Questioning Paul Volume 1: The Great Galatians Debate Is Christianity Right or Wrong?

4 Anomos Without an Inheritance To those without the Torah, I was Torahless The reason we have taken a detour into the book of Acts in the midst of this review of Pauls letter to the Galatians, is that Lukes testimony provides the best contemporaneous platform from which to judge the veracity of Pauls writings. So while we are here, there are many additional things we can learn. Since Shimown, meaning He Listens, but more commonly known as Peter is going to be our star witness, its appropriate to begin with his testimony. He wants us to know that a wide-ranging controversy had arisen between Yahowshas handpicked Disciples and the self-proclaimed Apostle Paul. Not only was Shauwls message the antithesis of what Yahowsha had taught the Disciples, and indeed the antithesis of Yahowahs Word, Paul was also claiming exclusive rights to Gentiles the world over. So, to refute these claims, the Disciple Shimown referenced the fulfillment of the Miqra of Shabuwa, and in the days, months, and years which followed, where he and others were prepared by the Spirit to share Yahowahs message in every known language. In testimony deliberately designed to undermine Shauwl, Shimown Kephas said: Moreover (de so then), a great (polys an extensive and massive) controversy and debate (zetesis dispute and argument) had arisen (ginomai had begun to take place), so Kephas, the Rock (Petros a Greek translation of the Aramaic word for rock, kephas), took a stand (anistamai he was motivated to stand up, rising to the occasion, he stood up in protest) to say (lego to speak, providing clarification) regarding them (pros autos with regard to them), Men (aner), brothers (adelphos), you (se) know and understand (epistamai are acquainted with and possess the information necessary to be aware and mindful) that (hoti) from (apo) days (hemera) long ago (archaios in the beginning), in this regard (en) you (sy) chose (eklegomai came to prefer and select; a compound of lego through words which teach, advise, direct, and affirm and ek you were called out to) the Almighty (o the God, Yahowah) on account of (dia through and because of) my mouth, and thus my oral communication (ego stoma my capacity to speak), having listened to (akouo having heard

and received the news) the Word (logos the statement, speech, account, and reasoning) of the healing and beneficial Messenger (o euangelion the good message; from eu to be well off, to fare well, to prosper, and to act beneficially and aggelos message regarding the one who is sent and messenger) for the races and nations (o ethnos for people the world over from different cultures and geographic places; a.k.a., Gentiles) and (kai) thinking it to be true, came to trust and rely (pisteuo were persuaded and became confident and committed). And (kai) Yahowah (), the one who knows hearts (kardiognostes), provides testimony, speaking of (martyreo witnessing on behalf of and vouching for) giving (didomi producing and granting, appointing, assigning, and bestowing) them (autois) the Set-Apart (agion and purifying) Ruwach/Spirit (), just as (kathos for the same reason and to the same degree) also (kai) to us (emin). And no one can make a distinction (diakrinomai can create a separation) between (metaxy) us (emon) and (kai) them (auton) in that which is trustworthy and reliable (pistis), cleansing (katharizo healing and purifying) their (auton) hearts (kardias). (Acts 15:7-9) This is a brilliant opening statement by Shimown Kephas, especially considering the nature of his adversary. In direct opposition to Pauls but I say, Yahowshas Disciple affirmed that with regard to salvation, Yahowahs testimony is all that matters. Then, the Rock further differentiated himself from Shauwl when he identified the source of his effectiveness: the Set-Apart Ruwach / Spirit. In the previous chapter we learned that Pauls power came from a masculine individual whom he later identified as a messenger of Satan, who he admitted controlled his enormous ego with a sharp prod. Humble, Shimown told those assembled before him that his ability to provide Yahowahs testimony wasnt unique to him, because the Set-Apart Ruwach / Spirit had been given to them, a reference to his audience the Yaruwshalaym Called-Out Assembly. Also in direct contrast to Shauwl, the Rock said that no one should make a distinction between us and them, which was to say that the world should not be divided between Yahuwdym and Gowym. All of Yahowahs Spirit-filled troubadours are called to share Gods healing and beneficial message with everyoneregardless of race or place. As a result of the ecumenical fulfillment seventeen years earlier of the Torahs promise regarding Seven Sabbaths, where everyone was invited to celebrate their adoption into our Heavenly Fathers familyGowym and Yahuwdym, men and women, young and old, rich and poor, free and slavethere was no longer a distinction between who was called to witness to people of different races, sexes, ages, or economic status. By way of the Set-Apart Spirit,

we are all empowered to share Yahowahs testimony with everyone. Further, we all become Yahowahs children the same way, because there is only one Way. But then, considering what we have read thus far, it is obvious that Paul stood up and interrupted Peter. We know this not only based upon the previous three verses, but also because Shimown wouldnt consider trying to trap God. Also, Shauwls willingness to twist the Torah, and test God in the process, has become legendary. So the wannabe Apostle declared: Now (nyn) therefore (oun), who (ti) submits a test and attempts to trap (peirazo tempts) God, placing (epitithemai) a yoke (zygos) upon the neck of the Disciples (mathetes followers who are tutored) which (on) neither (oute) we (emeis) nor (oute) our (emon) fathers (pateres) had the ability (ischuo) to endure (bastazo accept, bear, and carry)? (Acts 15:10) Luke is playing the role of a historian here, so we cannot blame him for the incomprehensible and unsupported nature of this question. The fact remains: we dont know who Paul said was trying to trap Godalthough it would be reasonable to assume that Shauwl was once again lashing out at those who were advocating the Torah. Further, we dont know what Pauls test may have entailed, although we know that he considered the Torah to be a test that no one could endure. And while his yoke was not defined, circumcision or the Torah (or both) would be reasonable guesses. So while we are once again searching to clarify Shauwls ill-defined terminology, the context provided by Luke at the very least provides a handrail, helping us identify the burden which the wannabe Apostle thought was being placed upon the Disciples. Yet we do not know what was so horrible about this yoke of which Paul was speaking, that no one could endure it. In this regard, it is as if we have returned to the muck and mire of Galatians. While there is no test, yoke nor trap, nor a reference to neck nor to the ability to endure a burden associated with the concluding statement of Mosehs public pronouncement in Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 27:26, Christian apologists in a wild and unsupported leap of faith, say that Paul was referencing this verse to suggest that a person is trapped by the Towrah unless they obey everything it says. But not only is that conclusion in irreconcilable conflict with Yahowahs consistent testimony on this subject, its not even what the Towrah reveals. After saying that a person will invoke harm upon themselves if they make religious idols or images that are detestable to Yahowah, if they dishonor their father or mother, if they confiscate their neighbors land, if they mislead a blind person, if they deprive an orphan of justice, or if he has intercourse with his mother, or with an animal, or with his sister, or with his mother-in-law, or if they

secretly strike down a countryman, or they take a bribe which damns an innocent soul, we read: Relationally, he invokes harm upon himself who (arar asher) does not take a stand (quwm is not established and affirmed, raising up) with regard to (eth in association with) the words (dabarym the statements and message of) this (ha zeth), the Towrahs guidance (ha towrah the teaching, direction, and instruction), for the purpose of (la and to approach by) engaging in and acting upon them (asah eth endeavoring to exert considerable effort to gain and profit from them). And the entire family (wa kol ha am) said (amar), Surely this is truthful and reliable (amen this is acceptable and true). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 27:26) So as with most things Christians claim on behalf of Paul, the inverse is true. We are being asked to take a stand with regard to the words which comprise the Towrahs guidance, thereby acting upon Gods instructions. And speaking of Shauwls first epistle, we are reunited with two of his favorite words: alla and charis. To the contrary (alla), through (dia) the Charis-Charity/Gratia-Grace (charis mercy, kindness, and favor) of the Upright One (), Yahowsha (), we trust and rely (pistos) to be saved (sozo) according to (kata) this (on) manner (tropos way of life) also (kai) those (ekeinos a pronoun referencing people who are relatively distant or absent). (Acts 15:11) Alla to the contrary means that what follows is different than that which was stated previously. So, if the Torah was Yahowahs unbearable test, trap, and yoke, then the alternative according to Shauwl is Charis-Charitythe Greek goddesses known to us as the Gratiam-Graces. And while Shauwl said that we must pistos trust and rely to be saved, he most likely meant for his audience to hear believe, not trust (in that he never provides sufficient information to trust anything he says). Further, he qualified his contrarian view as being according to this manner: through (dia) the Charis of the Lord (kuriou) Iesou (Iesou) we believe to be saved. While I understand that this dialogue was spoken in Aramaic, all we have is a Greek transcription, with the oldest extant manuscript dated three centuries later, so it wouldnt be prudent to give Shauwl the benefit of the doubt regarding his terminology, especially considering the errant nature of his theology. As pagan goddesses, the Charis are associated with the Lord, which is Satans title, but they are not related to Yahowsha. In fact, memorializing their name in this context was expressly forbidden by Yahowah. Shauwls testimony was invalid, as was Shauwls path to salvation. Forgetting Pauls affinity for the Graces for a moment, believing Yahowsha hasnt saved anyone. Salvation has nothing to do with our faith. Satan believed that Yahowsha was the Maaseyah, and he understood the merit of His sacrifice,

but it didnt do him any good. Our salvation is a function of choosing to pass through the door (Passover) that Yahowah has provided, and then walk along His path from Unleavened Bread to Shelters, trusting and relying upon Yahowah every step of The Way to Life. And thats the Truth. But (de) keeping silent (sigao holding ones peace), the whole (pas) large assembly (plethos multitude and great crowd) listened to (akouo) Barnaba (Barnaba a transliteration of bar naby; meaning in Aramaic, the son of a prophet, transliterated Barnabas) and (kai) Paulou (Paulou of Latin origin meaning small, transliterated Paul) make fully known (exegeomai provide detailed information on) the extent (hosos) of (o) Godly () signs (semeion) and (kai) wonders (teras portentous events or extraordinary omens) in (en) the (tois) nations (ethnos races and places) through (dia) them (auton). (Acts 15:12) During the fulfillment of the Called-Out Assembly of Seven Sabbaths, the book of Acts says that three thousand souls were saved with more added each successive day, so it was not surprising that the Yaruwshalaym Called-Out Assembly was large by this time. But we must be careful with regard to Pauls claim to have produced signs and wonders. Rather than serve as proof of his ministry, it may actually be another nail in his coffin. In Mattanyah / Yahowahs Gift / Matthew 24:4, seventeen years in advance of the day they would benefit from this advice, Yahowsha warned His Disciples to be especially wary of the likes of Paul. His Olivet Discourse continues with: And Yahowsha () responded judgmentally (apokrinomai used discernment to separate fact from fiction; a compound of apo, separate, and krino, to separate, choosing right from wrong), telling (eupen) them (autos), Pay attention and be perceptive (blepete look closely and watch out, be careful and discerning, think and understand), lest (ue) someone (tis) will cause you to wander away from the truth (planaomai umas deceive and delude you, leading you astray). (Mattanyah 24:4) In a private meeting in which only His Disciples were present, Yahowsha told them to pay attention and to be careful, lest someone will cause you to wander away from the truth, deceiving and deluding you. Since this warning was stated specifically to and for the Disciples, might this someone be Paul, and the occasion be the Yaruwshalaym Summit? And if not him, who? If not then, when? I realize that Christian apologists will say that this warning (one which they have not heeded by the way) was meant for othersincluding for us today. And by way of extrapolation, they would probably be right, at least up to the point that they ignored that this warning also had to apply to Yahowshas audiencethe Disciples. If it was not pertinent to them, and if this situation didnt materialize

during their lifetime, then the opening statement of the Olivet Discourse (Yahowshas most comprehensive prophetic revelation) was erroneous and superfluous. And in that light, there is but one event and one individual who caused Yahowshas Disciples to be deceived and deluded: Shauwl at the Yaruwshalaym Summit. And it occurred because they did not pay attention to everything He had told them. And it occurs today for the same reason. Moving on to the next element in this imminent prophetic warning: For (gar) many (polys) will come (erchomai) in (en [from Papyrus 70; whereas the more recent NA27 reads by means of (epi)]) My (ego) name (onoma reputation), saying (lego claiming), I (ego) exist as, belong to, or represent (eimi I am and I stand for) the (o) Maaseyah ( the Implement of Yah). And (kai) many (polys) will wander away from the truth (planaomai will be deceived and deluded). (Matthew 24:5) Since it is easy to blend Yahowshas thoughts together, lets consider them one at a time. Initially He said: many will come in My name, and indeed, many have, but not all of those who have claimed to represent God have been deceitful. The most literal rendering of eimi in the middle clause of this next verse would suggest that Yahowsha predicted that many people would say I am the Messiah. And while there have been plenty of isolated nutcases like this, with the most famous being Rabbi Akivas Shimown Bar Kokhba, and the more recent being Sun Myung Moon, their victims are usually counted in the hundreds, sometimes thousands, but seldom millions or billions. Those who have led the most people astray, and thus satisfy the final clause of Yahowshas prophetic warning, simply claim to represent the Maaseyah, which is one of eimis connotations. And while Paul would tell the Galatians that they had treated him as if he were the Maaseyah, Paul typically claims to speak for himto represent Him. I would count the billions of Christians who have been led away from Yahowah and His Torah, who have been deceived and deluded by Pauls Gospel of Grace, as many. In fact, it would be hard to identify another individual who has misled more people than Paul. It is why I refer to him as the most influential man who ever lived. Second unto Paul would be Muhammad, who has also misled billions. But Allahs Messenger only claimed to be the Maaseyah as he approached Yathrib. It was following the Satanic Verses, when his tattered reputation needed a boost. Moreover, Muhammad never spoke in the Maaseyahs name, because he didnt know it. The Quran calls Yahowsha Issa, which is an Arabic transliteration of

