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

1 Chrestus Useful Implement Are You a Useful Tool or a Drugged Victim? Most Christians have been led to believe that Paul was the principal agent used by God to create a new religionone predicated upon faith in his Gospel of Grace. They think that the lone individual who referred to himself as an Apostle, and yet who did not walk in Yahowshas footsteps, was authorized to annul the Torah, its Meeting Times, and its Sabbatheven contradict the actual Disciples. If this actually occurred, the means to this miracle is chronicled in Pauls epistle to the Galatians which serves as the foundation of Christianity. But did this actually take place? Did Paul annul the Torah, and if so, was his replacement credible, believable? Is Christianity established on the bedrock of Scripture and logic or on the shifting sands of one mans unsubstantiated opinions? In the end it all comes down to GalatiansPauls first letter, as evidenced by the epistle itself. It is the principle place in the Greek texts where the Torah is seriously assailed. Without Galatians, there is no credible debate between Trusting the Torah and Believing the Gospel. While there are critical passages in Pauls other letters, and most especially in Romans, we will discover that Galatians provides the most methodical and ingenious approach to obfuscating Yahowahs previous testimony. Galatians is one of only two epistles where Yahowahs Sabbath and Feasts are placed in doubt, the other being Pauls letter to the Colossianswhere the conflict is more a legacy of errant translations. So without Pauls epistle there is no justification for Sunday Worship, Christmas, or Easter. Galatians is the place where faith, which has become synonymous with religion, was first pitted against the Torah, which in turn was considered symbolic of legalism. It is here, in the fourth chapter of Galatians, that Paul positions his advocacy for a second, new and different covenant, relegating the one codified by Moses on Mount Sinai to being of the flesh, a cruel taskmaster which ultimately enslaves and condemns everyone. It is the first time Jerusalem,

Judea, and Jews (textually: Yaruwshalaim, Yahuwdah, and Yahuwdym) are demeaned by someone claiming to speak for their God, with all of them becoming Pauls and the Churchs foes. But more than just being ground central for Christianitys disdain for all things YahowahHis Name, His Word, His Torah, His Covenant, His Instructions, His Sabbath, His Invitations to Meet, His Land, His Chosen People, His Way, and even YahowshaGalatians pits Pauls new religion against everything God loves. Moreover, in the epistle, the Disciple Shimown / Peter is mercilessly condemned by Paul, and Yaaqob / James and Yahowchanan / John are inappropriately demeaned. But worse, the Acts and Galatians accounts of the Jerusalem Summit, the most important meeting in the history of The Way, are irreconcilableisolating Paul from the Disciples. In fact, Galatians is Pauls response, his rebuttal, to having had his message censured, his authority assailed, and his reputation attacked, by the Disciples in Yaruwshalaim (meaning: source from which guidance and teaching regarding reconciliation flow). Pauls summation of this meeting sits in the midst of this epistle, as do the two issues which prompted the summitthe purpose of the Torah and the merit of circumcision. These themes dominate Galatians, with Pauls position running in opposition to Yahowah, Yahowsha, the Disciples, and the Word of God. In due time we will juxtapose these texts. So do not be concerned if you are currently unaware of this meeting, or of the incompatible accounts of it. More important still, Shimowns (Peters) evaluation of Galatians (found in Shimown / Peters Second Epistle), contains the single most important verse in Christendom, as it is the lone place where Pauls epistles are potentially afforded Scriptural status. So if this lone endorsement falters, if it isnt credible, or if this isnt what Shimown actually said, then the idea of the New Testament being Scripture, and being inspired by God, completely vanishes. Evidence for such a position would be relegated to the murk of myth, and the realm of human tradition. And that is why we will dissect Shauwls overt condemnation of Shimown, just as we will study Shimowns direct response to Shauwl under a linguistic microscope, contemplating the divinely-appointed Disciples view of the self-proclaimed Apostles message, his claims and letters. In ignorance of the evidence, Christian theologians unanimously side with Paul over Peter with regard to the Great Galatians Debate. In so doing, they have established their religion in opposition to Yahowah, Yahowsha, the Disciples, and the Word of God. In their view, Paul was right to associate the Torah with bondage, Yahowahs Festival Feasts with Judaism, circumcision with Jews, and Gods terms and conditions with legalism. For Christians, as a result of Pauls depiction of two covenants in the fourth chapter of Galatians, it is appropriate to

divide the Bible into two Testaments: one Old the other New, one failed and counterproductive with the other providing the promise of salvation by confession and faith. For Christians, solely as a result of Pauls epistles, hell awaits everyone who observes the Torah, while heaven embraces all those who place their faith in Pauls Gospel of Grace. With the stakes this high, with the credibility of the religion of Christianity resting upon one mans letter, with the salvation of a billion souls at stake, few things could be as important as considering the possibility that Pauls epistle might not be trustworthy if he openly contradicted the God he purported to represent. But if this world-renowned individual pulled off this feat, if he managed to supersede something as well known and revered as the Torah, and if he supplanted it with something as nebulous and mystical as faith, and convinced the world that he had done so without contradicting God, Galatians would have to be among the most brilliantly written thesis of all time. To determine if Paul changed everything, including our understanding of God and Scripture, even the means to salvation, we are going to examine his words under the lens of the worlds most acclaimed lexicons while referencing the oldest extant manuscripts. Pauls thoughts will also be scrutinized, juxtaposing each proposal against Yahowahs position on similar subjects. We will leave nothing to chance or supposition. And while we are cognizant that billions believe that Galatians is Scripture, we will be honest, even if the result is offensive. Regardless of how many religious preconceptions succumb to the evidence, our pursuit of the truth will be relentlessly rational. For those who have not read the Letter to the Reader, you should know that at the onset of this study, I was inclined to think that Paul did no such thing. At the beginning of what would become an in-depth evaluation of Pauls veracity, I was predisposed to think that scribal error, misleading translations, unsupported interpretations, confusion over which nomos Paul was assailing, and an overall ignorance of the Torahs purpose, had collectively conspired to conceive religious teachings which were inconsistent with the Apostles intended message. And yet, it will be Pauls words, not my preconceived ideas, which will determine whether or not Paul had the audacity to contradict God, undermine His Scripture, and to establish a New Testament in place of the one he sought to annul. If he did, and if he made his case, then Christianity is on solid footing. If he didnt, billions of souls have been tragically misled. In this light, it is instructive to know that Pauls given name was Shauwl. It is of Hebrew origin, and it means to question. And that is precisely what we are going to do: question Paul. You should also know that Shauwl is indistinguishable in the original Hebrew text from Sheowl, meaning the grave, the pit, and the realm of the dead.

