Unfortunately we cant spin this to suggest that Shauwl was actually

speaking of the inadequacy of legalistic works, and most especially of the

inappropriateness of the Oral Law of the Rabbis, when he wrote: But it is

clearly evident that no oneis vindicated or justified by lawor apportionment

before God (represented by the placeholder ),becauseThe upright and just

shallliveout offaith (pistisoriginally meant trust and reliance but migrated

over time as a result of Shauwls epistles to convey belief and faith).(Galatians 3:11)

IfShauwl did not hang himself with these words, at the very least he was

twisting the knot which would become his noose. I say this because his statement

is the antithesis of Gods instructions. If Paul was right, it would be equivalent of

God saying: I will save those who contradict Me and justify those who negate

and belittle the plan I have established.

The reason we cannot substitute Rabbinical Law for Yahowahs Towrah in

this passage is because the sentence begins But with thatLaw / Apportionment,

and thus is referring to the book from which the citation in the previous verse wastaken. There Paul used nomou (the singular genitive case (explained in chapter 7,

TowrahTeaching) to represent the Hebrew title the Towrah.

Also worth noting, while pistis trust and reliance would normally have

been translated trustor reliance in any Greek passage, it will become obvious

over time that Paul used it to convey faith or belief, because he never once

supplies the kind of evidence which would be required for understanding, much

less trust or reliance.

Continuing to mislead by way of senseless prose, the KJV renders the next

verse: And the law is not of faith: but, the man that doeth them shall live inthem. (3:12) Deploying a different tactic, the NLT authored a statement which

could only be considered true in the context of religion. 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. (3:12)

Should the translation team deployed by Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. have

meant that the way of the Christian faith is very different than the way of the

Torah, then they would be right. But can that way of faith be right is the


11/45

multi-billion soul question. Can Pauls thesis, his faith, his religion, be very

different from the way delineated by God in the Torah and still reconcile fallen

man into a relationship with that same God? Has God endorsed a revised plan

which is counter to the one He originally authored? And yet if He did such a

thing, wouldnt it make Him untrustworthy and unreliable?

Irrespective of the answer, at least the battle lines have been drawn.

According to the most popular modern translation it is now the Torah vs.

Christianity. So let the Great Galatians Debate begin: are we to trust Yahowahs

Torah or believe Pauls Gospel of Grace?

Examining the words Shauwl wrote, we find him quoting (or more correctly,

misquoting) the very Torah Christians are wont to deny and separate themselves

from: The Law / Apportionment (nomosallotment which is parceled out for

the purpose of nurturing those with an inheritance; from nemo to provide

nourishment to heirs; deployed here, however, as a misleading rabbinicalreference to the Torah) existsnotout offaith or belief(pistisoriginally meant

trust and reliance but migrated over time as a result of Shauwls epistles to

convey belief and faith),but to the contrary, Theonewhoperformsthem

lives by them. (Galatians 3:12) Recognizing that Paul didnt express this

thought very well, we must turn to the passage he referenced to ascertain if the

point he was trying to convey was valid.

Turning to Yahowahs Torah, to Qara / Called Out / Leviticus 18:5,

Yahowah imparts the following instruction: And you should choose to literally

and completely observe (shamar you should of your own volition want toactually and closely examine, completely considering (scribed in the qal perfect

consecutive)) My prescriptions for living (chuqahMy engraved instructions

regarding how to be cut into the relationship) and My means to resolve disputes

(mishpatMy means to exercise good judgment).

Whoever (asher) actually and consistently acts upon them (asah eth

genuinely engages by literally and continually responding to them (scribed in the

qal imperfect)), that person (ha adam) is genuinely and completely restored to

life and will continually live (wa chayah is totally renewed, completely and

consistently nurtured, and always kept alive (scribed in the qal perfect wa

consecutive which literally and genuinely blends the aspects of complete and

continual)) bythem (bawith them). I am (any) Yahowah ().

It appears that Paul has once again deliberately abbreviated a passage which

is inconsistent with his own message, perhaps hoping that the use of some

common words, would be sufficient to convince his audience that God supports

his position.


12/45

But in the quoted verse, God did not say that the law is very different than

faith, or that through faith a person has life, oranything remotely similar to

either proposition. He said that a close examination and careful consideration of

His prescriptions for living enables a person who acts upon them to live, restoring

their life. This is once again, the antithesis of the Christian position.

While we are making such distinctions, it is important to realize that it is

grotesquely inappropriate to refer to Yahowahs Torah as law, as Paul does

throughout his letters. The Hebrew word towrah means source from which

teaching, instruction, direction, and guidance flow. These concepts are

educational. They are enlightening. They are not controlling. And they are not

restrictive, but instead liberating. Rabbis like Paul (who was a Pharisee)

deliberately perverted Yahs testimony so that they could claim credibility for

their own set of laws those recorded principally in the rabbinic Talmud. So by

referring to the Towrah as nomos, Paul, who was educated in Hebrew,demonstrated that he should not be trusted.

Those who would argue that Yahowsha refers to the Towrah as nomos in

His Sermon on the Mount would be wrong. Yahowsha spoke Hebrew and

Aramaic, not Greek. And the Disciple Mattanyah, who was an eyewitness to

Yahowshas first and largest public declaration, wrote his biographical account in

Hebrew. Someone, perhaps a century later, translated Mattanyahs words into

Greek. Therefore, the only informed and rational conclusion that can be drawn

relative to Yahowshas statements in support of the Towrah is that He cited the

accurate title of the book, He, Himself, authored.

Paul, however, cannot be afforded this excuse. And that is because all of

Pauls letters, including Galatians, were originally written in Greek. He

deliberately chose nomosto misrepresent Yahowahs Torah. Further, he did so in

full accord with rabbinical Judaism a religious proposition Yahowsha

thoroughly rebuked.