Esau. And Muhammad never claimed to represent the Maaseyah, but instead Allah. So, he would be disqualified from this prophecy. Not to mention the fact that he lived six centuries after the lifetimes of Yahowshas Disciples. Then depending on whether eimi is rendered exist as, belong to, or represent, other candidates might be Rabbi Akiva, General Constantine, or Adolf Hitler. Although President Barak Obama displays a bit of a messianic complex as well. Before we move on, lets pause a moment and contemplate a most startling fact. Paul has repeatedly claimed to speak for the Maaseyah Yahowsha, and yet in all of his sermons, and in all of his letters, he only quotes Him once! The lone citation is found in 1st Corinthians 11:24-26, and even it is wrong, with Yahowshas body being broken in addition to the bread, and forgetting to mention that the blood of the Passover Lamb was shed for many for the forgiveness of sin. Moreover, as we have seen with Galatians, Yahowahs Word has only been cited to belittle it. And when we compare that to Mattanyah and Yahowchanan, where Yahowshas words and deeds dominate the text, or to Zakaryah or Yashayah where Yahowahs words reign supreme, this comparison serves to awaken us to the fact that, unlike the others, Paul was speaking for himself. Simply stated: Paul wrote as if his words were Gods, and yet they seldom if ever were. Continuing with the Olivet Discourse, Yahowshas warning to His Disciples was advanced twenty verses later with: Then (tote) if (ean) someone (tis) says to (eipon) you (umeis), Behold (idou indeed, suddenly now, look) here in this place (hode in this case positioned near the speaker), the Maaseyah (), or, in this case here (hode), do not (me) think that they are trustworthy or reliable (pisteuo). (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 24:23) Paul claimed to have seen the Maaseyah on the road to Damascus, and then again in Arabia. The sandal still fits. And it fits Shauwl alone, as no one else made such claims during the lifetimes of Yahowshas Disciples. Since Yahowshas next statement isnt extant in any pre-Constantine manuscript, we dont know how Mattanyah may have written pseudochristoi, if indeed he wrote in Greek. The Ebionites, who formed a Called-Out Assembly in Yaruwshalaim under Yaaqob in the first century, were the first to propose a canon, and they claimed to have read Mattanyah in Hebrew. And while there are a score of credible witnesses to this fact, the oldest Hebrew manuscript in our possession dates to the Middle Ages. However, since we are considering the possibility that Paul was a perfect fit for Yahowshas warning, it is instructive to know that the Ebionites, who were

first-century followers of The Way, specifically excluded Pauls letters from their canon, as they considered him to be a false prophet. It wasnt until Marcion in the early second century that Paul was canonized, even promoted as the only true Apostle, bequeathed with the foreboding distinction of being Gods chosen Messenger. Translated from a mix of Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek, and then Greek to English, this is what the only Messenger who was God, said: Because (gar) those pretending to be the Maaseyah (pseudochristoi) and (kai) pseudoprophets (pseudoprophetai) will stand up and arouse (egeiromai will rise up, awaken, and stir the comatose), doing (didomi) great (megas) signs (semeion) and (kai) wonders (teras portentous events) in order to (hoste) delude and deceive (planao causing people to stray from the path), even (kai) if it were possible (ei dynatos if they were able), those who were chosen (eklektos those who select and are selected, from ek, out of, and legos, the Word). (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 24:24) When Paul got up before the Yaruwshalaym Ekklesia and tried to impress them by bragging about the signs and wonders he had performed, using the exact same phrasing Yahowsha had warned about, the Disciples should have remembered this conversation regarding someone who would planao lead them astray, deceiving and deluding them, and responded appropriately. Paul has now failed three tests: Yahowshas and Yahowahs. Interestingly, even Paul associates signs and wonders with Satan and Torah-lessness in 2 Thessalonians 2:7-10, which we will review shortly. So even Paul-fixated Christians ought to have been alarmed. I have always seen the humor in Yahowshas style. Here, rather than just saying that a person would rise up and arouse people, claiming to speak for Him while doing signs and wonders, in order to deceive, He said that if it were possible, he would delude even those who were chosen. While all of us are given the opportunity to choose God, there were twelve individuals who were chosen by God. So by augmenting his false-prophet warning with this particular hypothetical in front of this unique audience, the Word was elbowing the Apostles in the ribsHint, hint, Im talking to you. But, Yahowsha would be even more specific regarding Paul, tailoring the prophetic prediction to reflect the wannabe Apostles boast that he met with Yahowsha in Arabia, the ultimate Scriptural wilderness. Listen to God: Look (idou indeed, telling the listener to pay attention to this subject), Ive told you this beforehand, forewarning you (proeipon umin I have spoken to you about this previously, predicting in advance that it will occur in your future). If and when (ean) therefore (oun), someone says (eiposin) to you, Look, indeed

(idou), He exists (estin He is (third person, singular and thus He exists, and not I exist) in (en) the (te) wilderness (eremos uninhabited desert), behold, do not (me) leave (exerchomai go away from) your place in (en) the treasured inner room of the home (tameion the reserved and secure chamber of a household and storehouse where [the Spirit] will be distributed). You should not (me) trust him (pisteuo think that what he has said is true). (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 24:25-26) Making matters worse for the self-proclaimed witness, in the next verse Yahowsha goes on to say that when He is next seen on earth, He will be seen by all. Juxtapose this with Pauls claim to have encountered the Maaseyah on the road to Damascus, and then to meeting with Him in Arabia. Once again, Paul is not only a perfect fit for this warning, he is the only candidate who made these claims within the lifetimes of Yahowshas audience. Yahowsha specifically warned His Disciples about Shauwls deceptive messageand us through them. Are you listening? While we are on the topic of Paul hanging himself with his own words, Id like you to consider his conversion experience alongside Yahowshas statement regarding Satan. In Luke 10:18, we read: Then He [Yahowsha] said (eipon) to them [the seventy witnesses He had sent out], I saw (theoreo closely examined) the Adversary, Satan (Satanas the one who opposes) falling (pipto descending and prostrating himself) as (hos similar to) lightning (astraphe as a bright beam or ray of light) from (ek) heaven (ouranos the sky). Behold, I give you the authority to trample upon (pateo epano tread upon, crush and devastate) serpents (ophis snakes which serve as a metaphor for demons) and scorpions (skorpios poisonous animal, from skopos, skeptics who conceal) and upon the whole of (pas) the hostile enemys (echthros the hated and odious ones opposing) power (dynamis). And absolutely nothing will harm you (adikeo nor will you be doing anything wrong or unjust). (Luke 10:18-19) Now for Pauls depiction of what he experienced: It happened. I was traveling and approaching Damascus, around noon, then suddenly and unexpectedly (exaiphnes) nearby a burst of lightning (periastraphai a flashing light, from peri, about, near, concerning, and on account of, and astrape, lightning, a beam or ray of bright light) from (ek) heaven (ouranos the sky), an intense (hikanos sufficient and adequate) light (phos) about (peri near, around, and concerning) me (eme). (Acts 22:6) Pauls depiction is exactly as Yahowsha had described the fall of Satan. Shauwl even used the same words. While this is chilling in the extreme, it is worth noting that Pauls explanation regarding this lightning strike differs in Acts 9:3, 22:6, and 26:13. No one else was affected by the bolt of lightning in Acts 22:6, but in Acts 26:13, Pauls traveling companions are also enveloped in it. In the middle of the day, King, I

saw (eidon perceived) from (ek) heaven (ouranos the sky), beyond (hyper for the sake of and on behalf of) the suns (helios) brightness (lamprotes radiance and brilliance), shining around (perilampo) me (me) light (phos), and (kai) the ones (tous) traveling (poreuomai) together with (oun) me (emoi). (Acts 26:13) Whats troubling here, beside the fact that all three of Pauls conversion accounts are materially different, is that the primary meaning of hyper isnt beyond, but instead for the sake of and on behalf of. So in actuality, Paul was saying that the light from the sky was for the sake of and on behalf of the suns brilliance, brightness and radiance, shining around me. This is akin to General Constantine, the first Pope, seeing a pagan cross in the sky superimposed upon his god, which was the Unconquerable Sun, and then hearing the a voice, perhaps the same one Paul said he heard, saying: In this sign conquer. Additionally, you may have noticed that Yahowsha gave His witnesses the express authority to trample upon serpents and scorpions in the context of confronting Satans power. We know that the Scriptural metaphor for Satan was established as a serpent in the Towrahs presentation of the fall of man in the Garden of Eden. This symbolism was then reinforced four thousand years later by Yahowsha when he said that religious clerics were the children of poisonous snakes in Mattanyah 23. And while that explains the association between Satan and serpents, why did Yahowsha add scorpions in the context of His prophetic portrayal of Shauwls spiritual encounter? Those who were paying close attention know the answer. You may recall that Shauwl claimed that his enormous ego was held in check because: I was given a sharp pointed prod (skolops scorpions stinger) in the flesh of my physical body and human nature, Satans spiritual/demonic representative, in order that he would strike and torment me in order that I not become overly conceited. (2 Corinthians 12:6-7) In addition to being a sharp pointed prod, skolops means scorpion. In a criminal trial, as in this evaluation, the details tell the tale. And rest assured, there is yet another convicting detail hidden within this confession. While its a big picture item, it is also worth noting that in the Olivet Discourse, in the context of warning His Disciples about the likes of Paul, Yahowsha said that when He returns, He will be seen by everyone from the horizon in the west to the east, and not just by a one fellow in the company of a handful of others. If Yahowsha was telling the truth, Paul was lying.

So could it be, is it possible that Yahowsha was right about Paul? Was his bout with the lightning bolt actually an encounter with Satan? It is interesting to acknowledge, after all, that Paul seemed to know. After shaking down his followers for money, saying in 2 Corinthians 9:7 that God loves a cheerful giver, encouraging them to dig deep if they wanted to be rewarded by his god, Paul resumes his attack on Yahowahs Covenant, calling his mission a war against the flesh a reference to circumcision the sign of the Covenant, in 2 Corinthians 10:3-4. He wrote in 10:5 that we are destroying speculations and taking every thought captive, in essence removing evidence and reason from the equation so that faith in his message might prevail over knowing God and belief in him over understanding what Yah is offering. Then, contradicting his own overt animosity toward legalism, the founder of the Christian religion wrote: And we are ready to punish all disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete. (10:6) And yet not only is obedience something Yahowah opposes, justice is His, not ours. Paul told his followers in 2 Corinthians 10:7 not to look outwardly so as to avoid observing the Towrah I suppose, but instead to consider what is within, all in support of a faith nurtured by feelings and beliefs rather than conviction derived from observation and contemplation. Of his role promoting such rubbish, the always arrogant, self-promoter, Shauwl, wrote: Even if I should boast somewhat further about our authority...I will not be put to shame. (2 Corinthians 10:8) This is followed by an odd and indicting comment: For I do not wish to seem as if I would terrify you by my letters. (10:9) An even more bizarre reference is conveyed by: For they say, His letters are weighty and strong, but his personal presence is unimpressive, and his speech is contemptible. (2 Corinthians 10:10) While I dont care what Paul looked like, I am concerned that he was correct in this regard: his speech was contemptible. But alas, this devolves into an incomprehensible clash of egos in 2 Corinthians 10:11 through 18, with Shauwl positioning himself as the only one whose boasts are justified. Paul digresses further in opening of the 11th chapter of his second letter to the Corinthians, writing: I wish that you would bear with me in a little foolishness; but indeed you are bearing with me. (2 Corinthians 11:1) Why would anyone want to suffer foolishness if he or she could instead observe Gods brilliance by reading the Towrah? And even though Shauwl errantly wrote that love is not jealous in his first letter to those living in Corinth, now he admits: For I am jealous for you. (11:2) Ever the chameleon and schemer, in conjunction with this jealousy, Paul

wants to present those who have been beguiled by his letters as pure virgins, which is to say untouched by the Torah and its God. (This is the conclusion of 2 Corinthians 11:2 presented from the New American Standard Bible.) Pauls next statement is among his most beguiling, because it is predicated upon being a virgin to the Towrah. It is also rendered from the NASB: But I am afraid, lest as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds should be led astray from the simplicity and purity of Christ. (2 Corinthians 11:3) While Shauwl craftily deployed the exact same tactic Satan used in the Garden, that of removing Yahowahs instructions from their context and misquoting Him to convey a believable delusion, at issue here is that faith is simple because it isnt based upon anything real; it requires no knowledge or understanding. But without knowledge and understanding Yahowsha is unknowable and what He did and said cannot be understood. So while Yahowahs goal, which is to build a growing family through is Covenant, is a relatively simple concept, the means He deployed to facilitate it to that He could include us within it, is anything but simple. There is a reason that Yahowahs teaching and guidance in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms requires over one thousand pages of precise instructions to accomplish His intended goal. If it was simple, Hed have done it on a single page and not wasted our time or His. But that couldnt be done, because the directions that systematically reveal who God is and what He is offering, while explaining how we can most beneficially respond to Him, are too essential to our relationship and to our salvation to shortchange. There is a reason that Yahowsha consistently answered every question, including explaining who He was and what He was doing, by directing his audiences attention to the Towrah and Prophets. There was no shortcut to understanding then and still isnt now. Furthermore, once a person comes to know and understand Yahowsha they become Towrah observant because He was Towrah observant. But when this occurs, they cease to be Christians because they come to recognize that Paul was lying. And that is why Shauwl wanted to present pure virgins to his wannabe god. Until a person appreciates the connection between Yahowsha and Yahowah, and between Yahowsha and Yahowahs Towrah, there is no way to properly respond to and thus benefit from His fulfillment of Pesach, Matsah, Bikuwrym, or Shabuwa, for example. Such a person cannot process anything Yahowsha said during His initial and most comprehensive public declaration, known as the Sermon on the Mount. As a diminished manifestation of Yahowah, Yahowsha is profoundly revealing, tangibly demonstrating the extraordinary depth and complexity of a God who is neither shallow nor simple.