To arrive at the truth, we, like those who have gone before us, must resolve which Law Paul was attacking: Natural Law, Roman Law, Rabbinic Law, or Yahowahs Towrahwhich actually means teaching and guidance. We will have to closely compare the oldest textual witnesses to our modern-Greek manuscripts to determine if Pauls words have been affected by scribal error, attributing things to Shauwl that he did not actually say. And after presenting Pauls letter in English, rendering it as accurately as possible from the oldest manuscripts, we will have to compare our findings to other translations to ascertain whether or not translational errors have artificially altered our impression of Pauls purpose in writing this particular letter. One of the surprising obstacles we will have to overcome along the way will become obvious in short order. Pauls letter to the Galatians is poorly written; reflecting the worst writing quality found in any of the Greek texts. We will encounter a steady diet of missing words, and worse. Many of Pauls sentences are incomprehensible. The fact that the wording is well beneath the dignity of God is something we will wrestle with, even though this doesnt seem to matter to a religion hell bent on distancing itself from Yahowah, from the Covenant, from the Torah, from the first four Statements God etched in stone, and from six of the seven Feasts (Hebrew: Miqraey Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God; Greek: Ekklesia Called-Out Assembly). Before we embark on this journey, there is something else you should know. There are those who suggest that there is a possibility that Paul did not write Galatians. They think that this epistle could have been a clever fraud which was later attributed to him. In support of this argument, there is phraseology prevalent in Galatians that appears nowhere else in the epistles assigned to Shauwl. In support of Galatians being from Paul, we must recognize that the book of Acts reveals that the Apostle had the kind of contentious relationship with the Galatians which is reflected in this epistle. We are told that the Galatians went from seeing Paul as the incarnation of a Greek god to wanting to stone him. Second, Shimown / Peter, in his second letter, evaluates an epistle Paul had written to the same audienceone that we learn from his greeting in First Peter must be Galatia, because it is the only community where their audiences overlap. So, based upon the Disciples letter, we know that Paul wrote a letter to the Galatians. And if not this epistle, then the authentic letter has been lost. But more than that, the language Shimown (He Listens) uses to describe Galatians, accurately reflects the contents we find in the surviving copy. Third, the issues raised at the Yaruwshalaim (Jerusalem) Summit serve as the centerpiece of Pauls epistle. After reading Lukes (from the Latin Lucas) testimony in Acts, its hard not to see Galatians as Pauls response to this meeting,

and his desire to position himself as favorably as possible. In fact, it will become obvious that this letter was written immediately after that meeting, long before tempers cooled. And that means that Paul would have had twelve subsequent opportunities to distance himself from Galatians had it been a fraud because his open letters to the Thessalonians, Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians, as well as the personal notes to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon came later as did most of his testimony in Acts. Never once is he heard denouncing the authenticity of Galatians, but is instead found building his case against the Towrah and its Covenant based upon the foundation he laid therein. Fourth, Galatians is all about Paul, about his childhood, his religious education, his questionable call, his self-proclaimed mission, his adversarial preaching, his suspect credibility, and his personal trials and tribulations. Within its text, we find Paul referring to himself as the parent of his faithful spiritual children, as the perfect example to follow, as a person who can do no wrong, and as someone who cannot lie. So if Paul didnt write it, Galatians was either scribed by his publicist, or by someone who spent the better part of their life polishing Pauls sandals. Fifth, the oldest extant codex containing Pauls epistles, Papyrus 46, places Galatians in the midst of the other letters attributed to Shauwl. In order of their appearance in the codex, these epistles include: Romans, Hebrews, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1st Thessalonians. And since P46 is dated between 85 and 125 CE, we know that one of the earliest assemblies to collect portions of the Greek texts believed that Paul had penned this letter. Sixth, Paul had a propensity to sign his letters so that his audience would have some assurance that he was the author. But with Galatians, he did more than just sign his name. Much of the last chapter attests to have been written by his own hand, and in really big letters. And seventh, Pauls signature term is charis, which is transliterated into English as Grace, based upon the Roman name Gratia. Apart from Pauls letters, the use of charis can only be attested by an ancient manuscript in one other place in the whole of what is known as the Christian New Testament. Therefore, the frequency of the use of the name of the Greek goddesses in this and other letters suggests that this pagan aspect of Christianity came from Paul. And this leaves us with a third alternative, that Paul was indeed the author, but that he never intended this letter to be circulated, much less to be considered Scripture. He was clearly angry, and may well have dashed off an emotional response that, from a more sober perspective, he would have wadded up and thrown away. Most of us have written letters like this; and many have had the

good sense to hold on to them long enough to read them again once our passions have subsided. The only benefit of distancing this epistle from Paul, should it prove to be a false witness, is that it would not tarnish the remainder of the letters attributed to him. But even then, the potential benefit would be fraught with peril, in that it would open the floodgates to questioning the appropriateness of everything in the so-called New Testament. And that is because the Galatians epistle was written in first person. It is based upon the life of the self-proclaimed Apostle Paul. So if it is a counterfeit, the letter is not only a complete fraud, the authorship, and therefore authority, of more than half of the Christian New Testament becomes suspect. But in reality, as we will discover in the last chapter of this review, there is very little difference between Galatians and the rest of Pauls letters. It is readily apparent that the same individual wrote them and that he was promoting the same message. And yet, ultimately the only question which really matters is whether or not Galatians is true. Is it the inspired Word of God, and thus Scripture, or not? If it is valid, so is Christianity. But if it is false, the religion is brought down with it. This conclusion is inescapable because Galatians, even more than Pauls other letters, is devoted to systematically demeaning and demoting the Torah and its Covenant. So, without Galatians there is no way to justify Christianitys corruption and ultimate violation of the first four Statements Yahowah etched in stoneas they would still stand. This would include the recognition that Yahowah is Gods only name, that Yahowah, Himself is our Savior, and that the Sabbath remains set-apart. Without Galatians there would be no way to explain Christianitys opposition to Yahowahs seven Miqraey Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with Godas they would still delineate the path to eternal life, to salvation, adoption, and reconciliation. Without Galatians, Romans, and Hebrews, there would only be one Covenant which has yet to be renewed, and thus no room for a New Testament, or a Gospel-based religion. Without Galatians, Yahowahs Torah, as is affirmed throughout the Psalms and Prophets, remains the sole means to liberate humankind from religious and political oppression. But with Galatians, the Torah is mankinds foe, the path to enslavement and condemnation. Without Galatians the Gospel of Grace would be superseded by the promise of the Torah, and its healing and beneficial message. Without Galatians, our association with God would be based exclusively upon the Torahs everlasting Covenant, upon knowing Yahowah and relying upon His Guidance. Without Galatians, admission to heaven would be predicated upon responding to Yahowahs invitations to meet with Him as these are articulated in the Torah and