These things known, there is much more to nomos than meets the eye of the

casual observer. The word is based upon nemo to provide, assign, and

distribute an inheritance and to nourish heirs. It is an allotment which is

bestowed and parceled out for the purpose of feeding hungry sheep.

Metaphorically, then, a nomosis a prescription for living which is given to us by

God so that we might live with Him as His children, be fed and grow, inheriting

all that is His to give. So in this regard, properly defined, nomos actually

provides a fitting depiction of Yahowahs Towrah teaching, guidance,

direction, and instruction on how we go about choosing to engage in His

Covenant Family.


13/45

Moving on to the next verse as it is presented in the King James and New

Living Translation, we find: KJV: 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: (3:13) If the King James has accurately reflected Pauls thought, then,

according to Paul, the Torah is a curse. For this interpretation of Paul s statementto be correct, rather than fulfilling the Torah, Yahowsha ransomed us from its

clutches. It also means that Yahowsha, rather than being the prefect Lamb of

God, judged from the perspective of the Torah, embodied all the negativity a

curse implies.

Absolving Paul of the untenable position he has been placed in by the King

James Version, the New Living Translation twists the text to convey a different

perspective: 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 hungon a tree. (3:13)

To the New Living Translations shame, there is no reference to a cross

anywhere in the Greek texts, much less in this passage. To Shauwls shame, the

Torah verse should not have been abridged nor misquoted out of context. While

the Torahs prediction is profoundly accurate, and stunningly prophetic, its merit

was mitigated by the way Paul truncated it.

But first things first: here is how the Greek text of Shauwls letter reads:

Maaseyah (a divine placeholder for Maaseyah, the Implement Doing

the Work of Yahowah) redeemedus from the curseof the Law / Allocation,having become a curse for our sake, because it has been written: A curse

uponeveryonewhois hanginguponwood. (Galatians 3:13)

The Scripture reference Shauwl quoted isDabarym / Words / Deuteronomy

21:23. It is predictive of the Maaseyah, revealing that Yahowsha would be

judged to be guilty of a sin worthy of death (our revolt against God), that He

would be suspended from a wooden timber, that His body would be removed

from the upright pole before the sun set, that his lifeless corpse would be prepared

and placed in a sepulcher, as opposed to being buried in the ground, and that as a

result of having our sins associated with Him, Yahowsha would be scorned and

despised by Godsomething which was required to redeem us from our sins.

The Torah passage reads: When it comes to pass that an individual is

judgedguilty of sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and you suspend

and hang him on a wooden timber, do not allow his dead body to stayovernight (remain after sunset) on the wooden timber. Rather instead you

shall surely prepare his dead body for a tomb and place it inside (it is

essential that you bury him in a sepulcher) on that sameday. Indeed because he


14/45

who is hanged (suspended and displayed), isthedisparaged and degraded (is

the maligned, abused, vilified, scorned, and cursed) of God. Do not cut intoyour

soil which Yahowah, your God, gave to you as an inheritance, making it

unclean. (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 21:22-23)

This is a prophetic picture, albeit incomplete, of the Maaseyahs fulfillment

of the Torahs presentation of Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits. And it

serves to inform us that Yahowshas physical body, as the Passover Lamb, would

not survive the night, and thus would not be buried. Yahowah uses prophecies

like this one, and a thousand more like it, to prove that He inspired His Scriptures.

He did this so that we would be able to trust everything else He has to say. Only

God can get every prophecy right, every time without fail.

So what we have learned thus far is that the King James is unreliable and

inaccurate, and that the New Living Translation isnt a translation of the Greek

text, but instead a very loose paraphrase whereby its authors became story tellers.To its credit, the NLT reads smoothly, and sounds nice, which is why I suppose it

has become so popular. But as a study tool, it is of no practical use and is

potentially harmful.

We have also learned that Paul has misapplied and misquoted Scripture,

which is troubling. All four citations were abridged, taken out of context, and

altered to make it appear as if Pauls message and Gods were in sync. This will

become a bad habit, one which many Christians have come to emulate to justify

their religious views. And it is also curious that each of the four Scriptural

passages Shauwl cited actually affirmed the value and enduring nature of theTorah, and thus undermined the Christian religion. And that suggests Paul had

very little respect for the intelligence of his audience.

Since we are on the subject, lets consider Yahowshas statements regarding

the Torah to ascertain whether or not Paul had the authority to annul it, should that

have been his intent. The human manifestation of God is translated from Hebrew

to Greek and then to English saying: Do not assume that I have come to

weaken, dismantle, invalidate, or abolish (kataluso loosen, tear down, or

dissolve, put an end to, do away with, or annul) the Towrah (nomosallotment

which is parceled out, inheritance which is given, nourishment which is bestowed

to be possessed and used, precept which was apportioned, established, and is

received as a means to be proper and approved, rule or prescription to become an

heir and grow; from nemothat which is provided, assigned, and distributed to

heirs to nourish them (Yahowsha was not speaking Greek and thus did not say

nomos and would have instead accurately pronounced the title of the book He

authored)) or the Prophets. I have not come to do away with, but instead to

completely fulfill. (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 5:17) That was as


15/45

unequivocal as it was opposed to Christian tradition. To annul the Torah, one has

to contradict God.

For truly (amein this is reliable and trustworthy) I sayto you all, until

the heaven and the earth pass away never may onejot (iota the smallest

letter in Hebrew) nor tittle (keraiathe top stroke of Hebrew letters) be passed

by (parerchomaibe ignored or be disregarded) from the Towrahuntil it all

happens. (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 5:18)

And therein, the notion of a New Testament is torn asunder. According to

God, His original is still in vogue. More telling still, the majority of Yahowahs

prophecies, including His return and His ultimate renewal and restoration of the

family-oriented Covenant with Yisrael and Yahuwdah, have not yet happened,

and the heavens and earth remain. Therefore, the Torah still stands.