Demonstrating that these conclusions are correct, Shauwl was afraid that his simplistic and erroneous presentation of the Maaseyah would be exposed and condemned by those who knew better, so he wrote: For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear beautifully. (2 Corinthians 11:4 from the NASB) The actual Yahowsha bears no resemblance to the Christian Jesus, a character who has far more in common with Dionysus and Mithras than Yahowah or His Towrah. The Pauline Christian misnomer is no longer the living manifestation of the Word of God, but is instead the one who annuls it. As for a different spirit, Yahowah has but one Spirit that we can receive, the Set-Apart Spirit, and She exists to help us understand and then share Yahowahs Towrah. That means Pauls different spirit represents the Adversary. Turning to a different gospel, Yahowah has but one euangelion beneficial Messenger and message, His Maaseyah and His Towrah. And yet while they are one in the same, they are in wholesale conflict with Pauls preaching. As for bear beautifully, Ill let you grapple with that one because it doesnt make any sense to me. This leads to another arrogant and indeed errant announcement: For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles. (2 Corinthians 11:5) Pauls pride became blinding. He considered himself brilliant: But even if I am unskilled in speech, yet I am not so in knowledge; in fact, in every way we have made evident to you in all things. (2 Corinthians 11:6) By comparison to Yahowah and thus Yahowsha, Im dumb as a stone. By comparison to Moseh and Dowd, Im but a flickering candle compared to a bonfire. But at least I know that the only source of knowledge worth considering, and thus revealing, is Yahowahs testimony. If Paul was a fraction as smart as he claimed to be, he would have educated his audience by drawing their attention to the terms and conditions of the Covenant and how the Covenants benefits were enabled by Yahowshas work during the Miqraey. But instead, he condemned the Covenant, created a new one, and denounced the Invitations to Meet with God. If it was not so sad, the notion that Paul questioned whether I committed a sin in humbling myself, because I preached the gospel of God to you without charge? (2 Corinthians 11:7) Can you imagine being so full of yourself that youd think, or worse, write, that you might be committing a sin by being humble, or that you ought to have charged for sharing the work of God? Id be remiss if I didnt remind you that Yahowah has a Towrah, not a gospel.

If you think that Im being too hard on this arrogant and errant wannabe apostle, since he has suggested that he didnt actually charge the Corinthians for his beguiling message, you might want to reconsider: I robbed other churches, taking wages to sever you. (2 Corinthians 11:8) It is interesting that Shauwl tells us that for when the brethren came from Macedonia, they supplied my need. (11:9) The Anti-Maaseyah will come from Macedonia. Recognizing that Paul never accurately quoted Yahowah or Yahowsha, he lied when he wrote: As the truth of Christ is in me, but not when he concluded: this boasting of mine will not be stopped in the regions of Achaia. (2 Corinthians 11:10) Followed by: Why? Because I do not love you? God knows. (11:11) Shauwl not only knew, but acknowledged, that he was competing with others whose claims were more credible (the Disciples), and that his message was considerably different than theirs... But what I am doing, I will continue to do, that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting. (2 Corinthians 11:12) While Yahowshas Disciples did not boast, an insecure individual like Paul views any affront to his credibility a display of arrogance and slander. A systematic review of the literature emanating out of the mid to late first century reveals that the only prophets and apostles which Paul could have viewed as being in competition with him, and whose message was opposed to his, were Yahowshas Disciples and those who had learned from them those filled and equipped by the Spirit on Shabuwa. That makes this next statement especially toxic. For such are false prophets, treacherous and deceitful (dolios tricky and clever) workmen (ergates perpetrators) masquerading as (metaschematizo converted and transformed so as to appear, disguised and pretending to be) [the] Maaseyahs (P) Apostles (apostolos prepared messenger who is sent out). (2 Corinthians 11:13) At the time Paul wrote this letter to the Corinth Assembly, he alone was a false prophet, treacherous and deceitful, masquerading as the Maaseyahs Apostle. And history tells us that no one outside of Paul and his followers feigned Apostleship to the Corinthians. Moreover, since there is no evidence that Paul ever issued an accurate prophecy, there is no reason to view this as a prediction of future events either. (Pauls lists of future human attributes in Romans and elsewhere, were already common in his day, especially in Rome. And since it has not yet occurred, Pauls prediction that the rapture would take place during his lifetime, was untrue.)

Most every English translation ignores the inclusion of autos-himself in this next verse, because of what it implies. And of course, they arent keen on providing a complete translation of thauma, because this sounds like a confession. Literally, in the order Paul wrote the words, the next sentence reads: And (kai) no (ou) wonder, himself a great object of worship (thauma autos himself a wonderful, marvelous and miraculous vision and individual to be admired). (2 Corinthians 11:14) But before we conclude that Satan was being called great, and a wonderful object of worship, a word of caution is in order. There is no direct Greek equivalent to the English word do with regard to do not, so it could be, and probably should be, supplied. This reshapes the text to read: And do not marvel (thauma be amazed or wonder) Also, while autos, translated himself, follows the noun thauma wonder in the Greek text, and proceeds the conjunction gar For, which begins the next thought or sentence, depending upon the punctuation, it is common for conjunctions to follow pronouns if the thoughts are being combined, as opposed to being isolated in separate sentences. But adding to the potential confusion, Paul routinely omits pronouns in his letters, so the specific inclusion of autos, after thauma, would normally convey himself a marvel. Moreover, there is no denying that Paul is taken in by Satans glorious manifestation and radiant brilliance in 2 Thessalonians, a passage well review in a moment. Yet since there is a way to avoid the problem of praising Satan here in 2 Corinthians, by adding do in front of not, and then repositioning the pronoun, Im compelled to join the first and second halves of the 14th verse into a single sentence. Combined, they would then read: And (kai) [do] not (ou) wonder (thauma marvel at this miraculous vision, nor be amazed in admiration) [at this], for indeed (gar), he (autos), the Adversary Satan (Satanas), changes his appearance (metaschematizo masquerades, disguising himself, transforming his image) into (eis) a spiritual, heavenly messenger (angelos divine representative) [of] light (photos). (2 Corinthians 11:14) And while that solves one problem, it creates another. This is exactly like Paul experienced him. And as always, Pauls inadequate writing style remains especially prone to misinterpretation, leaving us wondering what he actually meant to say. Further, Satans origin and name, a malak spiritual messenger named Halal ben Shachar, tells us that he is a spiritual, heavenly messenger radiating light, so this is hardly news. And yet Pauls next line is as clear as it is telling. It is designed to deflect attention away from him being judged a false prophet. So Paul says that rather than evaluate him objectively based upon his words, comparing them to Gods, he wants to be evaluated subjectively based upon his motivation.

[It is] not (ou) surprising (megas great) therefore (oun) when (ei if) also (kai) his (autou) servants (diakonos ministers who execute his commands) masquerade (metaschematizo pretend to be) as (hos) ministers (diakonos servants) of righteousness (dikaiosyne whose doctrine is acceptable to and approved by God), of which (o on) the end result and motivation (telos their ultimate purpose and intent) will be (estai) according to (kata) their works (ergon deeds). (2 Corinthians 11:15) But yet judging someones motivation, their intent, is pure speculation. So Paul would have us move from facts and reason to opinions. That doesnt sound godly to me. Illuminating this problem, telos, rendered end result and motivation, is based upon tello, and thats telling because it describes someone who sets out to achieve a particular goal. It infers that the ultimate evaluation of these people should focus on their motivations, as opposed to the content of their messages, and it should take place at the end of time, as opposed to when the message is being delivered. Further, Pauls evaluation is also predicated upon a persons deeds rather than what they have to say. As such, Pauls means to determine whether a person is a false prophet bears no resemblance whatsoever to Yahowahs tests. Of this, we should not be surprised. But this is Pauls message, Pauls test, and Pauls defense on behalf of his spirit. It also reflects Pauls less than divine grammatical style. Furthermore (palin also and again) I say (lego), not (oe) someone (tis) I (me) presume (dokei be of the opinion) I am (einai) ignorant and irrational (aphron foolish, stupid, senseless, and devoid of reason). But (de) if (ei) not (me) really (ge even) and (kai) as (os like) foolishness (aphron ignorance and senselessness), I (me) you will receive (dechomai believe and welcome) in order that (ina) and I (kago) little (micron small) someone who (ti) I boast (kauchaomai brag and glory in). (2 Corinthians 11:16) Since this is gibberish, lets consider what the scholastic sources reveal. The Nestle-Aland interlinear reads: Again I say not some me might think unthinking to be if but not indeed if also as unthinking welcome me that also I little some might brag. That wasnt an improvement. Moving on to the English Standard Version Interlinear, we find that it departs significantly from the text, ignoring and adding many words: I repeat, let no one think me [being (omitted)] foolish. But even if [you do (added)], [not also (omitted)] accept me as [a (added)] fool, so [that (added)] I [too may (added)] boast a little. The New International Version Interlinear suggests: Again I say not anyone me think foolish to be [if (omitted)] otherwise [not really (omitted)] even if as

foolish receive you me, [in (added)] order [that (added)] I also [a (added)] little [bit (added)] [someone (omitted)] may boast. Moving from the most trusted interlinears to the supposedly literal New American Standard Bible, we find: Again I say, let no one think me foolish, but if you do, receive me even as foolish, that I also may boast a little. All we can say for sure is that the writing and message quality are well beneath Gods capability. And yet, Im compelled to offer something sensible. So, here is my best guess regarding Pauls testimony: Furthermore, I say, let no one presume I am foolish. But even if not, and I am like the foolish, you will receive and accept me in order that I may boast a little. No matter the interpretation, this statement is actually worse in content and style than anything we have encountered in Galatians. And once again, we cant blame this on scribal error. The words are the same in Papyrus 46 (from the late first-century) as they are in the Nestle-Aland. The incomprehensible, even arrogant, nature of the text is Pauls fault. (Of course, if you are a Christian and believe that this verbal diarrhea was the inspired word of God, then your god is a nincompoop, which is probably worse.) What (o) I say (lalo) [is] not (ou) according to (kata) [the] Lord/Masters (KN) way of speaking (laleo sayings), but to the contrary (alla) as (os) in (en) foolishness (aphrosyne recklessness and thoughtlessness, senselessness and folly) in (en) this (houtos) substance and nature (hypostasis essence or objective aspect and underlying reality behind everything; a compound of hupo, under, and histemi, standing upright) of (tes) boasting (kauchesis pride and glorifying oneself). (2 Corinthians 11:17) If this is correct, Paul is admitting the obvious. He was not speaking for Yahowah, but was instead foolishly bragging on his own behalfor worse. And I say or worse because this follows an explanation of how Satan influences false prophets. Not to belabor the point, but the Nestle-Aland interlinear isnt any clearer: What I say not by Master, I say but as in thoughtlessness in this the substance of the brag. The NASB supports my conclusion: That which I am speaking, I am not speaking as the Lord would, but in foolishness, in this confidence of boasting. Try as they would to shade the meanings to protect Pauls credibility, this remains extremely incriminating. And Paul wasnt finished exposing or condemning himself. Because (epei since) many (polloi) may boast (kauchaomai brag and glorify themselves) according to (kata) [the] flesh (sarx their physical prowess), I also (kago)

glorify myself and brag (kauchaomai boast). (2 Corinthians 11:18) He is beginning to sound just like Satan. This has become so horrific, so demonic, so unlike Yahowah and His prophets, its important that you have verification of these words from other translations: In that regard, the NASB wrote: Since many boast according to the flesh, I will boast also. For indeed (gar because) gladly (hedeos with delight and enjoyment) you accept (anechomai bear, endure, and put up with) the senseless and foolish (aphron ignorant and irrational), being (ontes) wise (phronimos shrewd and intelligent). (2 Corinthians 11:19) This was hardly the place for sarcasm, and yet that is what we find. Im beginning to think Paul has lost complete control of himself, and has pulled back the veil hiding his true nature. It is as if Pauls arrogance, his sense of s uperiority, has led him to believe that his audience was so stupid, theyd never figure him out, much less hold him accountable. However, that is not how things materialized. Based upon what Shauwl wrote Timothy in his final letter, most everyone abandoned him. You know this, that all of those in Asia have turned away from me. (2 Timothy 1:15) But alas, with Marcion as his future publicist and promoter, those who did not know him nearly as well would become fooled billions of them. They are known as Christians today. According to the NASB, Paul wrote: For you, being so wise, bear with the foolish gladly. While this is no better, to achieve this translation, they had to upend Pauls arrangement of words. This is making my stomach turn. If only (ei) because (gar) you accept (anechomai bear, endure, and put up with) someone who (tis) enslaves you (katadouloo makes you subservient), even (ei) someone who (tis) devours you (katesoiei exploits and utterly destroys you), even (ei) someone who (tis) grasps hold of and receives you (lambano acquires you and associates with you as a companion), even (ei) someone who (tis) lifts up (epairomai), even (ei) someone who (tis) flays the skin (dero) of your (umas) person (prosopon being). (2 Corinthians 11:20) This is a very troubling list of characteristics for several reasons. First, it starts off suggesting that the Corinthians willingly accepted someone who enslaved them. And as we return to Galatians, we will discover that Paul considers this to be one of Yahowshas Disciples or Yahowah because, according to Paul, Gods Torah enslaves. The second derogatory statement, devour and exploit, can also be linked to the Galatians depiction of Yahowahs Torah, which Paul will refer to it as a

financial manager and taskmaster. But then, the statements turn positive, and delineate what God alone is able to do: receive us, and lift us up. But then, inexplicably, the last characteristic appears savage. And yet, based upon what we have read in Galatians, its apparent that Paul was lashing out at Yahowah for asking us to be circumcised. Therefore, set in the midst of this Corinthian lecture, aware of what Paul has written in Galatians, the most rational interpretation of this statement is that Satan is suggesting through Paul that Yahowah is someone only a fool would accept. The NASB published: For you bear with anyone if he enslaves you, if he devours you, if he takes advantage of you, if he exalts himself, if he hits you in the face. Considering the fact that Paul will soon say that his enemies are Hebrews, Yisraelites, and descendants of Abraham who ran afoul of him by promoting the value of the Torah, its hard to not to see this as an attack on Yahowahs witness and witnesses. In their desire to avoid the obvious, and keep Pauls list entirely negative, the NASB selected tertiary definitions of lambano and epairo, even though they were used nowhere else. And yet lambano rendered, grasps hold of and receives, means to take by the hand. It conveys: to select, receive, and acquire, as well as to make ones own and to associate with as a companion. As such, paralambano is the operative term Yahowsha used in His depiction of the Taruwah Harvest, with para strengthening the concept of gathering us together. And yet, I found but one lexicon which listed exploit by deception, under lambano, and it was buried under their seventh definition. So the NASB team ran with this, and in the process ignored Yahowshas use of the term. Likewise, epairomai, translated lifts up, was written in the third person singular. It therefore says He lifts up, He rises, and He raises up. Sure sounds like Paul was speaking of the Maaseyah. Yahowsha even used epairomai to speak of our salvation. And Mattanyah used epairo, the verbs root, in his presentation of the Maaseyahs transfiguration. And yet, lurking as the sixth of six definitions, we find is arrogant, so the NASB grasped hold of this connotation, not recognizing that Paul himself had been bragging throughout this section of his letter. In his next statement, Shauwl seems to be saying that he and his partner are relatively weak, as compared to his foes, but when it comes to foolishness and arrogance, he protests that he and his associate are the equal of any. Accordingly (kata), I say (lego), [this is a] disgrace (atimia dishonor, ignominy, and shame, a reproach), because (os) namely (oti) we (emeis) are weak and powerless (astheneo ill, incapacitated, and diseased) in (en) this (o), but (de) if (an) someone (tis) is extremely daring and bold (tolmao summons