affirmed by Yahowsha. Without Galatians, faith, is irrelevant, as is the religion of Christianity, because the God who authored the Torah can be known. And in this regard, faith is the opposite of trust. Trust emerges from a discerning evaluation of the evidence, while faith thrives in the absence of information and reason. So, while there will be some lingering debate regarding the authenticity of this epistle, we will proceed as if Galatians is genuine. And while we may never be able to adequately resolve whether or not the epistle was written by Paul, at least in the minds of those predisposed to think otherwise, we will be able to determine with absolute certainty whether or not it was inspired by God. And in the end, that is all this study portends to determine. Since the religion of Christianity has severed its relationship with Yahowahs Torah and its Covenant, should Pauls epistle to the Galatians prove to be unreliable for any reason, the religion of Christianity falls, as it can be neither inspired nor true. It is that simple, that clear cut.

While we will analyze every word of Galatians, from Shauwls greeting to his handwritten closing statement, our review of Christendoms foundational treatise will commence at the same place Christians begin their assault on the Torah. That occurs in Galatians 3, verses 10 through 14. So, lets take a moment and consider the King James Version (Christianitys most influential bible translation) and New Living Translations (the religions most recent and liberal variation and among the most popular) depictions of these passages, juxtaposed against a literal rendering of the earliest first-century manuscript of Shauwls letter. Reason dictates that if the following KJV and NLT translations are accurate, then the Torah, is Gods way of cursing humankindnot saving us. And if this is true, Yahowah and Yahowsha are liars. The King James reads: For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. (3:10) More clearly presented, albeit, less aligned with the Greek text, the New Living Translation published: But those who depend on the law to make them right with God are under his curse, for the Scriptures say, Cursed is everyone

who does not observe and obey all the commands that are written in Gods Book of the Law. (3:10) If they are correct, Gods Word is Gods curse. Based upon the words Shauwl selected, this is what he actually wrote: For as many as who exist from assigned tasks and activities of the law or apportionment, they are under a curse, because it has been written that: A curse upon all who do not remain alive in and who do not persevere with all the things that have been written in the scroll of the Torah, to do them. (Galatians 3:10) (Please note: for those more accustomed to the amplified translations which make Yada Yah unique, replete with the Hebrew and Greek text, they exist for every passage we will review, even these, when they reappear in the natural flow of the Galatians letter.) Recognizing that the preceding translation is a literal rendering of Papyrus 46, the oldest extant manuscript of Shauwls letter (dated to the late first or early second century), its hard to explain the KJVs and NLTs considerable variation from it. Rather than saying that those who depend on the law to make them right with God are under his curse, Shauwl cited a Torah passage which says the opposite: A curse upon all who do not remain alive in and who do not persevere with all the things that have been written in the scroll of the Torah, for the purpose of acting upon them. According to the Scripture passage Shauwl quoted, without the Torah, there is no life. Shauwl misquoted Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 27:26, which reads: Cursed (arar invoking harm upon oneself and causing ones life to become embittered (scribed in the qal passive indicating that this condition is brought upon oneself as a result of inaction)) is whoever relationally (asher) is not restored and established (lo quwm supported so as to rise and abide, standing upright and affirmed (scribed in the hiphil imperfect indicating that we are restored over time based upon our responses)) in association with (eth) the words (dabarym statements, message, and accounts) of this, the Torah (zoth ha towrah this specific and exclusive source from which direction, teaching, guidance, and instruction flow), for the purpose of (la so as to approach by) acting upon them (asah eth engaging in them, profiting from them, and celebrating with them (scribed in the qal infinitive which indicates a literal interpretation with an actual purpose)). And the entire (wa kol) family (am) said (amar chose of their own volition to literally affirm and completely acknowledge without reservation (scribed in the qal perfect consecutive which conveys something which is literal, complete, and volitional)), This is true, acceptable, and reliable (aman upholding, nourishing, and affirming). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 27:26) Interestingly, the verse Shauwl mangled in Galatians undermines the Christian argument, as well as his own position, because it obliterates the idea that

the Torah is pass. But even if observing the Torah wasnt presented as the lone means to becoming restored and established, as God has just stated, if the Almighty was actually a capricious prankster, and if His Torah was really a curse as Paul and others have claimed, then citing it as evidence for that conclusion would be irrational, because nothing God said could be trusted. Christian apologists, steeped in Pauline Doctrine, will say that the Torah isnt a pick and choose sort of thing, and that to be redeemed you would have to do everything it says all of the time, or else youll be cursed by it. But that is not the message conveyed in this Dabarym / Deuteronomy passagenor by Yahowsha. God knows that we cannot be perfect, which is why He provided the means to recovery in the heart of the Torah. But since Paul severed the relationship between the Torah and the Maaseyah, and then completely rejected the path to salvation Yahowah provided through His seven Called-Out Assemblies, most Christians are unaware of the Torahs redemptive properties. As a result of Pauline Doctrine, the overwhelming preponderance of Christians dont recognize that when Yahowsha said I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, that the Maaseyahs Way and His definition of Truth, were both embodied in observing and following the Torah. And that is why at the conclusion of His Sermon on the Mount He called the Torah the narrow way to Life. Simply stated, by fulfilling Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits, Yahowsha facilitated the gift of salvation Yahowah promised and provided in the Torah. But by severing this connection, by disassociating Yahowsha from Yahowahs Word, the Maaseyahs life, His testimony, and His sacrifice become as meaningless as the faith Christians place in them. Moving on to Shauwls next thought, as it is found in the King James, we find: But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. (3:11) Updated for modern sensibilities, the New Living Translation passage reads: So it is clear that no one can be made right with God by trying to keep the law. For the Scriptures say, It is through faith that a righteous person has life. (3:11) And yet Pauls first point was anything but clear, because he cited a passage which contradicted his premise. But more telling still, the Scriptures dont actually say anything about faith, much less that it leads to being just or righteous. Therefore, both positions are illogical. Even if no one was justified by the Torah that would still not infer that the just or righteous shall live by faith. Rather than cause and consequence, these ideas are unrelated. It is like saying: red wagons dont work so it is evident we should put our faith in blue tricycles. More to the point, if Gods Torah cannot be relied upon, in whom are we to express our faith?