Therefore, whoever dismisses (luo does away with, dissolves,

invalidates, or abolishes) one ofthe leastof these directions (entoleprecepts,

prescriptions, and authoritative instructions) or teaches (didasko indoctrinates

or instructs) people to do the same in the same way, they will be called the

least important (elachistos will be considered to be so small as to be

insignificant and undignified) in the kingdom of the heavens. But whoever

performs (poieomai accomplishes and celebrates, practices and profits from)

them, and teaches them, such a person shall be called great and mostimportantinthe kingdomof the heavens. (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew

5:19) Now thats something for Christians to think about, especially considering

the subject and speaker.But it raises a question: since this is Yahowshas assessment of those who

dismiss the Torah, how would you evaluate Shauwls standing with Yahowah if

he convinced the world that he had done this very thingand all with Gods

blessing? Said another way, is there even one chance in a billion that God

inspired, even condoned and endorsed, the writings of a man who invalidated the

Torah in light of this statement by Yahowsha? Do Christians honestly believe that

Paul can contradict God and still be trusted?

Recognizing that Shauwl was, or at least claimed to be a Pharisee, please

consider what Yahowsha said next: BecauseI promise and sayto you all, thatunless your righteousness, integrity, legal standing, and adherence to the

relationship is abundantly superior to and more appropriate than the

religious teachers, experts, scribes, scholars, and Pharisees (Pharisaios

members of a fundamentalist political and religious party comprised of

hypocritical Jews who coveted authority, were overtly religious, set rules which

others had to abide by, established religious rituals and traditions, and interpreted


16/45

Scripture to their liking), you will nevermove into or experiencethe realmof

the heavens. (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 5:20)

In that we are a mere four verses into our study, it would be presumptuous for

us to assume that Pauls overall intent was to belittle and foreclose the Torah. But

these Galatians passages certainly suggest that Christian theologians are justified

in their interpretation of Pauls message when they cite this letter as evidence that

the Torah is an outdated burden which enslaves, and when they preach that Pauls

faith liberates. But why is it that not one Christian theologian has the character,

courage, and intellectual integrity to say that Pauls position, if Christians have

interpreted it correctly, is diametrically opposed to Yahowshas teaching on the

subject of salvation, and that his statements are in direct conflict with Scripture?

Speaking to those who are willing to invest the time required to know the

truth, Yahowsha said: Keep asking, making an earnest request and it shall be

given as a gift to you. Keep seeking, searching for knowledge, and you willdiscover and experience it, know the truth and find what you are looking for.

Keep knocking, requesting acceptance at the door, and it will be opened for

you, and you will be granted entrance to the place you desire and will be

given access to understanding. For then all who make an earnest request

receive, they will be acquired and accepted, and they will be taken by the

hand and carried away. And those who search for the location and for

knowledge, who desire to learn, will know the truth and find the place they

wish to experience. Those who request acceptance at the door, they will be

granted entrance and given access to understanding.

What man is there among you, when his son shall ask him for a loaf,

will give him as stone? Or if he should ask for a fish, would give him a snake?

If then you being morally corrupt know and understand how to give good,

valuable, and generous gifts to your children, how much more by way of

contrast will your Father who is in heaven produce and give valuable, good,

and generous gifts to those who ask Him? Accordingly, everything, as much

as what you may desire that humans do and perform for you, in this samemanner you perform for them, (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:7-11)

Yahowsha would conclude His Sermon on the Mount with this

announcement: for then this is the Torah and the Prophets: Enter through

thenarrow,exacting, and specificdoorway becausethepassagewayis crafted

to be wide, artificial, and unreliable,and the way of life is wide openwhich

deceives and influences someone to go astrayto the point ofdestruction and

perishing, needlessly squandering their existence, and the vast

preponderanceof peoplestart the first step in their journeythrough it. The

doorway is exacting and specific, and the way of life is unpopular, whichleads to life, and few experience it. (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:12-14)


17/45

Therefore, if Yahowsha (Yahowahs human manifestation) was telling the

truth, the Torah is the lone path to life, and all other paths lead to destruction. And

paths which needlessly squander a persons existencewould include faith-based

paths.

But this also means that popular pathsand there are none more popular than

Christianitylead to the death and destruction of those who follow their edicts.

This is a profoundly important truth few Christians consider. And yet it is the

reason, the only reason, we are examining Paul and his letter to the Galatians.

As an interesting aside, Yahowshas instructions regarding eternal life tell us

to begin by entering through a specific doorway. And that is because the first of

seven steps to our salvation begins by answering Yahowahs summons to walk

through the doorway labeled Passover. This blood-smeared doorway which

initiated the exodus from the crucible of Egypt, and the liberation of Gods

Chosen People from their enslavement in oppressive human political and religiousschemes, represents heavens portal. Yahowsha is the doorway, the living

embodiment of Passover, the first of seven steps to the final result, which is

camping out with God.

But Yahowsha was not yet finished warning Christians not to disregard the

Torah. With these words, he would tell them not to trust Paul: You must be

alert, carefully examine, prosecute, and turn away (prosechete you should

pay close attention, watch out for and beware of, guarding yourself) from false

prophets who come to you from within dressed in sheeps clothing, yet they

actually are wolves who are exceptionally self-promoting and self-serving(harpaxvicious carnivorous thieves who secretly and deliberately rob, extort,

and snatch away; from harpazo: to violently, forcibly, and eagerly claim and seize

for oneself and pluck away). (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:15)

Yahowsha could not have made this message any clearer for you. He told us

what we could rely upon and whom we should not trust. He just said that a self-

serving insider would feign an alliance with Him so that he could more easily

snatch souls away from God. He was speaking about Pauland those who have

allied themselves with him.