up the courage to defy danger) in (en) foolishness (aphrosyne folly and senselessness, reckless thoughtlessness), I say (lego) I am also extremely daring and bold (tolmao kago have also summoned up the courage to defy danger). (2 Corinthians 11:21) If Paul had been enveloped in the Set-Apart Spirit, he would not have been weak or powerless. And yet, by comparison to Yahowah, and considering his use of emeis we, Paul and his masquerading spirit were indeed weak and powerless. But that isnt the last of the problems. Paul is inferring here, especially in this context, that he and his associate are bold and senseless, as if he was ascribing to the political mantra which has underscored Machiavellis approach to power, where the ends justifies the means, where truth is irrelevant, and where daring in the extreme becomes the ultimate weapon. Dealing with 2 Corinthians 11:21, the New American Standard Bible ignored lego I say at the beginning of this rather odd statement, and added my, must, by comparison, and else, as well as the parenthetical, without textual support. To my shame I must say that we have been weak by comparison. But in whatever respect anyone else is bold (I speak in foolishness), I am just as bold myself. Noticing the parenthetical, I am compelled to tell you that the NASB added (I speak as if insane) in the midst of Pauls comments in the 23rd verse. And should you wonder, it is in the 22nd verse that Paul lists his adversaries, who, as Ive mentioned, are not-so-coincidently Satans foes: Hebrews, Yisraelites, and descendants of Abraham. Not only have Yahowahs Chosen People been ensconced as Pauls enemies, there is something very troubling about Pauls continued focus on himself, rather than Yahowsha. In fact, rather than explaining how Yahowshas Passover and Unleavened Bread sacrifices enabled the Torahs promises, and facilitated our salvation, Paul used the next five verses to delineate his personal afflictions which have absolutely no value to anyone, nor any bearing on our salvation. Moreover, based upon the fact that Paul described three different variations of what happened to him on the road to Damascus, and that his depiction of the Yaruwshalaym Summit was grossly inaccurate, the likelihood that Paul endured five times thirty-nine lashes from the Jews, and three times being beaten with rods, is remote. And yet it is hard to miss the intent: it appears as if Satan was auditioning Paul for the role of his messenger. As further evidence, Pauls tale of woe concludes with: In addition (parektos apart from all of this), separately by myself (choris besides without any help, separated, independently, and apart from any relationship), I (ego) have

the burden of responsibility and authority over halting rebellions (epistasis anxiety and pressure over a stopping hostile, and riotous, banding together of troublesome people acting like a mob) by (kata) day the anxiety (merimna distraction and worry, cares and concerns in a negative, worldly, preoccupied sense) of all (pas) the called-out assemblies (ekklesion). Problems abound in this passage. First among them: by using parektos in addition and choris separately by myself in succession, we are compelled to render choris as without any help, as in independently, apart from any relationship, as opposed to translating it besides. In other words, Paul isnt saying In addition besides, but instead, in addition to being beaten up, and going to bed hungry and cold, I alone have borne the burden of suppressing riots and caring for all of the assemblies. So now, even the pretense of representing the real Maaseyah is gone. Those who trust Yahowah, rely upon Him. We are never anxious. Our job isnt to terminate rebellion, or to stew over the called-out assemblies. And that is because the sacrosanct nature of freewill precludes us from hindering the choice to rebel, and the Spirit is responsible for nurturing and protecting Her children not us or Paul. Mind you, in the Covenant we are Yahowahs Children. He is our Heavenly Father. And yet Shauwl, in competition with God, saw himself in that role: I do not write this to shame you, but to warn you as my beloved children. (1 Corinthians 4:14) Further, Yahowsha used merimna anxiety in a parable about: thorns, who represent those who hear the message, but all too quickly crowd the message out by the merimna cares and concerns and riches and pleasures of this life, so [the seeds of truth] never grow into maturity. (Luke 8:14) Our job as followers of The Way is to expose lies and witness to the truth. We do this by observing and reciting the Torah, and by following Yahowshas example. All we are asked to do beyond this is to clear the dirt off of the table, set Yahowahs invitation upon it, let people know that it is there, remain available to answer their questions, and then let them make up their own minds. It is a take it or leave it proposition. There is no debate, no negotiationand most certainly nothing for us to contribute or worry about. We do not bear any responsibility for what happens, good or bad. Further, if we are reciting Yahowahs Word, and affirming His plan, we never have to say: know that I am not lying, as Paul does in Galatians, and now again in 2nd Corinthians, in the 31st verse. But since he was doing neither, he was actually doing precisely what he denied. If we say anything in the name of God which is contrary to the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, we are lying, and it is obvious to those who care. And if we

convey His Word accurately, it makes no difference whether or not we are liars. No one is saved based upon our testimony, or upon Pauls. Other than to determine whether or not he is a false prophet, Pauls veracity is irrelevant. And that makes his focus on himself, and his unsupported protestation, completely inappropriate. So you may be wondering why Satan would be this overt regarding his relationship with Paul, and why he would encourage Paul to disparage the Adversary in the same text. But the answer is obvious. By disparaging the Adversary, Satan makes it appear as if he isnt the Adversary. This is precisely how Allah, who was modeled after Satan, positions the Devil in the Quran. And thus while its blatantly obvious that Allah is the Adversary, this ruse is sufficient to fool most Muslims. But what bothers me the most about all of this is that Satan, and his accomplices are so boldly foolish about what they are doing at times like these, it makes it obvious that they think people are stupidtoo ignorant and irrational to figure out who they are and see what they are doing. It is as if Satan was thumbing his nose at God too, saying: Why do you care about these morons? They are complete idiots and will believe anything. Just watch, Ill tell them exactly who I am, and with whom I work, and they will still willingly drink the poison right out of my hand. While the evidence in favor of Paul being a false prophet is overwhelming, my purpose in sharing Yahowshas prophecy and Pauls Corinthians commentary, was simply to encourage you to think about the possibility that there is more to all of this than one man speaking for himself. And yet while we can objectively evaluate Pauls words, and hold him accountable for belittling the Torah, and for saying things as absurd as what we have just experienced, even if he were to disclose his motivations and inspiration, we would have no way of knowing whether he was telling the truth. Since we arent mind readers, all we can do is speculate regarding who he served and why. While we are on the subject of Satan, and before we return to the book of Acts, I had mentioned that Paul associated the signs and wonders that he used to affirm his calling, with both Satan and Torah-lessness. So here is what the Devils Advocate had to say about himself and the spirit who facilitated and empowered him. Harkening back to the confession found in Galatians 2:8, we read: For (gar) the (o) mystery and religious doctrine (mysterion secrets concealed in the symbols, slogans, rites, and rituals of religions which are known only to the faiths initiates and participants) of Lawlessness/Torah-lessness (anomias a negation of the Torah) is already (ede at this present time, even

right now) functioning (energeo facilitating and completely operational, at work granting the ability and power to produce results, revealing and showing itself). [It is] only (monon alone without a companion, forsaken) currently restrained and hindered by possession from below (katecho controlled and prevented through continued faith and belief; from kata and echo, meaning possession from below) right at this very moment (arti presently, just now at this time) until and up to the point (hoes) he appears (ginomai he arrives and becomes known in the flow of human history) from (ek out of) the midst (mesos). (2 Thessalonians 2:7) Just as we discovered in Galatians 2:8, where the adjective and verb energeo facilitate and functionality was rendered in the masculine, and thus could not represent the Set-Apart Spirit, the adjective and verb katecho restrain and possess is also masculine. And while it is singular in the Greek text, it was not written in second person, so there would be no justification for adding the pronoun he that we find in many English translations. Further, katecho is not a proper noun or a title, so even if it had been feminine, it cannot be the Restrainer, a convoluted metaphor for the Set-Apart Spirit, as most English translations want us to believe. And last time I checked, our Spiritual Mother did not katecho possess from below. Lawlessness was however feminine in deference to Towrah being a feminine noun in Hebrew. This is a treasure trove of evidence. Not since Galatians 2:4 have we confronted so much secrecy surrounding Shauwl. Paul was, of course, resolutely anti-Torah. He used the same verb, energeo, to describe the source of his power. Shauwl said that the spirit of Lawlessness, or Towrah-lessness, was functioning at this present timesomething he knew personally, because he admitted to being restrained by it in 2 Corinthians 12. But here he goes even further, saying that the restraint was the result of having been possessed from below. He even told the Thessalonians that this controlling spirit would emerge from their midstwhich is to say he would come from their spiritual leader and his faith: Paul and Christianity. Christian eschatologists are wont to make anomos the man of Lawlessness, or the Lawless one, and thus serve as the name or title of the Antichrist, but there is no reference to man or one in the text, and anomos is an adjective, not a noun. But thats hardly the end of the bad news for Christians. In Corinthians 9:21, Paul will brag: To those without an inheritance from the Towrah (anomos the Towrah-less, to those lacking the nourishment which is bestowed to be possessed and used to become heirs, to those without the precepts which were apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper and approved, to those devoid

of the prescriptions required to become an heir and grow; based upon a negation of nemo that which is not provided, assigned, or distributed precluding inheritance and nourishment), I was like the Towrahless (anomos those without an inheritance from or share in the Towrah). It is yet another chilling confession. Anomos, as a negation of everything Yahowahs Towrah represents, was then deployed in Shauwls distressing letter to the beguiled in Thessalonica... And then (tote) Torah-lessness (anomos the negation of the Towrah, the lack of nourishment which was bestowed to become an heir, being without the precepts which were apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper and approved, being devoid of the prescriptions required to become an heir and grow) will be revealed and disclosed (apokalypto uncovered and unveiled) whom (on) the Lord (kurios) Iesous (Iesous [since the oldest witness of this passage is three centuries removed from its author, and is highly inaccurate, it would be inappropriate to presume that Shauwl correctly stated Yahowshas name or title]) will do away with or accept (anaireo remove the validation or adopt, abolish or lift up, kill or take for himself) the (to) spirit (pneumati) of (tou) his (autou [could be referencing Iesous or the spirit of Torah-lessness]) mouth (stomatos speech) and (kai) put an end to (katargeomai invalidate or release from prior obligations, abolish or free) the glorious appearance (epiphaneia the divine manifestation of his power and light; from epiphanies, to be conspicuous and illustrious) of his (autou) presence (parousia coming arrival in person). (2 Thessalonians 2:8) Anaireo, translated will do away with or accept, is a compound of ana, meaning into the midst, and haireomai, to take for oneself, to choose and to prefer. Therefore it would be presumptuous to translate it kill without also considering the other, equally valid alternatives. Likewise, katargeomai, rendered put an end to, is often defined unemployed, idle, inactive, or inoperative. It is from kata, below and according to, and argeo, to linger, to delay, to be idle, and to be inactive. But thats not the end of the duplicity. Epiphaneia, translated glorious appearance, was used by Greeks of Pauls day to describe the brilliant and illustrious divine manifestations of their pagan gods. It is from epiphanies, to be conspicuous and illustrious. Epiphanies in turn is from epiphaino, meaning an appearance which brings light and thereby enlightens. It is a compound of epi, meaning by way of, and phaino, bringing light. As such, it serves as the basis of the Latin name Lucifer. Additionally, phaino means to shed light, to shine brightly, and to have a brilliant appearance. You see, phaino is based upon phos, the Greek word for light.

So Shauwl is telling us that Satan is resigned to his fate. He knows that his days are numbered, but that doesnt seem to diminish his self image. Further, rather than serve as a victorious declaration, this passage is a duplicitous lament. Its reminiscent of the Wicked Witchs sorrowful mourning as she melts away at the end of the Wizard of Oz, only to find that the wizard was a fraud. Speaking of his rendezvous with destiny, the arrogant and yet brilliant, the hideous and yet beautiful, the dark and yet radiant spirit known to the world as Satan the Adversary, no longer wants to function as Gods opponent; he wants to be God. Lets listen to the man he inspired: Which (ou) exists as (estin) the presence (parousia the personal arrival) according to (kata the name of the opposite of, that which is against and beneath) the functioning (energeia the efficacy and power, the influence and operation) of the Adversary Satan (Satana the one who opposes) in (en) all (pas every) ability and power (dynamis miracles and supernatural deeds, resources and capability) and also (kai) signs (semeion) and intentionally counterfeit (pseudo conspicuously false and misleading imitations in the form of) wonders (teras foreshadowing significant omens). (2 Thessalonians 2:9) So besides associating signs and wonders with Satan, what else is Shauwl inferring here? Why is he praising Lucifer, the glorious and radiant divine manifestation of power and light, while at the same time, predicting the demise of the Adversary Satan? The answer is clear, at least once you come to understand the Deceivers strategy and motivation. Satan doesnt want to be known as the Adversary; he wants humankind to confuse his gloriously brilliant appearance with God. His goal is to have his intentionally counterfeit foreshadowing wonders be considered religious truth. Lucifer (from Latin meaning Light Bearer) or Halal ben Shachar (from Hebrew meaning Arrogant and Brilliant Son of the Rising Sun) inspires his messengers to promote him as God, making his adversarial title the enemy. By condemning Satan, Lucifer is delivered from this Adversary epithet. In (en) every (pas) deception (apate) [and] unjust deed (adikia) they disappear and are destroyed (apollymai they are unaware and thus lost) instead of (anti against which) not (ouk) accepting and believing (dechomai) the love (agapen) [of the] truth (aletheia) to (eis) save (sozo) themselves (autous). And (kai) through (dia) this (touto), he sends to (pempo) them (autois) the (o) God (theos) facilitating (energeia empowering and effecting) deception and delusion (plane perversion and moral corruption, leading people away from the path into error) in (eis) their (autous) belief (pisteuo meaning thinking regarding that which is trustworthy and true, but redefined by Paul to mean faith) [in] the lie (pseudo counterfeit and intentional imitation). (2 Thessalonians 2:10-11) Im not sure what this means, but its not good.