And as I had mentioned, the Scriptures DO NOT say, It is through faith that a righteous person has life. The passage Shauwl truncated this time actually reads: Behold, the puffed up; his soul is not considered to be upright in him. The upright and vindicated live by trusting that which is trustworthy (by finding security and safety in that which is firmly established, consistently faithful, always steadfast, dependable, honest, and true). (Chabaquwq / Habakkuk 2:4) Unfortunately we cant spin this to suggest that Shauwl was actually speaking of the inadequacy of legalistic works, and most especially of the inappropriateness of the Oral Law of the Rabbis, when he wrote: But it is clearly evident that no one is vindicated or justified by law or apportionment before God (represented by the placeholder ), because The upright and just shall live out of faith (pistis originally meant trust and reliance but migrated over time as a result of Shauwls epistles to convey belief and faith). (Galatians 3:11) If Shauwl did not hang himself with these words, at the very least he was twisting the knot which would become his noose. I say this because his statement is the antithesis of Gods instructions. If Paul was right, it would be equivalent of God saying: I will save those who contradict Me and justify those who negate and belittle the plan I have established. The reason we cannot substitute Rabbinical Law for Yahowahs Towrah in this passage is because the sentence begins But with that Law / Apportionment, and thus is referring to the book from which the citation in the previous verse was taken. There Paul used nomou (the singular genitive case (explained in chapter 7, Towrah Teaching) to represent the Hebrew title the Towrah. Also worth noting, while pistis trust and reliance would normally have been translated trust or reliance in any Greek passage, it will become obvious over time that Paul used it to convey faith or belief, because he never once supplies the kind of evidence which would be required for understanding, much less trust or reliance. Continuing to mislead by way of senseless prose, the KJV renders the next verse: And the law is not of faith: but, the man that doeth them shall live in them. (3:12) Deploying a different tactic, the NLT authored a statement which could only be considered true in the context of religion. This way of faith is very different from the way of law, which says, It is through obeying the law that a person has life. (3:12) Should the translation team deployed by Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. have meant that the way of the Christian faith is very different than the way of the Torah, then they would be right. But can that way of faith be right is the

multi-billion soul question. Can Pauls thesis, his faith, his religion, be very different from the way delineated by God in the Torah and still reconcile fallen man into a relationship with that same God? Has God endorsed a revised plan which is counter to the one He originally authored? And yet if He did such a thing, wouldnt it make Him untrustworthy and unreliable? Irrespective of the answer, at least the battle lines have been drawn. According to the most popular modern translation it is now the Torah vs. Christianity. So let the Great Galatians Debate begin: are we to trust Yahowahs Torah or believe Pauls Gospel of Grace? Examining the words Shauwl wrote, we find him quoting (or more correctly, misquoting) the very Torah Christians are wont to deny and separate themselves from: The Law / Apportionment (nomos allotment which is parceled out for the purpose of nurturing those with an inheritance; from nemo to provide nourishment to heirs; deployed here, however, as a misleading rabbinical reference to the Torah) exists not out of faith or belief (pistis originally meant trust and reliance but migrated over time as a result of Shauwls epistles to convey belief and faith), but to the contrary, The one who performs them lives by them. (Galatians 3:12) Recognizing that Paul didnt express this thought very well, we must turn to the passage he referenced to ascertain if the point he was trying to convey was valid. Turning to Yahowahs Torah, to Qara / Called Out / Leviticus 18:5, Yahowah imparts the following instruction: And you should choose to literally and completely observe (shamar you should of your own volition want to actually and closely examine, completely considering (scribed in the qal perfect consecutive)) My prescriptions for living (chuqah My engraved instructions regarding how to be cut into the relationship) and My means to resolve disputes (mishpat My means to exercise good judgment). Whoever (asher) actually and consistently acts upon them (asah eth genuinely engages by literally and continually responding to them (scribed in the qal imperfect)), that person (ha adam) is genuinely and completely restored to life and will continually live (wa chayah is totally renewed, completely and consistently nurtured, and always kept alive (scribed in the qal perfect wa consecutive which literally and genuinely blends the aspects of complete and continual)) by them (ba with them). I am (any) Yahowah (). It appears that Paul has once again deliberately abbreviated a passage which is inconsistent with his own message, perhaps hoping that the use of some common words, would be sufficient to convince his audience that God supports his position.

But in the quoted verse, God did not say that the law is very different than faith, or that through faith a person has life, or anything remotely similar to either proposition. He said that a close examination and careful consideration of His prescriptions for living enables a person who acts upon them to live, restoring their life. This is once again, the antithesis of the Christian position. While we are making such distinctions, it is important to realize that it is grotesquely inappropriate to refer to Yahowahs Torah as law, as Paul does throughout his letters. The Hebrew word towrah means source from which teaching, instruction, direction, and guidance flow. These concepts are educational. They are enlightening. They are not controlling. And they are not restrictive, but instead liberating. Rabbis like Paul (who was a Pharisee) deliberately perverted Yahs testimony so that they could claim credibility for their own set of laws those recorded principally in the rabbinic Talmud. So by referring to the Towrah as nomos, Paul, who was educated in Hebrew, demonstrated that he should not be trusted. Those who would argue that Yahowsha refers to the Towrah as nomos in His Sermon on the Mount would be wrong. Yahowsha spoke Hebrew and Aramaic, not Greek. And the Disciple Mattanyah, who was an eyewitness to Yahowshas first and largest public declaration, wrote his biographical account in Hebrew. Someone, perhaps a century later, translated Mattanyahs words into Greek. Therefore, the only informed and rational conclusion that can be drawn relative to Yahowshas statements in support of the Towrah is that He cited the accurate title of the book, He, Himself, authored. Paul, however, cannot be afforded this excuse. And that is because all of Pauls letters, including Galatians, were originally written in Greek. He deliberately chose nomos to misrepresent Yahowahs Torah. Further, he did so in full accord with rabbinical Judaism a religious proposition Yahowsha thoroughly rebuked. These things known, there is much more to nomos than meets the eye of the casual observer. The word is based upon nemo to provide, assign, and distribute an inheritance and to nourish heirs. It is an allotment which is bestowed and parceled out for the purpose of feeding hungry sheep. Metaphorically, then, a nomos is a prescription for living which is given to us by God so that we might live with Him as His children, be fed and grow, inheriting all that is His to give. So in this regard, properly defined, nomos actually provides a fitting depiction of Yahowahs Towrah teaching, guidance, direction, and instruction on how we go about choosing to engage in His Covenant Family.