At the same time Yahowsha also warned all who would listen to Him: Ihave come in My Fathers Name and you do not receive Me, yet if anothercomes in his own name, him you would receive. (Yahowchanan / Yah is

Merciful / John 5:43) Considering how often Paul wrote: but I Paul say.., its a

wonder more people dont recognize that Paul is the one who not onlycame in his

own name, but the one so may would receive. Paul even said: imitate me and

if someone teaches in opposition to what I say let him be accursed. Paul was not

only fixated on himself, he claimed the entire world for himself. His writings are


18/45

also exposed by Yahs Torah instructions on how to discern a prophet who speaks

on His behalf.

Indeed as a result, you will completely know, recognize, and understand

(epiginosko complete and accurate understanding based upon a thorough

examination of the evidence) them from their fruit, from their results and

harvests. All those calling Me Lord Lord will not enter the kingdom of

heaven, but to the contrary, those in heaven are those who do My Fathers

will (thelemado what He decided and proposed [read: who observe Yahowahs

Torah]). Many will say to Me in this specific day, Lord, Lord, did we not

speak inspired utterances and prophesy in Your name and drive out demons

in Your name, and perform many mighty miracles in Your name? And then

at that time, I will profess to them that I never acknowledged, recognized,

understood, or associated with them. You all must leave and depart from Me,

those who bring about that which is Torah-less (anomia without anallocation, those who are not nourished as heirs). (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift /Matthew 7:20-23)

Are you listening? (Speaking of listening, throughout His Torah, Prophets, and

Psalms, Yahowah assigns the title Lord to Satan because this title embodies the

Adversarys ambition. He does not refer to Himself as the Lord, and in fact,

Yahowah tells us in Yirmayahuw / Jeremiah that the greatest crime mankind has

ever committed is replacing His one and only name with Satans title each of the

seven thousand times He included it in His testimony.)

All of those who really listen to and actually hear My words and who doas I have said, they are like a sensible and wise, intelligent and prudent, man

who builds, edifies, and strengthens a family home upon the rock (petraa

reference to Himself as the Rock of our Salvation) . And rain descended and the

rivers came, and also the tempestuous wind blew, and yet their family and

household did not fall down or prostrate themselves because the established

foundation was upon the rock. (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:24-25)

While Christians will tell you that Paul won the argument over the importance of

the Torah, Yahowshabegs to differ.

In that this introductory chapter was written to frame the issues which are at

stake, lets pause a moment and consider the options at your disposal regarding

Pauls Scriptural misquotes. You can ignore them based upon the notion that you

believe that I have misrepresented Pauls or Yahowahs statements. But this

approach is easily resolved. Flip forward to the TowrahPrescriptions chapter

where every Hebrew and Greek word delineated in these passages is displayed so

that you can do your own due diligence and verify the text and the translations for

yourself. Or simpler yet, just compare standard English translations of the

Scripture passage and Shauwls quotation and note the differences.


19/45

Since the first option is a nonstarter, you can accept the fact that the citations

are different, but attribute their divergence to an inadvertent mistake on Pauls

part. But if you do, you must also abandon the notion that Pauls letters are

Scripturethe inerrant Word of God. And with that realization, the foundation of

Christianity crumbles.

You can admit that there is a pattern of malfeasance with regard to all of

Pauls Scriptural citations, and recognize that they are misquoted and then twisted

to support Pauline Doctrine, which means that he intended to misrepresent them.

But if you take this path, you will be compelled to label Paul a false witness. And

at that point, Christianity becomes falseyet another popular and broad path that

leads to destruction.

Since the last two options were devastating, and the initial one was invalid,

you could blame the mistakes on scribal error, suggesting that Pauls Scriptural

quotations were correct initially, but that over time scribes inadvertentlymisrepresented his words, creating a false impression. But this is a slippery slope.

The oldest significant codex of the Christian New Testament is Papyrus 46,

which is dated between 85 and 125 CE, thirty-five to seventy-five years after the

epistle was scribed, and it contains a complete copy of most all of Pauls epistles.

If it isnt reliable, then nothing in the so-called Christian New Testament is

reliableas there is only one superior witness, Papyrus 75 which covers Luke

and John, and it was scribed one-hundred years later. Therefore, if scribes

significantly altered Pauls letters during this relatively small period of time, the

list of appropriately supported and reliable New Testament books would shrink

to two: portions of Luke and John. The rest, based as they are on far less reliableand far more recent manuscripts, would be far too suspect to believe. And of

course, that would mean that the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms would still stand, as

they would be unchallenged.

Or you can take the quietly popular, albeit seldom articulated, Christian

position regarding these misquotesone derived from Marcion in the early

second century. He concluded that the God who inspired the Torah was mean

spirited, and no longer relevanta position which many Christians hold, even if

they are too timid to voice it. As such, Marcion attempted to nullify the Torah by

encapsulating it within a collection which he labeled the Old Testament, andthus suggested that it was the will of a now deceased, or at least irrelevant deity.

Marcion promoted the myth that Paul was the only true Apostle, and that he alone

spoke for the new and improved god of his New Testament. Pauls letters were

canonized as a result a collection that included all of Pauls letters and edited

portions of Luke and Acts. Thereby, Shauwl of Tarsus was positioned and

purported to correct the errors that the old God had made. As a result, Pauls new

faith forever separated believers: from Yahowah, from the first four statements


20/45

God etched in stone, from six of His seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet,

from the Chosen People and the Promised Land, and from Yahowahs WordHis

Torah.

Beyond the fact that this makes a mans opinions more important than Gods

Word, the Maaseyah Yahowshas testimony is in complete harmony with

Yahowah and it is in total conflict with Shauwls epistles. Simply stated, the

Christian position is unsupportable; it is ignorant and irrational. So the question

remains: are you?

Lets lay out some ground rules before we consider Pauls opening commentsin Galatians. Calling the Christian New TestamentScripture is a human edict,

not a Godly directive. Neither Yahowah, Yahowsha, nor any of the Disciples,

ever referred to anything in addition to the Hebrew text in the Torah, Prophets,

and Psalms as such.