Before we return to the 15th chapter of Acts, there is a troubling statement at the preamble of Pauls second of three depictions explaining his conversion experience which got my attention. Perhaps we have stumbled onto the real issue. Once again, its all about Paul, as he is justifying his controversial mission before a new audience. Men, brothers, and fathers, listen to (akouo pay attention to) me (mou). With regard to (pros) you (umas) now (nuni at the present time) I defend myself (apologia offer my own justification (a technical term designating a personal rebuttal in the form of a verbal response, from which we get the English word apologetics)). (Acts 22:1) As was the case with the whole of Galatians, and now Corinthians, Paul was defending and justifying his credentials and message, not Yahowahs or Yahowshas! It is a broken recordfiguratively and literally. Rather than tell the uplifting story of Yahowsha of Nazareth, the troubled troubadour spoke of Shauwl from Tarsus. Then (de) because (oti) they listened (akouo) to him addressing (prosphoneo) them (autois) in the Hebrew (Hebrais) language (dialektos dialect), they possessed and maintained (parecho) a greater degree (mallon) of quietness (hesychia silence and settling down, no longer creating a disturbance). And he declared (phemi), I (ego) am (eimi exist as and represent) a Yahuwdym (Ioudaios improperly transliterated Judean or Jewish) man (aner) born (gennao) in (en) Tarsus (Tarsos), Cilicia (Kilikia a Roman Province in what is now southwestern Turkey), (Acts 22:2-3) If we can believe him, Paul was addressing an agitated Yisraelite audience in Hebrew. Such a statement runs afoul of biblical scholars, most of whom say that Hebrew was neither spoken nor understood at this time. But regardless of whether this was actually true, we must ask ourselves: why was Paul addressing the circumcised? Hadnt he said that they were Shimown Kephas responsibility? And yet Paul never abided by his own rules. He was a chameleon, changing his colors to take advantage of his audience. He even admitted to this very thing (in his own pathetic style): To the Jewish, I came to exist like (os) a Jew, in order to (hina) take advantage of and profit from (kerdaino procure an advantage over) Jews. To those under the Torah (nomos the means to become an heir and be nurtured), I acted as if (os) I was under the Torahnot that I,

myself, actually existed under the Torahin order to (hina) take advantage of and make a profit from those under the Torah. To those without an inheritance (anomos the Torah-less), I was like those devoid of nourishment and an allocation (anomos the Torah-less), not being Gods () Towrahless heir, but to the contrary, subject to the Towrah (ennomos bound to the Towrah) of the Maaseyah (), in order to (hina) take advantage of and profit from (kerdaino procure an advantage over) the Towrah-less. I became weak and sick (asthenes incapable, infirmed, feeble, hopeless, helpless, and morally inadequate) to the weak in order to (hina) take advantage of and profit from (kerdaino procure an advantage over) the weak. I became (ginomai) to every kind of (pas) person, every kind of (pas) person, in order to (hina) save (sozo) everyone (pantos tinas). (1 Corinthians 9:20-22) Even Machiavelli wasnt this bold. As if he were speaking directly to Paul, Yahowsha used kerdaino to say, What do you benefit if you gain (kerdaino take advantage of and profit from) the whole world, but lose your own soul? (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 16:26) It is stunningly appropriate, especially if you consider Shauwls elaborate justification for personal payment in 1 Corinthians 9:1-12. This tactic is what we might expect for an unscrupulous politician or businessman, who will say and do anything, no matter how deceptive or fraudulent, to garner an unfair advantage, but not from someone claiming to speak openly and honestly on behalf of God. Yahowsha never once pretended to be other than He was and is. But by admitting this, Paul has just told everyone that his words, his behavior, and claims (such as representing the Maaseyah) cannot be trusted. (Yahowsha is recorded in Mattanyah 10:8 saying: You have received without paying, give without being paid.) So that there will be no misunderstanding regarding the dubious tactics of this charlatan, the primary meaning of kerdaino, translated take advantage of and profit from, is related to gaining an advantage over someone in the pursuit of wealth, influence, and acclaim. To the common man of his day, kerdaino spoke of desiring worldly things to such an extent, that a person would cheat and would feel no compunction against being crafty, clever, or cunning. Metaphorically, kerdaino can be used to speak of winning someone over, but that option is torn asunder in the context of clandestinely and deceptively metamorphosing oneself to gain an advantage. And interestingly, the secondary meaning of kerdaino is to avoid problems in the process of trying to spare oneself. But that connotation is only applicable when used as part of a hypothetical situation or an instructional parable.

Even if we were to give Paul the benefit of the doubt he no longer deserves, and render kerdaino win, Paul would remain condemned for operating under false pretenses. Its called fraud, and its a crime. We have been so inundated by Pauls relentless rejection of the Torah, that we may now be somewhat callused to it, but nonetheless, the troubadour of lawlessness just affirmed: I acted as if I was under the Torah, not that I myself existed under the Torah, in order to take advantage of those under the Torah. And while Paul condemned his soul with those words, we must ask: what did he mean by I was like the Towrah-less, not being Gods Towrahless, but to the contrary, subject to the Towrah of the Maaseyah? There is no Towrah-less association with God, and the only Torah the Maaseyah was subject to was the one Paul disassociated himself from in the previous sentence. This mans language was as duplicitous and misleading as were the pretences under which he operated. And if that were not enough, Paul specifically states that he was like the anomos Towrah-less, a condition he explicitly associated with Satan in his previous 2 Thessalonians 2:7-9 statement and letter. That was akin to proclaiming: I, Paul, am just like the Antichrist. Even his parting salvoin order to save everyoneprovides a window on this mans grotesquely egotistical soul. Yahowah, Himself, couldnt save everyone. And Yahowsha didnt try. For those of you who have read The Prince and are familiar with Machiavellis infamous and immoral advice to wannabe religious and political potentates, Shauwls statement inspired: the ends justifies the means. All manner of horror has been perpetrated on humankind as a result of this mantra. It serves to this day as the justification for oppression and terrorism. If Paul hadnt just wallowed in delusion and hypocrisy, not to mention deceit and pride, I might have skipped his parting salvo. But after hearing him say that he would impersonate anyone to save everyone, we are compelled to question what he meant by: But (de) all (pas) I do on behalf of (dia) the healing and beneficial message (euangelion) in order that (hina) I might become (ginomai) His (autos) joint-partner (sygkoinonos from sun, with, and koinonos, partner). (1 Corinthians 9:23) Make of this what you will. Returning to the book of Acts, consider the vile vomit which pours out of Shauwls mouth in his next statement: but then (de) having been nursed and nourished (anatrepho reared and cared for; from trepho, fed by suckling at the breast, and ana, into the midst) in (en) this (taute) city (polis) from beside (para) Gamaliels (Gamaliel a transliteration of the Hebrew Gamlyel, from gamal el, meaning to deal with the recompense of God) feet (pous), being

brought up and trained as a child (paideuo being guided as a boy, being educated and disciplined in my youth, from pais, as an infant or slave) with regards to (kata) the accurateness (akribeia the exact, careful, precise, strict, and rigorous conformity to the standard [i.e., minute precepts of the law and traditions]) of the allotment which was received and parceled out from our forefathers (patroos nomou laws, customs, and traditions of our ancestral heritage passed from fathers to sons, inheritance which is nurturing), beginning to be (uparchon from hyparcho to start to represent and to begin to become equivalent to, from hupo, by way of, and archomai, to be first, to begin, and to be the highest authority of) zealous (zelotes enthusiastic) of (tou) God (), just as (kathos) all of (pas) you (umeis) are (este exist as and represent) today (semeron). (Acts 22:3) This single verse contains three of the most horrid abominations Ive encountered in something which is purported to be Scripture. First, this man, who claimed to speak for the Maaseyah Yahowsha wallowed in the idea of being nursed and nourished, guided and disciplined by a Rabbi, a leader of the very men Yahowsha had said were born of serpents. It would have been one thing for him to admit in passing that he had been one of Gamaliels students, but its another altogether to speak of Gamaliel as if he was filling the role of the Set-Apart Spirit. It is obvious that Paul loved a man Yahowsha would have despised. Second, the problem Yahowsha had with Rabbinical traditions, known as the Oral Law, which was specifically what Paul was praising here, is that it changes, corrupts, counterfeits, and conceals Yahowahs Torah. So why did Paul call the law which was received from our forefathers precisely accurate and in complete conformity when Yahowsha said the opposite? The one time Shauwl specifically identifies Rabbinical Law, differentiating it from the Torah, he was unequivocal, calling these errant religious traditions perfectly accurate. Set into the context of his overt animosity for Yahowahs Word, this is especially a-Pauling. Its becoming apparent through his testimony that Paul loved the Law Yahowah and Yahowsha hated, and hated the Towrah Yahowah and Yahowsha loved. And perhaps that was why he so seldom differentiates between them in Galatians. If he had made his allegiance this obvious in his initial letters, his message would have been summarily rejected by the Disciples and followers of The Way. Third, while religions such as Judaism, while religious leaders such as Gamaliel, and while religious traditions and customs such as those manifest in the Oral Traditions, often nourish a zealousness for god, their god isnt Yahowah. Their god is a false deity modeled after the men who conceived him.

If this were not bad enough, had hyparcho, translated as beginning to be, and rendered in the participle form of the nominative tense (uparchon - ), been cited in the genitive case (uparchontos - ) then the final clause would sound similar to the attitude which caused Satan to be cast down from heaven. It would read: burning with zeal to begin to be the highest authority (uparchontos to start to represent and to become equivalent to, from hupo, by way of, and archomai, to be first and to be the highest ruler) of (tou) God (). And in actuality, this reflects the actual order these words appear in Shauwls letter, and each word was represented by its primary meaning. Since the oldest manuscript we possess of this statement is three centuries removed from Lukes hand, the influence of countless scribes renders something as subtle as a verb tense highly suspect. And considering the attitude and context of this passage, one has to at least wonder if Paul had been so bold as to remove his veil, just as Satan had done in the Quran with Allahu Akbar! Allah is Greater! with the implication being the Islamic god was greater than Yahowah. If nothing else, however, we know that Paul said things in his own defense that he never should have thought, much less conveyed. Along those lines, there are two additional insights that I want to share with you. First, Pauls depiction of his encounter with Yahowsha as lightning, as a flash of light from the sky, was inconsistent with the way the risen Maaseyah appeared to the women at the tomb, to His Disciples in the upper room, to the men on the road to Emmaus, and to some five hundred other witnesses over the course of forty days, in which He always appeared as a regular, nondescript man. It was also different from the way Yahowah appeared to Adam, Abraham, Yaaqob, Moseh, and Yachezqel / Ezekiel. Yahowah is actually humble: He has no good looks or majesty. When we see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him. (Yashayah 53:2)

The moment Shauwl finished incriminating himself at the Yaruwshalaym Summit with his testimony about the signs and wonders he had performed, Yahowshas brother stood up. Yaaqob had heard more than enough. His brother had made it abundantly clear that they were all called to share His healing and beneficial message with the entire world. Gentiles were not Shauwls private domain. Yaaqob answered and said, Brothers, listen to me. Shimown (Sumeon a transliteration of Shimown, from shama, meaning to listen) has led us by making this fully known to us (exegeomai had the authority to teach us,

providing all of the information needed to reveal, fully explain, and describe in detail), in the same way as (kathos) previously (proton first in the succession of time) God carefully selected and looked to (episkeptomai sought to do whatever was required to care for) take hold of and receive (lambano choosing and acquiring) from (ek) the races and nations (ethnon different ethnicities) common people (laos) for His (autou) name (onomati). (Acts 15:13-14) In other words, witnessing to the Gentiles wasnt a new marketing ploy under the direction of Shauwl, but instead something Yahowah had promised by way of His prophets, including Shimown. This is why Yahowahs children, whether they be naturally born or adopted, are called YahuwdymRelated to Yah. To prove his point, Yaaqob quoted Scripture. So, lets take this opportunity to compare the Greek translation to the Hebrew original. And regarding this, the words (legos) of the prophets (prophetes) agree, (symphoneo), inasmuch as (kathos) it has been written (grapho): With (meta beyond) this (houtos) I will return (anastrephomai come back) and (kai) I will repair and rebuild (anoikodomeo establish) the sheltered dwelling place (skene tent and tabernacle) of Dowd (Dauid transliteration of Dowd, meaning love in Hebrew) that has fallen (pipto prostrated itself and been destroyed), and (kai) that has been torn down (kataskapto been demolished), reestablishing (anoikodomeo repairing and renewing) them (autes) and (kai) restoring them upright (anorthoo auten straightening them up from a position which is bent over). (Acts 15:15-16) Skene, translated sheltered dwelling place, is synonymous with Sukah, which is most accurately translated Shelters. It serves as the name of Yahowahs seventh Called-Out Assembly, where we are invited to campout with our Heavenly Father. As a protective covering, skene speaks of the role our Spiritual Mother plays in our salvation. By way of Her Garment of Light we become Yahowahs tabernacles on earth. The lexicons tell us that skene is related to skeuos, which is a vessel, an implement, and a protective coveringall of which are descriptive of the Spirits purpose. Along these lines, skene is also associated with skia, which is a lesser dimensional representation and representative of something which serves as a foreshadowing of something bigger and better. When we are born anew from above by way of our Spiritual Mother, we become more like God, holding onto the promise that we will continue to grow as His adopted children. So, by using skene, Yahowah has associated His Spirit with His love, and both with Shelters, His final Feast. Yaaqob elected to quote the prophet Amos, who spoke of the destruction of the nation of Yisrael. Fleshing out the context of this citation, we discover that as