Moving on to the next verse as it is presented in the King James and New Living Translation, we find: KJV: Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: (3:13) If the King James has accurately reflected Pauls thought, then, according to Paul, the Torah is a curse. For this interpretation of Pauls statement to be correct, rather than fulfilling the Torah, Yahowsha ransomed us from its clutches. It also means that Yahowsha, rather than being the prefect Lamb of God, judged from the perspective of the Torah, embodied all the negativity a curse implies. Absolving Paul of the untenable position he has been placed in by the King James Version, the New Living Translation twists the text to convey a different perspective: But Christ has rescued us from the curse pronounced by the law. When he was hung on the cross, he took upon himself the curse for our wrongdoing. For it is written in the Scriptures, Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree. (3:13) To the New Living Translations shame, there is no reference to a cross anywhere in the Greek texts, much less in this passage. To Shauwls shame, the Torah verse should not have been abridged nor misquoted out of context. While the Torahs prediction is profoundly accurate, and stunningly prophetic, its merit was mitigated by the way Paul truncated it. But first things first: here is how the Greek text of Shauwls letter reads: Maaseyah ( a divine placeholder for Maaseyah, the Implement Doing the Work of Yahowah) redeemed us from the curse of the Law / Allocation, having become a curse for our sake, because it has been written: A curse upon everyone who is hanging upon wood. (Galatians 3:13) The Scripture reference Shauwl quoted is Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 21:23. It is predictive of the Maaseyah, revealing that Yahowsha would be judged to be guilty of a sin worthy of death (our revolt against God), that He would be suspended from a wooden timber, that His body would be removed from the upright pole before the sun set, that his lifeless corpse would be prepared and placed in a sepulcher, as opposed to being buried in the ground, and that as a result of having our sins associated with Him, Yahowsha would be scorned and despised by Godsomething which was required to redeem us from our sins. The Torah passage reads: When it comes to pass that an individual is judged guilty of sin worthy of death, and he is put to death, and you suspend and hang him on a wooden timber, do not allow his dead body to stay overnight (remain after sunset) on the wooden timber. Rather instead you shall surely prepare his dead body for a tomb and place it inside (it is essential that you bury him in a sepulcher) on that same day. Indeed because he

who is hanged (suspended and displayed), is the disparaged and degraded (is the maligned, abused, vilified, scorned, and cursed) of God. Do not cut into your soil which Yahowah, your God, gave to you as an inheritance, making it unclean. (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 21:22-23) This is a prophetic picture, albeit incomplete, of the Maaseyahs fulfillment of the Torahs presentation of Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits. And it serves to inform us that Yahowshas physical body, as the Passover Lamb, would not survive the night, and thus would not be buried. Yahowah uses prophecies like this one, and a thousand more like it, to prove that He inspired His Scriptures. He did this so that we would be able to trust everything else He has to say. Only God can get every prophecy right, every time without fail. So what we have learned thus far is that the King James is unreliable and inaccurate, and that the New Living Translation isnt a translation of the Greek text, but instead a very loose paraphrase whereby its authors became story tellers. To its credit, the NLT reads smoothly, and sounds nice, which is why I suppose it has become so popular. But as a study tool, it is of no practical use and is potentially harmful. We have also learned that Paul has misapplied and misquoted Scripture, which is troubling. All four citations were abridged, taken out of context, and altered to make it appear as if Pauls message and Gods were in sync. This will become a bad habit, one which many Christians have come to emulate to justify their religious views. And it is also curious that each of the four Scriptural passages Shauwl cited actually affirmed the value and enduring nature of the Torah, and thus undermined the Christian religion. And that suggests Paul had very little respect for the intelligence of his audience. Since we are on the subject, lets consider Yahowshas statements regarding the Torah to ascertain whether or not Paul had the authority to annul it, should that have been his intent. The human manifestation of God is translated from Hebrew to Greek and then to English saying: Do not assume that I have come to weaken, dismantle, invalidate, or abolish (kataluso loosen, tear down, or dissolve, put an end to, do away with, or annul) the Towrah (nomos allotment which is parceled out, inheritance which is given, nourishment which is bestowed to be possessed and used, precept which was apportioned, established, and is received as a means to be proper and approved, rule or prescription to become an heir and grow; from nemo that which is provided, assigned, and distributed to heirs to nourish them (Yahowsha was not speaking Greek and thus did not say nomos and would have instead accurately pronounced the title of the book He authored)) or the Prophets. I have not come to do away with, but instead to completely fulfill. (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 5:17) That was as

unequivocal as it was opposed to Christian tradition. To annul the Torah, one has to contradict God. For truly (amein this is reliable and trustworthy) I say to you all, until the heaven and the earth pass away never may one jot (iota the smallest letter in Hebrew) nor tittle (keraia the top stroke of Hebrew letters) be passed by (parerchomai be ignored or be disregarded) from the Towrah until it all happens. (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 5:18) And therein, the notion of a New Testament is torn asunder. According to God, His original is still in vogue. More telling still, the majority of Yahowahs prophecies, including His return and His ultimate renewal and restoration of the family-oriented Covenant with Yisrael and Yahuwdah, have not yet happened, and the heavens and earth remain. Therefore, the Torah still stands. Therefore, whoever dismisses (luo does away with, dissolves, invalidates, or abolishes) one of the least of these directions (entole precepts, prescriptions, and authoritative instructions) or teaches (didasko indoctrinates or instructs) people to do the same in the same way, they will be called the least important (elachistos will be considered to be so small as to be insignificant and undignified) in the kingdom of the heavens. But whoever performs (poieomai accomplishes and celebrates, practices and profits from) them, and teaches them, such a person shall be called great and most important in the kingdom of the heavens. (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 5:19) Now thats something for Christians to think about, especially considering the subject and speaker. But it raises a question: since this is Yahowshas assessment of those who dismiss the Torah, how would you evaluate Shauwls standing with Yahowah if he convinced the world that he had done this very thingand all with Gods blessing? Said another way, is there even one chance in a billion that God inspired, even condoned and endorsed, the writings of a man who invalidated the Torah in light of this statement by Yahowsha? Do Christians honestly believe that Paul can contradict God and still be trusted? Recognizing that Shauwl was, or at least claimed to be a Pharisee, please consider what Yahowsha said next: Because I promise and say to you all, that unless your righteousness, integrity, legal standing, and adherence to the relationship is abundantly superior to and more appropriate than the religious teachers, experts, scribes, scholars, and Pharisees (Pharisaios members of a fundamentalist political and religious party comprised of hypocritical Jews who coveted authority, were overtly religious, set rules which others had to abide by, established religious rituals and traditions, and interpreted