According to Yahowah and Yahowsha, the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms

comprise the totality of Scripture. Therefore, the only parts of the historical and

eyewitness accounts which should be considered inspired by God are the words

and deeds of Yahowsha which are translated and recorded in the biographical

accounts and in the book of Revelation which was given by dictation.

Shauwls epistles, on the other hand, only contain one citation from

Yahowsha (which he gets wrong), and no accurate quotations of the Torah,

which serves as an admission that his letters contain his opinions. So our mission

will be to determine whether or not Pauls opinions were accurate.

In this light, you may have noticed that there were ten italicized words set

within [brackets] among the four Galatians verses already cited. These pronouns,

prepositions, and verbs were not written in the Greek text. And yet for the

sentences to read appropriately, they had to be added. And even then, Shauwls

thoughts were inadequately compiled, opening the door to invalid interpretations.

In fact, as we shall see, Shauwls letterto the Galatians was so poorly conceived,it is insulting to suggest that God inspired it word for word as it was written.

As with everything God had to say, and frankly to understand any message,

we must always consider it in context. The practice of citing isolated verses to

prove a point is usually invalid and often misleading. It is how the church has

managed to justify the many religious doctrines which are contrary to the Torah.

Clerics get by with doing so, because most Christians are unwilling to compare


21/45

their religions teachings with passages which oppose them. They arent even

willing to check to see if the context of the discussion alters the religious edict.

And since Paul deployed this tactic with reckless abandon, subconsciously

Christians may now believe that it isnt irresponsible.

According to Yahowah and Yahowsha, nothing, no matter how big or small,

alters or abolishes, adds to or subtracts from anything in the Torah. So, any claim

to the contrary, is contrary to God. Therefore, first among the many reasons

behind the Christian confusion regarding the relationship between the Torah and

Yahowshais derived from Pauls letters, and most especially his notion that there

are two covenantswith a new one already established. This separation and

polarization was then aided and abetted, and the connection was ultimately

destroyed, by way of horridly errant English translations. And that is why this

chapter began focusing on themsomething we will continue throughout this

review.Having just reviewed only four verses that were all cited out of context, it

would be presumptuous to conclude that this portion of Shauwls letter was

intended as a debate between the Torah and Grace, or even between the Torah

and his Gospel. From the most favorable vantage point, we could probably spin

Pauls words to infer that men and women cannot work their way to God. To be

saved, at least according to this very narrow, and probably unsupportable

interpretation, Paul could be affirming what Scripture actually says: that to be

saved we must closely observe, come to understand, and then trust and rely upon

the healing and beneficial message delineated in the Torah, and fulfilled by

Yahowsha. Trust and reliance upon what Yahowah said and what Yahowsha didis the one and only answer according to the Torah. But we are still six chapters

removed from knowing if this is what Shauwl actually intended to confirm, or if

this is what he intended to refute.

Second, the Christian perspective on God and His plan may well be

backwards and upside down. It is from the end, rather than from the beginning.

To appreciate a set of plans, and the home built by way of those plans, you have

to start with a firm foundation, not with the roof. The Torah is the beginning, the

foundation, while Revelation is the cupola set upon the roof of His Tabernacle.

Third, Christians confuse observing the Torah with Judaism, as if these

things were related. But they are not. Religious Jews observe the Talmud, which

is based upon their oral traditions. The religion of Judaism is in conflict with the

Torah, which is why it was exposed and condemned by Yahowsha. Also, Rabbis,

who have no Scriptural authority or legitimacy, dont understand that observing

the Torah, doesntmean to do it, but instead closely examining and carefully

considering what it says so as to comprehend its message.


22/45

Fourth, the essence of the Torah isnt a set of laws to be followed, but instead

the Towrah is a word picture of Yahowahs purpose, teaching and guiding us so

that we come to know Him and understand what He is offering. It is a portrait of

Yahs Covenant. And it serves as a symbolic depiction of His plan of salvation.

The Torahs every story and example represent facets on a diamond, providing aperspective from which to observe, enjoy, and benefit from Yahowahs brilliant

Light. The Torah is overwhelmingly metaphorical and symbolic, painting word

pictures to help us know Yahowah, understand His plan of reconciliation and

salvation, and rely on His provision. In this light, it is better to understand the

relevance of Passover and Unleavened Bread, and capitalize upon these gifts, than

it is to simply do what is delineated on the right date. Understanding leads to trust,

trust leads to reliance, and reliance leads to salvation. Our works dont lead to any

of these places.

Fifth, the Torah and Yahowsha are inseparable. According to Yahowah, theTorah is the Word of God and Yahowsha is the Word made fleshthe living

embodiment of the Torah. So the very notion that we must choose between the

Torah orGods favor, is an attempt to divide the indivisible.

Remember Yahowahs description of Yahowshas mission in the Torah:

Yahowah, your God, will raise up for you a prophet like me from your

midst, from your brothers. Listen to Him. This is according to all that you

desired of Yahowah, your God, in Horeb, in the day of the assembly, saying,

Let us not continuously hear the voice of Yahowah, our God, nor see this

great fire, lest we die. And Yahowah said to me, Well spoken. I will raise

them up a prophet like you from among their brothers. I will put My wordsin His mouth and He will speak as I direct Him. The one who will not listen

intelligently to My words which He shall speak in My Name, I shallinvestigate. (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 18:15-19) Therefore, God told us

to listen to the words Yahowsha would speak and now has spoken. And that

those words would be affirmations and citations of the Torah itself.

Sixth, the Torah is the basis, the foundation, the purpose ofYahowshas life.

He came to fulfill the Torah. He came to enable the seven Invitations to be Called

Out and Meet with Him by paying the toll so that we could walk to and with

Yahowah. As He told the men on the road to Emmaus immediately after fulfillingPassover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits, if you want to understand Him, who

He is and what He did, you have to change your perspective, your attitude, and

your thinking to that of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. According to

Yahowsha, it isnt the Torah versus Mercy, but instead the Torah providing His

unearned and fortuitous gift. The Torah is the source of the healing and beneficial

message that the human term Gospel corrupts.