a result of Yisraels forming a covenant with the Lord (ha Baal in Hebrew), Yahowahs judgment had become inevitable. The Yisraelites had separated themselves from God, so He told them that the house of Yaaqob would be shaken. He said that those among His people who erred, and thus missed the way, would die, and that those who remained would approach and then encounter an evil calamity which would cause great suffering. He was speaking of the Roman invasion which followed Rabbi Akibas insistence upon the acknowledgment of a false-Mashiach which led to the Diaspora and to the Holocaust. But Yahuwdym would be restored in Yisrael, according to the words Yahowah revealed to the prophet, Amos. These then are the words which Yaaqob quoted at the Yaruwshalaym Summit: In (ba) that (huw) day (yowm) I will stand, rise up, and establish (quwm will stand upright, enabling) the Sukah (sukah seventh Miqra, meaning sheltered dwelling place and protective covering, tent and tabernacle) of Love/Dowd (dowd beloved), which has fallen (napal been neglected). I will repair and restore (gadar rebuild) their (henah) cracks and breeches (peres that which is exposed, broken, or torn, that which is foolhardy and dissipates), and that which is in a state of disrepair (harycah is lying in ruins). I will raise Him up (quwm huw cause him to stand) and (wa) rebuild and restore (banah renew and reestablish) Her (hy) like (ka) days (yowm) everlasting (olam of antiquity and forever into the future). (Amos 9:11) This is Yahowahs promise to restore Yisrael and to establish the Millennial Sabbath in harmony with the prophetic symbolism of the Miqra of Sukah. The timing of this anticipated reconciliation coincides with His return on Yowm Kippurym. Worth noting is the fact that Sukah Shelters is a feminine noun, identifying Gods protected enclosure with our Spiritual Mother who shelters and protects us. So by using hy Her in reference to rebuilding, restoring, renewing and reestablishing, we discover that Yahowah intends to renew the Sukah protective enclosure, restoring it to days everlasting. This is particularly significant because Sukah is synonymous with Eden, which was a protected enclosure. And this tells us that during the Miqra of Sukah, the whole Earth will resemble the Garden of Eden, making the time when we are invited to campout with God remarkably special. And since the Millennial Sabbath commences on the Called-Out Assembly of Shelters, we know that Gods plan is to restore and renew, to repair and rebuild our world during this time, taking us back to the perfect realm and relationship we once enjoyed. And that means that there is no New Testament, but instead the renewal of the existing Familial Covenant Relationship.

Considering that the translated text of this passage had to pass through three languages, Hebrew to Aramaic, Aramaic to Greek, and then Greek to English, and through the hands of countless scribes, Yaaqobs quotation was reasonably accurate. And in some ways, it was akin to what is found in the Septuagint, although not entirely. For example, the Acts transcript of Yaaqobs quotation begins With this ( ), while the Septuagint reads In that day ( ), and is thus in accord with the Hebrew, but not with Yaaqob. Next, the Septuagint uses anhistemi () to say: I stand upright, rise up, and establish, mirroring the Hebrew quwm in Amos 9:11, and yet Lukes Greek transcript reads I shall return (), which is inconsistent with the Hebrew Scripture and the Septuagint translation. From this point, the Codex Sinaiticus (our oldest witness to Acts 15:15) jumbles the Septuagints word order. Agreeing with the Hebrew text, the Septuagint reads: the Sukah of Dowd which has fallen, and I will rebuild her things that are broken, as well as her things that are in a state of disrepair, (from: ). But, the Codex Sinaiticus says: And I shall rebuild the Sukah of Dowd / David which has fallen, and her things that have fallen into a state of disrepair I shall rebuild, (from: ). Recognizing how easy it would have been for everyone involved, Yaaqob, Luke, and the scribes responsible for the Codex Sinaiticus, to get this right (seeing that the Septuagint is correct), we have to ask ourselves: who was responsible for these mistakes? And acknowledging that these errors exist, we must deal with the fact that passages which are not found in extant first-, second-, or third-century manuscripts, are especially suspect and unreliable. But thats not the end of the disparities. The Septuagint continues with: I shall stand up and repair her just as the days that are everlasting (from: ), which is as close to the Hebrew text as different languages allow. But in the Codex Sinaiticus, we find Lukes transcription of Yaaqobs quotation changed to: And I shall straighten her ( ), which isnt how the Hebrew reads. Therefore, either Yaaqob misquoted the verse, Luke misquoted Yaaqob, or subsequent scribes were either careless or trifling. But regardless of your conclusion in this regard, this exercise serves to affirm that the single most revered of all codices, Sinaiticus, isnt reliable. One might even argue that it was written in Rome on the order of Emperor Constantine and then sent to Egypt where it remained in the Roman Catholic monastery named in honor of Constantines mother, Saint Catherine, on the mythical Mount Sinai (replete with the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, 2 Esdras, Tobit,

Judith, Wisdom, and Sirach) until the goatskin hides were plucked from the trash by Leipzig archaeologist, Constantin von Tischendorf, moments before they were burned in the ovens. And giving further weight to its Roman origins, the chapter divisions in the Codex Sinaiticus rendition of the book of Acts coincide only with the Codex Vaticanus and early copies of Jeromes Vulgate, adding considerable weight to the conclusion that the Codex Sinaiticus is not reliable. Lukes transcription of Yaaqobs citation of the next verse in Amos reads: So that (hopos) it is possible (an) the remnant (kataloipos those who remain) of mankind (anthropos) will diligently seek (ekzeteo search out, investigate, scrutinize, and desire) the (ton) Supreme Master (KN placeholder for edon, the Foundation and Upright Pillar of the Tabernacle using the Greek kurion), and (kai) all (pas) the races and nations (ethnos) upon (epi) whom (ous) My (mou) name (onoma) is called (epikaleomai summoned) upon (epi) them (autous), says (lego) Yahowah ( placeholder for Yahowahs name using the Greek kurios), doing (poieomai performing) this (tauta) which was known (gnostos is that which could be known) from (apo) world and universal history (aionos from long ago and at all times since). (Acts 15:17-18) Unfortunately, this wasnt an accurate citation of Amos 9:12, a fact which we will consider in a moment. But since it is so remarkably different than what the Hebrew prophet wrote, lets verify the Greek text by way of the Nestle -Aland. So that will seek out the rest behind of the men the Master and all the nations on whom has been called on the name of me on them says Master doing these known from age. The NASB suggests: In order that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old. As you now know, we dont possess a first- through third-century manuscript of this particular verse in Greek, so scribal error may have contributed to some of the discrepancies. Of issue is Edowm, usually transliterated Edom, which is the name of a place. But since it is related to adam, the Hebrew word for man, and because it is also associated with edon, the basis of Yahowshas title, meaning the foundation and upright pillar of the tabernacle, scribes could easily have become confused. Therefore, in place of Edowm, we find both anthropos mankind and a placeholder for kurion supreme master. In Hebrew, Amos 9:12 reads: So that (maan for the purpose and intent that) those who (asher) have summoned (qara called out and invited) My (any) name (shem personal and proper name) upon (al) them may inherit (yarash receive as an heir and possess) the remainder of (shaeryth remnant and rest of) Edowm (edowm) and all (kol) the Gentile nations (gowym people from different races and places), prophetically declares (naum

announces ahead of time) Yahowah () who will perform (asah do) this (zot). (Amos 9:12) Beyond the unwarranted omission of Edom, and the additions of mankind and Supreme Master/Lord, in the Greek translation of Yaaqobs Aramaic quotation of the Hebrew passage, the Acts transcription replaced inherit with seek, and turned another affirmation of the importance of Yahowahs name into a muddled mess. And while weve come to expect imprecision in Pauls letters to the Galatians, Thessalonians, and Corinthians, these mistakes were recorded in the book of Acts, now causing it to be suspect as well. Turning to the Septuagint again, we find that it isnt a particularly good match for the Hebrew text of Amos or Lukes Greek rendering of Yaaqobs quotation. It reads: So that the remnant of men and all the nations shall seek out, upon those whom My name is called upon them, says Yahowah, the God who does these [things]. To this, the Codex Sinaiticus adds an it is possible and ton KN the Supreme Master, as well as the latter part of Acts 15:18, which reads which was known from world and universal history, for no apparent reason. Adding to the confusion, the oldest Greek witness of this verse then omitted the placeholder for Gods title () from the Septuagints translation, albeit elohym wasnt actually written in Amos 9:12. But far worse than the inaccuracy of the quotation, this passage, while it is profoundly important, wasnt germane to the point Yaaqob was making, which means he shouldnt have cited it. And my guess is he didnt. I say that because our only options are to conclude that either Yaaqob was wrong for citing it, that Luke was wrong for attributing this quotation to Yaaqob, or that a later scribe added it because he thought it fit. If you are among those who believe that the New Testament is the inerrant word of God, pick your poison. On the positive side, we have another confirmation that the placeholder , which was based upon the Greek kurios, was used to represent Yahowahs name. At first blush, however, it is curious that the Disciples chose a placeholder which was based upon a title, as opposed to one predicated upon Gods name. But then recognizing that these symbols consistently begin and end with the first and last letter in the title or name, and often include an internal consonant, we quickly discover that Yahowahs name is comprised of four vowels. Moreover, there is no Y, W, or soft H in the Greek alphabet. (The capital letters which share a common appearance with the English alphabet, Y and H, represent Upsilon and Eta, respectively.) Also, so that you know, Edowm is the land of Esau and his descendants. Most notably, it is the realm of those who were descendants of Ishmael by way of his daughter, who became Esaus wife (See Baresyth 25:16-18 and 28:8-9). So

God is speaking about todays Muslims when He refers to Edowm. Elsewhere in Scripture, Yahowah talks of them plundering Yisrael, and of His response to them, which will be to annihilate them. Today, these Islamic Edowmites covet the Promised Land, and they have demonstrated that they are willing to kill every Jew living in Yisrael to capture it. But in the end, it will be the Yisraelites who will be the beneficiaries of their land instead. The irony is sweet. If Yaaqobs statement wasnt associated with Amos 9, the words could be reordered to say: So that (hopos) if (an) the remnant (kataloipos) of mankind (anthropos), and (kai) all (pas) the races and nations (ethnos) upon (epi) whom (ous) My (mou) name (onoma) is summoned (epikaleomai) upon (epi) them (autous), will diligently seek (ekzeteo) the Upright One (KN), says (lego) Yahowah (), doing (poieomai) this (tauta) which is known (gnostos) from (apo) world and universal history (aionos). (Acts 15:17-18) But alas, this revision of the text is invalidated knowing that Yaaqob specifically said that he was quoting Scripture, and thus there was no justification for mankind (anthropos) or Upright One (KN). While Yaaqob didnt cite the final three verses of Amoss prophecy, there is no reason we shouldnt consider them. They read: Look now and see (hineh), the day (yowm) is coming (bow), prophetically declares (naum) Yahowah () when I will return and restore (suwb come back and reestablish) the property and that which makes life easier and more secure for (sabuwt the fortunes, restoring that which is good and establishing more favorable circumstances for) My (any) family (am people and nation), Yisrael (Yisrael individuals who engage and endure with God). (Amos 9:13-14) This is a powerful passage. It not only affirms that Yahowah will return in person, but also that His purpose will be to suwb reestablish His family and to sabuwt fortuitously restore all that is good. And that is why the related title Shabuwa is defined as Yahowahs vow, His sworn and contractual promise between parties in a relationship to truthfully attest to our innocence. The fact is, the Miqraey of Shabuwa and Sukah are related, with one leading to the other. And it is Yahowahs Ruwach/Spirit who makes us appear innocent, indeed perfect, before our Heavenly Father. In His closing statement, Yahowah may be describing what occurred in 1948 and thereafter: And they will rebuild (banah) their desolate (samen) cities (iyr) and live in (yasab inhabit) them. And they shall plant (nata) vineyards (kerem) and drink (satah consume) wine (yayn fermented grape juice). And they shall fashion (asah make) gardens (ganah) and eat (akal consume) fruit (pary their harvest) from them. And I will plant them (nata humah firmly embed and root them, establishing their encampment) upon (al) their (humah) soil (adamah earth and land). And they shall never (lo) be uprooted

(natas pulled up and expelled) again (owd) from (min) upon (al) their land (adamah soil) which relationally (asher) I gave (natan) to (la) them (humah) says (amar) Yahowah (), your God (elohym). (Amos 9:14-15) For those who are careful observers of Yahowahs Word, recognize that God does not always present future history sequentially, so it would not be unusual for Him to discuss His return prior to presenting the conditions which will precede it. He isnt doing this to be evasive, but instead because He doesnt want His prophecies to influence, and thus change, future events. So long as His reports regarding future history are challenging to unravel, then only those devoted to Yahowahs Word, and thus to Him, will understand them, keeping the disingenuous from being able to sabotage His prophecies. In this prophetic declaration, Yahowah said He would personally see to it, that following an evil calamity, He would reestablish Yisrael. But also, that once returned, they would never be uprooted again. Therefore, there is no reason to worry about another Islamic invasion, nor an Iranian nuclear attack. Returning to the book of Acts, after inappropriately citing, and then misquoting Amos, we are told that Yaaqob said: Therefore (dio) I (ego) conclude (krino decide and judge by way of separating fact from fiction, right from wrong) not (ue) to make it more difficult (parenochleo cause trouble for, excite, annoy, or disturb), separating (apo) the races and nations (ethnos) who are returning (epistrepho who are changing their perspectives, attitudes, thinking, and ways). (Acts 15:19) The Nestle-Aland reads: Wherefore I judge not to annoy along the ones from the nations returning on the God. As was the case with the first nine verses of the fifteenth chapter of Acts, starting with the nineteenth verse, we once again benefit from the witness of Papyrus 45, a third-century manuscript. In it we discover that the phrase epi ton theon on the God was added by a scribe to the end of this passage and thus should not be considered. Speaking of additions, the phrase tes porneias kai the sexual immorality is not found in Papyrus 45, and may have been added by a scribe to harmonize Yaaqobs statement with the subsequent letter memorializing this compromise. The oldest manuscript of this passage then reads: To the contrary (alla nonetheless and notwithstanding), we should write them a letter (episteilai autois) telling them to stay away from (apechomai separate and distance themselves from) condemned (alisgema religious rituals and impure) idols and false gods (eidolon), [that which is] strangled (pniktos choked to death and suffocated as part of a bloodless religious ritual), and (kai) blood (haima). (Acts 15:20)