Scripture to their liking), you will never move into or experience the realm of the heavens. (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 5:20) In that we are a mere four verses into our study, it would be presumptuous for us to assume that Pauls overall intent was to belittle and foreclose the Torah. But these Galatians passages certainly suggest that Christian theologians are justified in their interpretation of Pauls message when they cite this letter as evidence that the Torah is an outdated burden which enslaves, and when they preach that Pauls faith liberates. But why is it that not one Christian theologian has the character, courage, and intellectual integrity to say that Pauls position, if Christians have interpreted it correctly, is diametrically opposed to Yahowshas teaching on the subject of salvation, and that his statements are in direct conflict with Scripture? Speaking to those who are willing to invest the time required to know the truth, Yahowsha said: Keep asking, making an earnest request and it shall be given as a gift to you. Keep seeking, searching for knowledge, and you will discover and experience it, know the truth and find what you are looking for. Keep knocking, requesting acceptance at the door, and it will be opened for you, and you will be granted entrance to the place you desire and will be given access to understanding. For then all who make an earnest request receive, they will be acquired and accepted, and they will be taken by the hand and carried away. And those who search for the location and for knowledge, who desire to learn, will know the truth and find the place they wish to experience. Those who request acceptance at the door, they will be granted entrance and given access to understanding. What man is there among you, when his son shall ask him for a loaf, will give him as stone? Or if he should ask for a fish, would give him a snake? If then you being morally corrupt know and understand how to give good, valuable, and generous gifts to your children, how much more by way of contrast will your Father who is in heaven produce and give valuable, good, and generous gifts to those who ask Him? Accordingly, everything, as much as what you may desire that humans do and perform for you, in this same manner you perform for them, (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:7-11) Yahowsha would conclude His Sermon on the Mount with this announcement: for then this is the Torah and the Prophets: Enter through the narrow, exacting, and specific doorway because the passageway is crafted to be wide, artificial, and unreliable, and the way of life is wide open which deceives and influences someone to go astray to the point of destruction and perishing, needlessly squandering their existence, and the vast preponderance of people start the first step in their journey through it. The doorway is exacting and specific, and the way of life is unpopular, which leads to life, and few experience it. (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:12-14)

Therefore, if Yahowsha (Yahowahs human manifestation) was telling the truth, the Torah is the lone path to life, and all other paths lead to destruction. And paths which needlessly squander a persons existence would include faith-based paths. But this also means that popular pathsand there are none more popular than Christianitylead to the death and destruction of those who follow their edicts. This is a profoundly important truth few Christians consider. And yet it is the reason, the only reason, we are examining Paul and his letter to the Galatians. As an interesting aside, Yahowshas instructions regarding eternal life tell us to begin by entering through a specific doorway. And that is because the first of seven steps to our salvation begins by answering Yahowahs summons to walk through the doorway labeled Passover. This blood-smeared doorway which initiated the exodus from the crucible of Egypt, and the liberation of Gods Chosen People from their enslavement in oppressive human political and religious schemes, represents heavens portal. Yahowsha is the doorway, the living embodiment of Passover, the first of seven steps to the final result, which is camping out with God. But Yahowsha was not yet finished warning Christians not to disregard the Torah. With these words, he would tell them not to trust Paul: You must be alert, carefully examine, prosecute, and turn away (prosechete you should pay close attention, watch out for and beware of, guarding yourself) from false prophets who come to you from within dressed in sheeps clothing, yet they actually are wolves who are exceptionally self-promoting and self-serving (harpax vicious carnivorous thieves who secretly and deliberately rob, extort, and snatch away; from harpazo: to violently, forcibly, and eagerly claim and seize for oneself and pluck away). (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:15) Yahowsha could not have made this message any clearer for you. He told us what we could rely upon and whom we should not trust. He just said that a selfserving insider would feign an alliance with Him so that he could more easily snatch souls away from God. He was speaking about Pauland those who have allied themselves with him. At the same time Yahowsha also warned all who would listen to Him: I have come in My Fathers Name and you do not receive Me, yet if another comes in his own name, him you would receive. (Yahowchanan / Yah is Merciful / John 5:43) Considering how often Paul wrote: but I Paul say.., its a wonder more people dont recognize that Paul is the one who not only came in his own name, but the one so may would receive. Paul even said: imitate me and if someone teaches in opposition to what I say let him be accursed. Paul was not only fixated on himself, he claimed the entire world for himself. His writings are

also exposed by Yahs Torah instructions on how to discern a prophet who speaks on His behalf. Indeed as a result, you will completely know, recognize, and understand (epiginosko complete and accurate understanding based upon a thorough examination of the evidence) them from their fruit, from their results and harvests. All those calling Me Lord Lord will not enter the kingdom of heaven, but to the contrary, those in heaven are those who do My Fathers will (thelema do what He decided and proposed [read: who observe Yahowahs Torah]). Many will say to Me in this specific day, Lord, Lord, did we not speak inspired utterances and prophesy in Your name and drive out demons in Your name, and perform many mighty miracles in Your name? And then at that time, I will profess to them that I never acknowledged, recognized, understood, or associated with them. You all must leave and depart from Me, those who bring about that which is Torah-less (anomia without an allocation, those who are not nourished as heirs). (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:20-23) Are you listening? (Speaking of listening, throughout His Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, Yahowah assigns the title Lord to Satan because this title embodies the Adversarys ambition. He does not refer to Himself as the Lord, and in fact, Yahowah tells us in Yirmayahuw / Jeremiah that the greatest crime mankind has ever committed is replacing His one and only name with Satans title each of the seven thousand times He included it in His testimony.) All of those who really listen to and actually hear My words and who do as I have said, they are like a sensible and wise, intelligent and prudent, man who builds, edifies, and strengthens a family home upon the rock (petra a reference to Himself as the Rock of our Salvation). And rain descended and the rivers came, and also the tempestuous wind blew, and yet their family and household did not fall down or prostrate themselves because the established foundation was upon the rock. (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 7:24-25) While Christians will tell you that Paul won the argument over the importance of the Torah, Yahowsha begs to differ. In that this introductory chapter was written to frame the issues which are at stake, lets pause a moment and consider the options at your disposal regarding Pauls Scriptural misquotes. You can ignore them based upon the notion that you believe that I have misrepresented Pauls or Yahowahs statements. But this approach is easily resolved. Flip forward to the Towrah Prescriptions chapter where every Hebrew and Greek word delineated in these passages is displayed so that you can do your own due diligence and verify the text and the translations for yourself. Or simpler yet, just compare standard English translations of the Scripture passage and Shauwls quotation and note the differences.