23/45

Seventh, perhaps the biggest problem of all is reflected in one of the

discussions Yahowsha had with His disciples. When they failed to understand

that the yeast which was removed from our souls on Unleavened Bread, was none

other than religious and political pontifications, teachings, and doctrines,

Yahowsha said: How is it that you did not think so as to understand (noeouse your mind to comprehend) that I was not speaking about a loaf of bread

when I said Be alerted to and turn away from (prosecho apo beware of,

guard against, and distance yourself from) the yeast (zymeleavening fungus) of

the Pharisees (theovertly religious leaders) and Sadducees (theworldly-minded,

liberal political leaders)? (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 16:11) For the most

part, religious people dont think. And the few who do, suffer from corrupted

datain the form of horribly errant translations.

The author of the letter to the Galatians began his landscape-altering treatise

by announcing: Paulos (Paulosof Latin origin, meaning small),an Apostle/a

prepared messenger who is set apart (apostolos a representative who is

dispatched; from stello, one who is prepared and equipped, and apo, to be set

apart; but often transliterated as a title: Apostle), [is] not (ou) from (apo) men

(anthropos), and [is] not even (oude) by the means of (dia) man (anthropos),

but to the contrary (alla) [exists and writes] on behalf of(diaon account of

and by means of) [the] Maaseyah Yahowsha (based upon the placeholders ). God (from the placeholder ), the Ab-Father (based upon the

placeholder ),caused Him (autos) to be restored, to stand up, and to rise

(egeiromai) from (ekand out of) a corpse (nekros).(Galatians 1:1)

This opening line affirms that Paul, Paulos as he was known in Greek, or

Shauwl in Hebrew, unequivocally believed, or at least wanted others to believe,

that he spoke for the MaaseyahYahowsha. Whether or not that proves to be

true will be determined in due time, as that is the entire purpose of this book. But

it is interesting to note that Shauwl didnt say, at least in this verse, that he was

speaking for God, the Father. That subtlety is lost on most Christians who havereplaced Yahowah with their Lord Jesus Christ, in effect focusing on the

implement as opposed to the One wielding it. Moreover, if He rose from a corpse

He would have been disqualified as the Passover Lamb, because according to the

Torah (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 12:10) the remainder of the lambs body

must be incinerated that evening.

This issue isnt insignificant however. While Yahowsha came from

Yahowah, they are not equivalent. Yahowsha cannot equal Yahowah because


24/45

Yahowsha, by His own admission, and by necessity, is the diminished

manifestation of Yahowah. All of God cannot fit into a human form, and the

undiminished presence of God would consume our planet. This concept was

affirmed by Yahowsha when He acknowledged: The Father is greater than I

am.

This concept is also affirmed by Einsteins famous equation E=mc2. Since

Yahowah is Spirit and describes Himself as Light, He is energy. Yahowsha as a

man was corporeal, and thus matter. Einsteins formula reveals that energy and

matter are exactly the same thing, but they are not equivalent. He proved that

matter is a substantially diminished form of energy.

If the human manifestation of God was equal to God, whats known as the

Lords prayer would become nonsensical, as it would have Yahowsha saying:

Pray to Me who is in heaven, set-apart is My name, My kingdom come, My will

be done So, now with the Son having returned to the Father, its curious thatPaul saw himself representing the representative.

The key aspect of this introduction from Shauwls perspective is the

unification of the first two words, the amalgamation of his name and the title

Apostle. It is a distinction he bequeathed upon himself because Yahowshas

Disciples refused to convey it to him. For Paul, it was essential that he be seen as

Yahowshas Apostle, even though it was a title he did not earn.

The Greek word that we transliterate Apostle,apostolos, is extraordinarily

important. It means to be set-apart, prepared, and equipped. Far too many

people go off as witnesses without first studying the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms.As a result, improperly enlightened individuals do more harm than good.

By misappropriating the title, the opening line of his first letter became

technically inaccurate in multiple ways. In the mindset of the first followers of

The Way,Shauwl was not an Apostleat least as the term is transliterated into

a title. Shauwl did not walk in Yahowshas footsteps, nor personally witness His

fulfillment of Passover, Unleavened Bread, or FirstFruits. He was not there in

person in the upper room when the Set-Apart Spirit descended upon the Called-

Out Assembly on theMiqraofShabuwa.

There were twelve Apostles by this definition, all chosen by Yahowsha. Alltwelve lived with Him and witnessed His every word and deed. And that is why

He referred to them as disciples, meaning those who learn. But from this

introduction, as well as from the introductions to the Corinthians, Romans,

Colossians, and Ephesians, we know that Paulos coveted the title the actual

Apostles were unwilling to give him, and yet so all-consuming was his craving to

be seen as important, he arrogantly and presumptuously overstepped his bounds.

And the reason we know that Paul intended Apostle to be his title, rather than a


25/45

descriptive presentation of his purpose, is that he writes Paul called an Apostle,

in his letters to Rome and Corinth.

In that Paul claimed to speak in the name of the MaaseyahYahowsha, we

are compelled to consider his statements in light of the Deuteronomy 13 and 18

tests established by God to evaluate the authenticity of such assertions. There,

Yahowah delineated the six signs of a false prophet: they speak in His name, they

are arrogant, overstepping their bounds, their words are inconsistent with the

Torahs instructions, they recite the names of foreign gods, their historical

presentations are inaccurate, and their prophetic promises fail to materialize.

Shauwls greeting tells us that he was convinced that he did not represent

any human institution, and that would include the ekklesia, the Greek term most

similar to the Hebrew Miqraey Called-out Assembly. And thats a bit of a

problem because Yahowah and Yahowsha were represented by the

Yaruwshalaim Ekklesia. And that would make Shauwl a freelance operator andan independent contractor.