The first item on this list is important, in that it is a derivative of the Second of Three Statements God etched in stone on the First of the Two Tablets. However, that association will soon be severed. The reference to pniktos strangled (which will be discussed in reference to the 29th verse), is a subset of Rabbinical Law, not the Torah. As such it was inappropriate. And the reference to blood would only serve to enrich Kosher butchers. So if this list was deemed sufficient, it makes you wonder why God bothered with the rest of the book. Considering that these mostly inappropriate conclusions were attributed to Yaaqob, for his sake, I hope that they were a product of scribal error. Yahowsha made no attempt to summarize His Scriptural instructions, and while Yahowah did, His now famous three statement and seven instruction list was considerably different than this one. At least there was one worthy contender among the three prohibitions. Alisgema, translated condemned and describing something which has become polluted and impure by way of a religious ritual is often associated with sacrificial meat and drink offerings made to pagan deities. A portion was usually taken by the priests, but the remainder was either sold in the marketplace by the donor or eaten themselves. So, by including it in his brief list, Yaaqob was suggesting that we should avoid all contact with anything associated with a false god, including eating the food sacrificed to them. However, when a similar list reappears in the Apostles letter (documented in Acts 15:29), the one thing which changes is the reference to condemned idols and false gods. The more ubiquitous prohibition was replaced by saying that it is only necessary to avoid meats which have been sacrificed to idols. As such, the letter was a step backwards from an already impoverished position. Yaaqobs next comment, however, is manna from heaven. Because (gar) Moseh (Mouses a transliteration of the Hebrew Moseh, meaning to draw out, and designating the Torah), from (ek) our races (genea ancestors from the same ethnic group) antiquity (archaios ancient past), is preached to them (kerysso auton announced publicly to them and proclaimed with the intent of making his message known and persuading them) [throughout (kata) their towns and cities (polis)], they are able to experience (echo grasp hold of and hold onto) it [speaking of the Torah] (auton), coming to know it as a result of it being read aloud (anaginosko being recited in such a way that they come to recognize and understand it) in (en) the synagogues (synagoge a transliteration of the Greek word meaning assembly meetings) in accordance with (kata) every (pas) Sabbath (sabbaton a transliteration of the Hebrew shabat, meaning rest, promise, and seven). (Acts 15:21)

Before we dissect this fabulous verse, please note that Papyrus 45 omits [throughout (kata) their towns and cities (polis)]. Also, echo they are able to experience, shown as echei (), in the first person, singular, present, active, indicative, was scribed as ekei (), meaning there, in that place in Papyrus 45. Methinks this was a scribal error which is why I have neglected it. The bookkeeping behind us, understand that Yaaqob referenced Moseh to say Torah the same way we would designate the books of Yashayahuw, Zakaryah, or Malaky. By doing so, he eliminated the potential confusion between Yahowahs Towrah and Rabbinical Law. There are three essential verbs in this passage, all of which convey Yahowahs intent regarding the Towrah. The first, kerysso, translated is preached, means: to announce or proclaim a message publicly with the intent of persuading people, urging and warning them to comply with its instructions. The Towrah is Yahowahs message to mankind, His instructions for living, and He wants His Word proclaimed publicly in hopes that people are persuaded to heed His advice. It is written: The entire (kol the whole and every, the totality of the) Word (imrah the promise and the prescription) of God (elowha) is pure, tested, and true (tsaraph refined, precious, and worthy), a shield for (magen an enclosure which surrounds, defends, and saves) those who put their trust in (chacah those who seek salvation through reliance upon) Him. (Marsal / Word Pictures / Proverbs 30:5) The second verb describing the intent of the Torah is echo, which was rendered are able to experience it. Echos primary meaning is to grasp hold of something and then hang on to it. Secondarily, echo speaks of being clothed in something or of wielding it as a tool or weapon. Echos tertiary connotation is to figuratively and literally hold on to something [in this case the Torah] so that it keeps you safe, preserving you. Other definitions of echo are also germane relative to the Torah and include: coming to possess something, owning it, carefully considering it, respect and regard something favorably, revering and enjoying it. It is written: Yahowahs () Towrah (towrah teaching, instruction, direction, and guidance) is complete and entirely perfect (tamym without defect, lacking nothing, correct, sound, genuine, right, helpful, healthful, beneficial, and true), returning, restoring, and transforming (suwb turning around and bringing back) the soul (nepesh consciousness). Yahowahs () enduring testimony (eduwth restoring witness) is trustworthy and reliable (aman verifiable, confirming, supportive, and establishing), making understanding and obtaining wisdom (hakam educating and enlightening

oneself to the point of comprehension) simple for the open-minded (pethy). (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:7) This all echoes the Godly advice, whereby Yahowah encouraged us to read the Torah in our homes to our children so often that we can recite it by rote. He has asked us to take the Torah with us when we travel, have it with us when we go to bed at night, and when we wake up in the morning. God advises us to place the Torah between our eyes, on our hands, upon our doorposts, and on our front gates. Yahowah wants us to clothe ourselves in the Torah, and to wear and wield its promises as if they were shields and tools. Yahowah tells us to consider what He has to say in the Torah, to respect His Word, and as a result to revere and enjoy the Torahs Author, grasping hold, and hanging onto Him as if our life depended upon it. Just imagine what the world would be like if everyone echoed the Torah. It is written: Love Yahowah, your God, with all your mind and heart, with all your soul and consciousness, and with all your might and strength. The Word (dabar) exists to be prescriptions upon mind and heart. Repeat them so as to teach them by rote to your children, and speak the Word (dabar) among them where you live (yasab and where you are joined in marriage), in your house and home (beyth family and household), during your travels (halak your walk) on the way (derek the path), and when you lie down and when you stand up (quwm). Bind them as a sign on your hand and as a sign between your eyes. And write them on the doorframe of your home and the gate to your community. (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 6:6-8) The third verb in Yaaqobs sentence relative to the Torah was anaginosko, which was translated: coming to know [the Torah] as a result of it being read aloud. While anaginosko is most often used to describe a public reading, its actual meaning is represented by its parts. Anaginosko is a compound of ana, meaning in the midst of, and ginosko, which means to learn and to know, to perceive and to understand, to become acquainted with, and to acknowledge. So the verb conveys the idea of publicly reciting [the Torah] so that those who listen to it come to accurately recognize and acknowledge its message and then come to understand it. This is akin to Yahowahs repeated instructions to shama listen to and shamar observe the Torah. It is written: Gather together and assemble (qahal summon people to a central place for a particular purpose) the family (am people), the men (iysh), the women (ishah), and the little children (tap), and the foreigners (ger strangers and aliens from different cultural, racial, or geographical communities who are visiting, or just passing through, temporarily living in your midst (i.e., Gentiles) who (asher) are within (ba) your gates and doorways (saar your towns, cities, and communities) so that (maan for the intended purpose that)

they can listen (shama hear the message, receive the news, and understand), and so that (maan for the intended purpose that) they are instructed and learn (lamad so that they gain access to the information which is required to respond properly) and respect and revere (yare) Yahowah, your God (elohym), observing (shamar closely examining and carefully considering) and acting upon (asah engaging in, celebrating, and profiting from) all (kol) the words (dabar) of this (zoth) Towrah (towrah teaching, direction, guidance, and instruction. (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 31:12) Now (atah) write (katab) for all of you the words (dabar) of this (zot) song (sirah these lyrics with an emphasis on instruction), and teach this to (lamad provide information, guidance, instruction, and training for) the Children of Yisrael (ben Yisrael children who engage and endure with God). Put them in her mouth (peh), so that they will exist (hayah) with (eth) Me, these lyrics (sirah) serving as an everlasting witness (ed as eternal evidence and restoring testimony) amongst (ba within) the Children of Yisrael (ben Yisrael children who engage and endure with God). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 31:19) Beyond these three opportunities through which we are being encouraged to engage with the Torah, there was another treasure in Yaaqobs statement. The Torah was preached, experienced, and was read aloud and became known in the synagogues in accordance with every Sabbath. It is written: Remember and recall (zakar recognize, memorialize, and be earnestly mindful of) that the Sabbath (shabat the seventh day, the time of observance, of rest, and of ceasing and desisting from ordinary labor) day is set apart (qodesh separated unto God). Six days you shall work (abad) and do (asah) all your service of representing the Messenger and proclaiming the message (malakah Godly duties and heavenly labor). The seventh (shabiyiy seven; from shaba, meaning solemn promise and oath, and shaber meaning to interpret and explain the meaning or significance of a communication) day, the Sabbath (shabat the time to enter a state of repose and reflection) of Yahowah, () your God (elohym), you shall not do (asah) any part of the work of Gods Representative and Messenger (malakah from malak, the ministry and mission of the heavenly envoy and dispatch; the labor of Gods corporeal manifestation), not your son, not your daughter, not your servants and employees, not your means of production, nor those visitors in your home or property. (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 20:8-10) Preachers lie when they say that the first Christians went to church on Sunday to worship the Lord by proclaiming the Gospel. They werent Christians, but instead were called Chrestucians. Christian means drugged, and Chrestucian means upright servant and useful implement. Further, the first

to follow Yahowsha referred to themselves as The Way. Those who had accepted The Way gathered on the Sabbath, in accordance with Yahowahs Torah instructions. And they met in synagogues, not churches. There were no Gospels. They listened to Yahowahs Torah being recited to them. In the presence of Yahowchanan (John), Shimown Kephas (Peter), all of the other Disciples, and the elders of the Yaruwshalaim (Jerusalem) Ekklesia (CalledOut Assembly), Yaaqob (Yahowshas brother who has become known as James), admonished Shauwl (Paul) and warned the religion predicated upon his writings, that nothing is more important than observing, coming to understand, and sharing the Torah. It is the source from which all good things flow, including our salvation. This next line suggests that Yahowshas Disciples did not trust Paul. Then (tote at that time) the Apostles (apostolos those who were prepared and sent out) and the elders (presbyteros the community leaders), along with (syn in association and together with) the entire (holos and complete) Called-Out Assembly (ekklesia from ek, called out and kaleo, to call), concluded that it would be appropriate to (edoze after consideration and thinking they were disposed to) select spokesmen (eklegomai andras choose men to speak out, from lego, to speak and affirm and ek out) from (ek) among them (auton) to send (pempo dispatching messengers with the Word) to (eis) Antioch (Antiocheia the capitol of Syria based upon a transliteration of King Antiochus) together with (syn) Paulos (Paulos of Latin origin and meaning small) and (kai) Barnabas (Barnabas a transliteration of the Aramaic bar, son of, and naby, a prophet): Yahuwdah (Ioudas a transliteration of the Hebrew Yahuwdah meaning Related to Yah), called (ton kaloemenon the person named) Barsabbas (or son of Sabbas) (Barsabbas a transliteration of the Aramaic bar, son of, and saba meaning military conscript) and (kai) Silas (Silas of Latin origin meaning woody), [who were] leading men (hegeomai andras highly regarded men with the authority to provide direction and leadership) among (en) the brethren (adelpois). (Acts 15:22) It was the unanimous conclusion of Yahowshas Apostles, the elders, and the entire Yaruwshalaym Ekklesia that Shauwl required supervision. Yahuwdah and Silas were given the authority to speak on behalf of the Apostles and to control Paul, providing him with some much needed guidance. While this all blew up in Pauls face in Antioch, if we flip back through the pages of Acts, we find that Paul had previously been in Lycaonia, which was just north of Cilicia, before traveling south through Syria. Thats relevant because of the addressees listed on the Apostolic letter. Accordingly (dia), they (auton) wrote (grapho) by hand (cheir): The Apostles (apostolos those who were prepared and sent out) and the elders (presbyteros the community leaders)

amongst (kata) the brethren (adelpos) to the (tois) Antiocheia (Antiochian), Suria (Syrian), and Kilikia (Cilician) brothers (adelphos), to the ones (tois) from (ek) the nations (ethnos different races and places): Joyful Greetings (chairo a happy hello)! (Acts 15:23) Youll notice that this letter wasnt from Paul and that it was written to the places the wannabe Apostle had been. The real Apostles were leaving nothing to chance. Far too much was at stake to allow Pauls inaccurate attack on the Torah to prevail. But that is not to say that they werent in a horrible predicament. Paul had positioned himself as Gods messenger to the nations, and had traveled the world preaching his Gospel. He was a Roman citizen, and they were not, giving Paul an enormous advantage. Paul was smarter, better educated, more ambitious, and a much more prolific writer. The Apostles could have silenced Paul, but that would have required killing or imprisoning him, for which they had no legal authority. They could have openly opposed him, but that would have created an irrecoverable divide between the Disciples and the people Paul was soliciting. Or they could have tried to work with himand that required compromise. What follows indicates that they chose the latter in direct opposition to Yahowahs instructions and Yahowshas example. They would try to control Paul by working out an accommodation with him. It was the mothers milk of politics. Whenever you compromise on essential values, you weaken them, weaken yourself, and postpone the inevitable, ultimately paying a much higher price. While the Yaruwshalaym Summit had begun and had ended referring to the Torah, the Torah would not be mentioned in their letter. Christianity is the consequence. Since (epeide) we heard (akouo) that (oti) someone (tis) from (ek) us (emon) [went out (exerchomai) (excluded from Papyrus 45)] to stir up (tarasso emas to confuse and agitate) your souls (psyche) [with] statements (logos) packing baggage (anaskeuazo tearing down and unsettling), who (ois) we did not authorize (ou diastellomai we did not send out) (Acts 15:24) Before we tackle what was said, or more importantly what wasnt said, lets consider the words which were chosen. Anaskeuazo, translated packing baggage, is an awkward term. It is a compound of ana, meaning in the midst of and skeuos, a vessel. Confusing the matter further, Greeks considered the skeuos vessel to be a metaphor for their bodies being temporary vessels housing their souls. So while anaskeuazo literally means to pack baggage so as to remove possessions and furnishings, it was sometimes construed to convey the