Since the first option is a nonstarter, you can accept the fact that the citations are different, but attribute their divergence to an inadvertent mistake on Pauls part. But if you do, you must also abandon the notion that Pauls letters are Scripturethe inerrant Word of God. And with that realization, the foundation of Christianity crumbles. You can admit that there is a pattern of malfeasance with regard to all of Pauls Scriptural citations, and recognize that they are misquoted and then twisted to support Pauline Doctrine, which means that he intended to misrepresent them. But if you take this path, you will be compelled to label Paul a false witness. And at that point, Christianity becomes false yet another popular and broad path that leads to destruction. Since the last two options were devastating, and the initial one was invalid, you could blame the mistakes on scribal error, suggesting that Pauls Scriptural quotations were correct initially, but that over time scribes inadvertently misrepresented his words, creating a false impression. But this is a slippery slope. The oldest significant codex of the Christian New Testament is Papyrus 46, which is dated between 85 and 125 CE, thirty-five to seventy-five years after the epistle was scribed, and it contains a complete copy of most all of Pauls epistles. If it isnt reliable, then nothing in the so-called Christian New Testament is reliableas there is only one superior witness, Papyrus 75 which covers Luke and John, and it was scribed one-hundred years later. Therefore, if scribes significantly altered Pauls letters during this relatively small period of time, the list of appropriately supported and reliable New Testament books would shrink to two: portions of Luke and John. The rest, based as they are on far less reliable and far more recent manuscripts, would be far too suspect to believe. And of course, that would mean that the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms would still stand, as they would be unchallenged. Or you can take the quietly popular, albeit seldom articulated, Christian position regarding these misquotesone derived from Marcion in the early second century. He concluded that the God who inspired the Torah was mean spirited, and no longer relevanta position which many Christians hold, even if they are too timid to voice it. As such, Marcion attempted to nullify the Torah by encapsulating it within a collection which he labeled the Old Testament, and thus suggested that it was the will of a now deceased, or at least irrelevant deity. Marcion promoted the myth that Paul was the only true Apostle, and that he alone spoke for the new and improved god of his New Testament. Pauls letters were canonized as a result a collection that included all of Pauls letters and edited portions of Luke and Acts. Thereby, Shauwl of Tarsus was positioned and purported to correct the errors that the old God had made. As a result, Pauls new faith forever separated believers: from Yahowah, from the first four statements

God etched in stone, from six of His seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet, from the Chosen People and the Promised Land, and from Yahowahs WordHis Torah. Beyond the fact that this makes a mans opinions more important than Gods Word, the Maaseyah Yahowshas testimony is in complete harmony with Yahowah and it is in total conflict with Shauwls epistles. Simply stated, the Christian position is unsupportable; it is ignorant and irrational. So the question remains: are you?

Lets lay out some ground rules before we consider Pauls opening comments in Galatians. Calling the Christian New Testament Scripture is a human edict, not a Godly directive. Neither Yahowah, Yahowsha, nor any of the Disciples, ever referred to anything in addition to the Hebrew text in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms as such. According to Yahowah and Yahowsha, the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms comprise the totality of Scripture. Therefore, the only parts of the historical and eyewitness accounts which should be considered inspired by God are the words and deeds of Yahowsha which are translated and recorded in the biographical accounts and in the book of Revelation which was given by dictation. Shauwls epistles, on the other hand, only contain one citation from Yahowsha (which he gets wrong), and no accurate quotations of the Torah, which serves as an admission that his letters contain his opinions. So our mission will be to determine whether or not Pauls opinions were accurate. In this light, you may have noticed that there were ten italicized words set within [brackets] among the four Galatians verses already cited. These pronouns, prepositions, and verbs were not written in the Greek text. And yet for the sentences to read appropriately, they had to be added. And even then, Shauwls thoughts were inadequately compiled, opening the door to invalid interpretations. In fact, as we shall see, Shauwls letter to the Galatians was so poorly conceived, it is insulting to suggest that God inspired it word for word as it was written. As with everything God had to say, and frankly to understand any message, we must always consider it in context. The practice of citing isolated verses to prove a point is usually invalid and often misleading. It is how the church has managed to justify the many religious doctrines which are contrary to the Torah. Clerics get by with doing so, because most Christians are unwilling to compare

their religions teachings with passages which oppose them. They arent even willing to check to see if the context of the discussion alters the religious edict. And since Paul deployed this tactic with reckless abandon, subconsciously Christians may now believe that it isnt irresponsible. According to Yahowah and Yahowsha, nothing, no matter how big or small, alters or abolishes, adds to or subtracts from anything in the Torah. So, any claim to the contrary, is contrary to God. Therefore, first among the many reasons behind the Christian confusion regarding the relationship between the Torah and Yahowsha is derived from Pauls letters, and most especially his notion that there are two covenants with a new one already established. This separation and polarization was then aided and abetted, and the connection was ultimately destroyed, by way of horridly errant English translations. And that is why this chapter began focusing on themsomething we will continue throughout this review. Having just reviewed only four verses that were all cited out of context, it would be presumptuous to conclude that this portion of Shauwls letter was intended as a debate between the Torah and Grace, or even between the Torah and his Gospel. From the most favorable vantage point, we could probably spin Pauls words to infer that men and women cannot work their way to God. To be saved, at least according to this very narrow, and probably unsupportable interpretation, Paul could be affirming what Scripture actually says: that to be saved we must closely observe, come to understand, and then trust and rely upon the healing and beneficial message delineated in the Torah, and fulfilled by Yahowsha. Trust and reliance upon what Yahowah said and what Yahowsha did is the one and only answer according to the Torah. But we are still six chapters removed from knowing if this is what Shauwl actually intended to confirm, or if this is what he intended to refute. Second, the Christian perspective on God and His plan may well be backwards and upside down. It is from the end, rather than from the beginning. To appreciate a set of plans, and the home built by way of those plans, you have to start with a firm foundation, not with the roof. The Torah is the beginning, the foundation, while Revelation is the cupola set upon the roof of His Tabernacle. Third, Christians confuse observing the Torah with Judaism, as if these things were related. But they are not. Religious Jews observe the Talmud, which is based upon their oral traditions. The religion of Judaism is in conflict with the Torah, which is why it was exposed and condemned by Yahowsha. Also, Rabbis, who have no Scriptural authority or legitimacy, dont understand that observing the Torah, doesnt mean to do it, but instead closely examining and carefully considering what it says so as to comprehend its message.