The flip side of this admission is problematic. If Shauwl didnt write on

behalf of what he learned from men in Rabbinical school, then his ubiquitous

references to the nomos must denote the Torah as opposed to Rabbinical Law.

This being the case, the principle methodology used by those who are Torah

observant to reconcile Pauls epistles with Yahowahs Word was torn asunder by

the wannabe Apostles opening statement. The facts are evident and undeniable.

There is no getting around the realization that the nomos is an object of scorn

and ridicule in this epistle. And at no time does Shauwl associate the nomoswith Rabbinical Law, by citing Talmudic sources. Not once ever. To the

contrary, his examples and citations are all from the Torah, clearly identifying the

document he is assailing.

Shauwl/Paulos/Paul proved himself to be out of touch with the truth, and

therefore with Yahowah and Yahowsha, by his insistence that the Torah is a set

of binding commandments and other strict rules, which was the position held by

the religious rulersthe Phariseeswhom Yahowsha spent a good deal of His

time refuting and rebuking. So whether he was referring to the Oral Laws of the

rabbis or to the Torah itself, he was still in the dark with all his conclusions.

Based upon his opening stanza, Paul hasnt positioned himself as the founder

of a religionalbeit, that is what he has become. His greeting displays neither

religious qualifications nor a religious agenda. In fact, he only used the word

religion twice, and both times it was to condemn the institution. That is a sobering

thought if you are a Christian.

Paul would, however, contradict himself and establish all of the trappings for

his new religion, replete with a paid and empowered clergy and a plethora of


26/45

personal edicts. And as usual, he perverted Scripture to make his assertions appear

both reasonable and divine. (Read 1 Timothy 5:17-18, 1 Corinthians 9:1-11, and

then 16:1-3 for evidence of this.)

I am aware the Christians have been led to believe that Jesus Christ was the

founder of the religion of Christianity, and that Paul spoke for Him, but that

conclusion isnt supportable. The institution of Christianity is founded on Pauls

writings, not Yahowshas words or deeds. After all, Yahowsha was Torah

observant. Every minute aspect of His life and His teachings were derived from,

inspired by, and governed in their entirety by the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms.

To his credit, Shauwl was aware, and has accurately stated, that God is our

Father. He is the one who enabled Yahowsha to fulfill Bikuwrym by reuniting

Yahowshas soul with His Spirit. And while it may not mean much to many, since

nekros is based upon nekus, meaning corpse, the end of the verse actually reads

as I have rendered it. While raising Him from the dead sounds more familiar toour ears, only Yahowshas physical body suffered the indignity of death, not His

soul, nor His Spirit. (This isnt a small technical point either because FirstFruits is

symbolic of our souls being reborn Spiritually into our Heavenly Fathers Family.

And as Ive previously mentioned, the Torah says the following regarding the

body of the Passover Lamb: And do not leave it until morning, and what

remains of it before morning you are to burn with fire.)

Often overlooked, four of the most common Divine Placeholders for Gods

names and titles were used in this passage. The , , , and

represent: Maaseyah, the Implement of Yah, Yahowsha, meaning YahSaves, Yahowah, or Elohym-God, and His favorite title Ab-Father, based

upon the first word in the Hebrew lexicon.

Examples of placeholders not used in this particular verse, but ubiquitous

throughout the rest of the Greek texts, and universally found in every first-,

second-, third-, and early fourth-century manuscript, describe the Ruwach-Spirit, the Edon-Upright One, and the Upright Pillar. And Placeholders for

Mother and Son, like Father are also common, but not universal.

While codices dating to the first three centuries differ somewhat among

themselves, and differ significantly from those composed after the influence ofGeneral Constantine, the use of Divine Placeholders is the lone exception to

scribal variation among the early manuscripts. These symbols for Gods name and

titles are universally found on every page of every extant codex written within

300 years of Yahowshas day, without exception. But, nonetheless, they are

universally ignored by Christian translators, writers, and preachers. By including

them here in the text, as all of the Disciples themselves did, it is incumbent upon

us to correct 1,700 years of religious tampering and corruption.


27/45

The very fact that these placeholders are found on all of the more than one-

hundred manuscripts unearthed prior to the mid fourth-century, tells us that it

wasnt a regional or scribal choice. Instead, they convey something so profoundly

important that they were purposefully inscribed throughout the original

autographsin the texts penned by the authors of these Greek texts.

And so while these manuscripts all differ from one another with regard to

their wording; the only constant is the one thing every translator has ignored.

There isnt even a footnote in any of our English translations indicating that these

Divine Placeholders were universally depicted in all of the oldest manuscripts,

including the codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. As a result, Christians do not

know that these symbols existed, much less that they were later replaced by

translators, substituting the very names and titles which would have been written

out by the original authors had they been intended. (For those interested in a

comprehensive presentation and analysis of the use and significance of the DivinePlaceholders study the His Name Volume of An Introduction to God

(www.IntroToGod.org).)

Kappa Sigma and Kappa Upsilon, in capital letters with a line over them,

were used to convey Yahowahs name and Yahowshas Upright One title, even

though every English bible replaces these symbols with the Lord, which

according to God is Satans title. The fact Kappa Sigma conveys Yahowah, the

preponderance of the time it is used, is something I discovered when translating

Greek quotations of Hebrew passages cited by Yahowsha and His apostles.

This obvious conclusion has been reaffirmed recently by the publication ofearly Septuagint manuscripts. In them we find a transition from writing

Yahowahs name in paleo-Hebrew in the midst of the Greek text throughout the

first and second centuries, to using the symbolism of Kappa Sigma to represent

Yahowahs name beginning in the third-century. So, we now know for certain,

what seemed perfectly obvious before: the Divine Placeholders and were

used to designate Yahowahs name in a language whose alphabet could not

replicate its sounds.