idea of tearing down or being unsettling. And diastellomai, rendered give authorization, is from dia, through and by means of and stello, to prepare, equip, set in place and arrange. The message they were packing was not identified, nor were the messengers. More telling still, nothing was repudiated. All the Disciples said was that they did not authorize them. Having been in their position in business, their ploy is obvious to me. They knew that if they disavowed the need to observe the Torah and to be circumcised, they would put themselves in direct opposition to God. But if they said that Paul was wrong, and that according to God it is essential to observe the Torah and heed His circumcision instructions, they would be in direct opposition to Paulthe self-proclaimed messenger of God to the world. So they deployed a tactic I used in sales called the art of emphasis. Using this approach, you tell the truth in such a way that the positive aspects are emphasized and negative issues are deemphasized. The Disciples therefore told the truth, but not the whole truth, to accommodate Paul without disassociating themselves from Yahowah. But as a result, the world was left to wonder, How wrong can we be and still be right with God? How much of the Torah can we ignore, can we reject, before we are ignored and rejected by God? According to Paul and Christianity, most all of it. According to Yahowah and Yahowsha, very little of it. So that you know, I no longer use the art of emphasis because it is misleading. I have come to accept Yahowahs approach, which is to be clear, consistent, uncompromising, and blunt, while offering as complete an explanation as I can compile, no matter how many words that requires. Yada Yah is long because of this approach, as is An Introduction to God. While I dont have an answer to every question, and there are many things that I am still learning, there are some things I know. First among them is that we cannot go wrong when we convey Yahowahs Word accurately, or when we advocate and condemn those things which He advocates and condemns. Yahowah has asked that we be circumcised as our sign that we want to be part of His Covenant. And He has told us that we should carefully listen to, consistently recite, and closely observe His Torah. Thats good enough for me. Based upon Yahowahs Word, I am convinced that unity with Yahowah is essential, while unity among men is only advisable when those men and women share a common and accurate understanding of Yahowah and His Word. Therefore, I think that the Disciples erred when they wrote: We (emin) were of the opinion (edozen a derivative of dokei, presumed and supposed) to come to exist (ginomai) with one temperament (homothymadon from homou, together, and thumos, meaning passion), selecting a spokesmen (eklegomai andras

choosing men to speak out, from lego, to speak and affirm and ek out) to send (pempo dispatching messengers with the Word) to (pros) you (emas) with (syn) our (emon) dear (agapetos beloved and esteemed) Barnabas and Paulus. (Acts 15:25) By using a derivative of dokei, they were telling us that their personal opinions and suppositions were in play. They were not speaking for God. Homothymadon does not mean that they were of one mind, but instead that their passions and desires were similar. The Greek word for mind is dianoia, not thumos, which means passion as in strong emotions, and in particular, being angry. It is also used to convey being inflamed by sufficient wine to cause the drinker to be mad or kill himself. Further, the Disciples were hedging their bets by calling the spokesmen eklegomai ones who speaks out, proclaiming and affirming the Word. The Legos Word is the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, as well as Yahowsha, Himself. Lastly, it is interesting that Barnabas name was listed first in this letter, suggesting that he was beloved. With Paul being second, he was somewhat separated from the endearing term. Elsewhere, it is always the other way around, with Paul receiving top billing. And in that light it is telling that Barnabas and Paul would soon split up, with Barnabas disagreeing with Paul over the continued presence of an associate. Men (anthropos) giving over (paradidomi delivering, a compound of para, from, and didomi, to give) their (auton) souls (psyche consciousnesses) for the sake of (hyper) the name (onoma) of the Upright One (), our Maaseyah () Yahowsha (). (Acts 15:26) It is not clear if Yahuwdah and Silas were being described, or if this affirmation pertained to Barnabas and Paul. Especially considering what comes next: Therefore (oun) Apostles (apostello those who are prepared, equipped, and dispatched) Yahuwdah (Ioudas a transliteration of the Hebrew Yahuwdah meaning Related to Yah) and (kai) Silas (Silas), and (kai) through (dia) their (autous) speech (logos word and message) reporting and proclaiming the same message (apangello auta from apo, separation and aggelos, message and messenger). (Acts 15:27) While apangello was rendered reporting and proclaiming the message, the word is a compound of apo, meaning separate, and aggelos message or messenger. In this light, auta, the plural, neuter, pronoun serving as a derivative of autos is usually translated their, not same. So the end of this statement

could just as easily read through their speech reporting and proclaiming their separate, and different, message. Before you consider the next codicil, a word of caution is in order. Many people say that their thoughts are inspired by the Spirit. And some are right some of the time. For example, the accurate revelations found in Yada Yah and An Introduction to God were inspired by either the Spirit or the Word, while all of the errors are a result of a flawed and inadequate implement processing their guidance. I am incapable of being a perfect conduit, and so were the Disciples. As a result, the following statement is wrong. I base this conclusion not upon my standards, but instead upon Yahowahs standardsthose He established in the Torah. That which is in complete accord with the Torah is right, that which conflicts with the Torah is wrong, and that which cannot be affirmed or rejected based upon the Torah is suspect. By that standard, this is wrong: For (gar) the Set-Apart (hagios separated, purifying and cleansing, the Greek parallel of the Hebrew Qodesh) Ruwach/Spirit () seemed to be of the opinion (dokei supposed and presumed), and also (kai) we (emin), nothing (medeis) more (pleion) [in the way of a] substantial hardship (baros tremendous burden, weight, or trouble) should be placed upon you (epitithemai emin should you be subject to) except (plen) these (toeton) indispensable requirements (epanagkes things which are absolutely necessary): (Acts 15:28) The Ruwach Qodesh is part of Yahowah, set apart from Him to serve us. She does not dokei presume or suppose anything. She is devoid of opinions. As part of God, set apart from Him, the Set-Apart Spirit has complete access to all pertinent information and Her judgment is impeccable. In Greek, you would say that She epiginosko has evaluated all of the evidence and has come to know and understand without any hint of uncertainty. So to suggest that the Set -Apart Spirit seemed to be of the opinion, regarding Yahowahs message generally, and the Torah specifically, is to say that they either didnt receive Her directions or they didnt process them appropriately. Baros, translated substantial hardship, speaks of something which is a tremendous, oppressive, and difficult burden which causes considerable chalenges, great suffering, and sorrow. But the intent of the Torah is to free us from oppression, not to oppress us. Its purpose is to remove our burdens by way of the Called-Out Assemblies. Properly observed, the Torah liberates us from suffering and sorrow by bringing us into a familial covenant relationship with our Heavenly Father. Yahowah says as much in Dabarym 30:10-11: Indeed (ky), you should consistently and genuinely listen (shama you should always and literally hear (qal imperfect)) with the voice (ba qowl) of Yahowah (),

your God (elohym), for the intent of (la to approach by) diligently observing, closely examining, and carefully considering (shamar focusing upon) His terms and conditions (mitswah His authorized directions and instructions regarding His Covenant contract) and (wa) His inscribed prescriptions for living (chuqah His engraved advice regarding being cut into the relationship) in this specific (ba ha zeh) written scroll (cepher written document) of the Towrah (ha Towrah the teaching and direction, instruction and guidance) if (ky) you want to actually and eternally return (shuwb you want to be genuinely and always restored, forever changing your attitude, direction, and thinking (qal imperfect)) to (el) Yahowah (), your God (elohym), with all of your heart (ba kol leb) and with all of your soul (wa ba kol nepesh). Indeed (ky), these (ha zeth) terms and conditions (mitswah authorized instructions regarding the covenant contract) which beneficially (asher which by way of the relationship) I (anky I Am) instructing you (tsawah directing and guiding you by sharing with you) this day (ha yowm) are not difficult or challenging (lo pala are not hard, troublesome, or a burden). This is not beyond your reach (hw min wa lo rachowq). If circumcision was a considerable hardship causing great suffering and sorrow, then it would have been barbaric for Yahowah to ask that our parents do this to us on the eighth day of our mortal existence. As for adult circumcision, all that is required is the removal of a small amount of skin. And if we are unwilling to do this, what does it say about our appreciation for the sacrifice Yahowah made on our behalf, where most of His skin was ripped from His body by metal-studded Roman whips, where He suffered excruciating pain by being nailed to the upright pole, and where He endured the separation of His soul from God, allowing Himself to be tortured in Sheowl on our behalf? Said another way, Yahowsha is the Torah made flesh, and His burden is light, because He does all of the hard work, performing the heavy lifting so that we can walk to Him and stand with Him. By using plen except in this context, the Disciples were implying that the specific items on the following list were baros tremendous burdens. And also, that these represented the only essential elements of the Torah which were indispensiblenone of which was accurate. The totality of the list was then comprised of: to stay away from (apechomai separate and distance yourselves from) sacrificial meat (eidolothyton food offered to pagan idols), and (kai) blood (haima), [that which is] strangled (pniktos choked to death and suffocated as part of a bloodless religious ritual), and (kai) sexual immorality (porneia sex outside of marriage, adultery, fornication, homosexuality, or bestiality), from (ek) which (hos) avoiding (diatereo-entes abstaining from) yourselves (eautous) can do (prasso

 exercise and practice) [something which is] beneficial (eu healthy and prosperous, good and excellent, correct, compassionate, and courageous). Farewell (rhonnymai be genuine, strong, and healthy, thriving and prosperous). (Acts 15:29) As a summation of the Torah, this is inaccurate and stunningly deficient. Moreover, it is wholly inconsistent with Yahowshas statements recorded in Mattanyah 5 through 7 from His Sermon on the Mount. Eidolothyton is a compound of eidolon, meaning images and likenesses, and thuo, which conveys the idea of sacrificial slaughter. It is but a subset of the earlier admonition in Acts 15:20, from which the Gentiles were asked to stay away from condemned (alisgema religious rituals and impure) idols and false gods (eidolon). This diminishment in scope, and distancing of the message from the Second Statement Yahowah etched in stone, is interesting because apart from the addition of porneia sexual immorality, the rest of the list was identical with Yaaqobs previous declaration. Diatereo, rendered avoid, is most often translated continually and carefully keep. It is from dia, through, and tereo, to observe and attend to, to guard and to keep. The author of this text first used diatereo in Luke 2:51, where Yahowsha returned to Nazareth with his parents and was subordinate to them. And His mother always remembered and treasured (diatereo kept and preserved) these words in her heart. So there is considerable room for confusion here. However, it is true: according to the Torah we should not eat meat sacrificed to idols (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 34:14). And we are not to consume blood (Baresyth / In the Beginning / Genesis 9:4, Qara / Called Out / Leviticus 3:17, 17:12-4, and Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 12:16, 23). However, these five admonitions pale by comparison to the dozens of times Yahowah speaks to us about when and why we are to eat unleavened bread in celebration of Pesach and Matsah, and none of that was even mentioned. Particularly troubling, however, is that there is absolutely no instruction from Yahowah in the Torah regarding animals which are strangled. This edict comes instead from Rabbinical Law. Kashrut, the Jewish dietary laws pertaining to how an animal is to be slaughtered for consumption, requires that the jugular artery in the neck be slit while the animal is still alive so that the heart pumps the majority of blood out prior to butchering. While the Torah instructs us not to drink blood, there are much more humane, practical, and effective ways to drain blood from a carcass. So, by including strangling in their short list of four things to be avoided, the Apostles were horrendously shortchanging the Torah, while at the same time endorsing Rabbinical Law (which Yahowsha condemned). Further, if the Gentiles took this list to be a summation of the essential requirements of the Torah, they would enrich Rabbis, as the only place they could go to purchase

meat and be assured that an animal wasnt strangled was a Kosher Jewish butcher with a Rabbinical endorsement. The heart of the Towrahs story is the Covenant, and yet neither its codicils nor its sign were mentioned. At the heart of the Towrahs account we find the Ten Statements, yet not one of them found their way into the Apostolic listnothing was said about Yahowah, idols, false teachings, or the Sabbath, much less bearing false witness, coveting, or murder. Qara / Called Out / Leviticus sits in the middle of the Towrah, and yet not one of the seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God delineated therein was described as essentialeven though they provide the lone path to God. Not even the Great Instruction: to love Yahowah, your God, with all of your mind, soul, and might, was found among the indispensible requirements. So to say this list of four items (one of whi ch was based in Rabbinical Law) was inspired by the Spirit, is to demean God and His Spirit. In trying to compromise with Paul, the Apostles became like Paul: Oblivious. This wasnt worth the paper it was written on. Pathetic as it was, the letter was sent and read, first in Antioch, and then in the other places Paul had been. The audiences cheered, we are told. And we learn that Yahuwdah and Silas shared their lengthy message with the Called-Out Assemblies, but not a word of what they preached was recorded for our benefit. It was then just four verses later that a new rift emerged, this one between Paul and his traveling companion Barnabas. But now, there emerged an intense argument (paroxysmos severe disagreement leading to exasperation). As a result, they separated and parted company (apochorizomai severed their relationship) from one another. Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed to Cyprus, but Paulos chose Silas and departed. (Acts 15:39-40) Then, in the oddest twist of irony, Paul circumcised Timothy, the next Greek man he met. Paulos desired to have (thelo wanted to have the enjoyment and the pleasure of) him go away (exerchomai) with (syn) him, so he circumcised himthough his father was a Greek. (Acts 16:3) Make of that what you will. The Apostolic Council was over. And in its wake, I see Pauls letter to the Galatians as his rebuttal so that he could more easily establish and promote the precepts of Pauline Doctrine. It is the best explanation of why Paul so vociferously detailed his credentials and background, why he referenced and misrepresented what was said during the meeting, why he spoke so derogatorily of the Apostles, especially Peter, and why he focused his epistle on discrediting the Torah and disparaging circumcision.

As a result, we can now discard Galatians, recognizing that it is unreliable. And with regard to Pauls other letters, when he affirms something which is written in the Torah, rely on the Torah. When Paul contradicts the Torah, ignore what he has written. And when Paul waxes poetic on a subject not covered in the Torah, be careful. LE: 02-19-2013