Also by finding Yahowah written in paleo-Hebrew in the oldest Greek

manuscripts of the Covenant Scriptures, especially in those dating to the first and

second centuries BCE and CE, we have an interesting affirmation that my initial

rationale regarding the Divine Placeholders was accurate. Yahowahs name cant

be accurately transliterated using the Greek alphabet, so to avoid a

mispronunciation, the Hebrew alphabet was initially used, and then, after Hebrew

became a dead language, Greek symbolism was substituted.

Moving on, the placeholders Iota Epsilon (), Iota Epsilon Nu (), Iota

Sigma (), Iota Epsilon Sigma (), Iota Upsilon (), and Iota Nu () were


28/45

used to convey Yahowshas name every time it is found in the Greek manuscripts.

And that means that there is absolutely no basis whatsoever for the 17th

-century

corruption written as Jesus. Beyond the fact that there was no J sound or

letter in English prior to the 17th

century, and never in the Hebrew, Greek,

Aramaic, or Latin languages, Jesus isnt an accurate transliteration ofIesou,Iesous, or Iesounwhich were conceived as a result of Greek gender and

grammar rules. But most importantly, none of these names was ever written in the

Greek textnot once, not ever. It is therefore inappropriate to transliterate

something (to reproduce the pronunciation in the alphabet of a different language)

which isnt present in the text. So the name Jesus is a colossal fraud purposely

promoted by religious leaders desirous of separating Yahowsha from Yahowah,

and the Torah from the Healing and Beneficial Message.

The title Maaseyah was represented by Chi Rho (), Chi Rho Sigma

(), Chi Sigma (), Chi Upsilon (), Chi Rho Upsilon (), Chi Omega(), Chi Rho Omega (), and Chi Nu (). More on these Divine

Placeholders in a moment.

The Hebrew eland elohym, meaning Almighty, but most often translated

God, were conveyed using the placeholders Theta Sigma (), Theta Upsilon

(), Theta Omega (), and Theta Nu (). And while Gods name and title

are not interchangeable, there are times when these placeholders represent

Yahowah instead of His title, God.

Ruwach is the feminine Hebrew noun for Spirit. Without exception, the

Set-Apart Spirits title throughout the Greek historical and eyewitness writingswas conveyed using the placeholders Pi Nu Alpha (), Pi Nu Sigma (),

and Pi Nu Iota (). Just as Yahowah is our Heavenly Father, the Ruwach

Qodesh is our Spiritual Mother.

In addition to these two names and three titles, the noun and verb form of

upright pole, and to affix to an upright pillar, were always rendered Sigma

Rho Omega Sigma and Sigma Rho Omega followed by Mu Alpha Iota to indicate

the verbboth with a line over them to signify divinity. Making sure that we

wouldnt miss the Divine connection between the upright pole and the Upright

One (the edon of the Torah), stauros was never written out in the Greek text.

But this connection between God and the Doorway to salvation was lost when the

Roman Catholic Church ignored the placeholder and then changed the reference

to suggest that it signified a pagan cross. Now this is important, because it

means that the Church ignored what was actually written and then deliberately

and knowingly changed the meaning of what had been conveyed.

The cross was a common religious symbol used throughout antiquity in

Babylon, Egypt, Greece, and Rome to signify the intersection of the constellation


29/45

Taurus (the Bull which represented the sun god) with the sun during the Vernal

Equinox. The closest Sun-day to this event was called Easter by these pagans

who believed that their sun god impregnated Mother Earth on this day, giving

birth nine months later on the Winter Solstice (then December 25th

) to the Son of

the Sun. Solar worship, known as Sol Ivictus (the Unconquerable Son) wasthereby incorporated into Constantines new Christian religion where it remains

to this day. This process began with his vision of a flaming cross superimposed on

the sun, which was his god, and with the edict: Under this sign conquer.

In addition to these seven universal placeholders, we find Father when used

in reference to our Heavenly Father, Mother when used in reference to our

Spiritual Mother, and Son, when designating Yahowsha, rendered in the same

format when they refer to our Heavenly Father, Spiritual Mother, and to the Son

of God, in most of the earliest manuscripts. And what I find especially affirming

about this is that the title Mother was designated by a Divine Placeholder in theCodex Sinaiticus when Yahowsha discussed the real meaning of the Second of

Seven Instructions etched on the Second of Two Tablets.

Now, returning to Christ, and the improper titles appearance in English

translations of the Galatians 1:1 passage, it turns out that the over-scored Greek

symbols Chi Rho (), Chi Rho Sigma (), Chi Sigma (), Chi Upsilon

(), Chi Rho Upsilon (), Chi Omega (), Chi Rho Omega (), and

Chi Nu (), werent based upon Christos, Christou, Christo, or Christon, but

instead upon Chrestusan entirely different word.

Christosmeans drugged. As proof, the one time it was actually written outin the Greek text, it was used to say that the Laodicean assembly applied a

manmade drug, an ointment in this case, to their eyes. (And of course thats also

interesting, in that its being applied to the current church age.) Chrestus on the

other hand means useful implement, and upright servant, as well as merciful

one,and it was used to depict the good and beneficial work of a moral servant.

As such, this affirms my earlier conclusion that rather than write ha Messiach

the two times the adjective appears in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, Daniel

most likely wrote ha Maaseyahtelling us that the Suffering Servant would

be the Implement Doing the Work of Yahowah, the Upright Servant and

Useful Tool God would use to save all mankind.

In this regard, there is no chance that Yahowah would miss this opportunity

to associate this essential title with His name. Likewise, there is no chance that

Rabbis, who are adverse to Yahowahs name and authority, wouldnt substitute

their preferred title for their least favorite title, disassociating it from Yahowahs

name, given the opportunity. Therefore, through this evidence Im not advocating

the use of Chrestus, but instead MaaseyahImplement of Yah. Chrestus is

nothing more than an affirmation of

Date post:	04-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	yadayah
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Questioning Paul - Galatians - 01 - Chrestus - Useful Implement

Documents