Fourth, the essence of the Torah isnt a set of laws to be followed, but instead the Towrah is a word picture of Yahowahs purpose, teaching and guiding us so that we come to know Him and understand what He is offering. It is a portrait of Yahs Covenant. And it serves as a symbolic depiction of His plan of salvation. The Torahs every story and example represent facets on a diamond, providing a perspective from which to observe, enjoy, and benefit from Yahowahs brilliant Light. The Torah is overwhelmingly metaphorical and symbolic, painting word pictures to help us know Yahowah, understand His plan of reconciliation and salvation, and rely on His provision. In this light, it is better to understand the relevance of Passover and Unleavened Bread, and capitalize upon these gifts, than it is to simply do what is delineated on the right date. Understanding leads to trust, trust leads to reliance, and reliance leads to salvation. Our works dont lead to any of these places. Fifth, the Torah and Yahowsha are inseparable. According to Yahowah, the Torah is the Word of God and Yahowsha is the Word made fleshthe living embodiment of the Torah. So the very notion that we must choose between the Torah or Gods favor, is an attempt to divide the indivisible. Remember Yahowahs description of Yahowshas mission in the Torah: Yahowah, your God, will raise up for you a prophet like me from your midst, from your brothers. Listen to Him. This is according to all that you desired of Yahowah, your God, in Horeb, in the day of the assembly, saying, Let us not continuously hear the voice of Yahowah, our God, nor see this great fire, lest we die. And Yahowah said to me, Well spoken. I will raise them up a prophet like you from among their brothers. I will put My words in His mouth and He will speak as I direct Him. The one who will not listen intelligently to My words which He shall speak in My Name, I shall investigate. (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 18:15-19) Therefore, God told us to listen to the words Yahowsha would speak and now has spoken. And that those words would be affirmations and citations of the Torah itself. Sixth, the Torah is the basis, the foundation, the purpose of Yahowshas life. He came to fulfill the Torah. He came to enable the seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with Him by paying the toll so that we could walk to and with Yahowah. As He told the men on the road to Emmaus immediately after fulfilling Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits, if you want to understand Him, who He is and what He did, you have to change your perspective, your attitude, and your thinking to that of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. According to Yahowsha, it isnt the Torah versus Mercy, but instead the Torah providing His unearned and fortuitous gift. The Torah is the source of the healing and beneficial message that the human term Gospel corrupts.

Seventh, perhaps the biggest problem of all is reflected in one of the discussions Yahowsha had with His disciples. When they failed to understand that the yeast which was removed from our souls on Unleavened Bread, was none other than religious and political pontifications, teachings, and doctrines, Yahowsha said: How is it that you did not think so as to understand (noeo use your mind to comprehend) that I was not speaking about a loaf of bread when I said Be alerted to and turn away from (prosecho apo beware of, guard against, and distance yourself from) the yeast (zyme leavening fungus) of the Pharisees (the overtly religious leaders) and Sadducees (the worldly-minded, liberal political leaders)? (Mattanyah / Yahs Gift / Matthew 16:11) For the most part, religious people dont think. And the few who do, suffer from corrupted datain the form of horribly errant translations.

The author of the letter to the Galatians began his landscape-altering treatise by announcing: Paulos (Paulos of Latin origin, meaning small), an Apostle/a prepared messenger who is set apart (apostolos a representative who is dispatched; from stello, one who is prepared and equipped, and apo, to be set apart; but often transliterated as a title: Apostle), [is] not (ou) from (apo) men (anthropos), and [is] not even (oude) by the means of (dia) man (anthropos), but to the contrary (alla) [exists and writes] on behalf of (dia on account of and by means of) [the] Maaseyah Yahowsha (based upon the placeholders ). God (from the placeholder ), the Ab-Father (based upon the placeholder ), caused Him (autos) to be restored, to stand up, and to rise (egeiromai) from (ek and out of) a corpse (nekros). (Galatians 1:1) This opening line affirms that Paul, Paulos as he was known in Greek, or Shauwl in Hebrew, unequivocally believed, or at least wanted others to believe, that he spoke for the Maaseyah Yahowsha. Whether or not that proves to be true will be determined in due time, as that is the entire purpose of this book. But it is interesting to note that Shauwl didnt say, at least in this verse, that he was speaking for God, the Father. That subtlety is lost on most Christians who have replaced Yahowah with their Lord Jesus Christ, in effect focusing on the implement as opposed to the One wielding it. Moreover, if He rose from a corpse He would have been disqualified as the Passover Lamb, because according to the Torah (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 12:10) the remainder of the lambs body must be incinerated that evening. This issue isnt insignificant however. While Yahowsha came from Yahowah, they are not equivalent. Yahowsha cannot equal Yahowah because

Yahowsha, by His own admission, and by necessity, is the diminished manifestation of Yahowah. All of God cannot fit into a human form, and the undiminished presence of God would consume our planet. This concept was affirmed by Yahowsha when He acknowledged: The Father is greater than I am. This concept is also affirmed by Einsteins famous equation E=mc2. Since Yahowah is Spirit and describes Himself as Light, He is energy. Yahowsha as a man was corporeal, and thus matter. Einsteins formula reveals that energy and matter are exactly the same thing, but they are not equivalent. He proved that matter is a substantially diminished form of energy. If the human manifestation of God was equal to God, whats known as the Lords prayer would become nonsensical, as it would have Yahowsha saying: Pray to Me who is in heaven, set-apart is My name, My kingdom come, My will be done So, now with the Son having returned to the Father, its curious that Paul saw himself representing the representative. The key aspect of this introduction from Shauwls perspective is the unification of the first two words, the amalgamation of his name and the title Apostle. It is a distinction he bequeathed upon himself because Yahowshas Disciples refused to convey it to him. For Paul, it was essential that he be seen as Yahowshas Apostle, even though it was a title he did not earn. The Greek word that we transliterate Apostle, apostolos, is extraordinarily important. It means to be set-apart, prepared, and equipped. Far too many people go off as witnesses without first studying the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. As a result, improperly enlightened individuals do more harm than good. By misappropriating the title, the opening line of his first letter became technically inaccurate in multiple ways. In the mindset of the first followers of The Way, Shauwl was not an Apostleat least as the term is transliterated into a title. Shauwl did not walk in Yahowshas footsteps, nor personally witness His fulfillment of Passover, Unleavened Bread, or FirstFruits. He was not there in person in the upper room when the Set-Apart Spirit descended upon the CalledOut Assembly on the Miqra of Shabuwa. There were twelve Apostles by this definition, all chosen by Yahowsha. All twelve lived with Him and witnessed His every word and deed. And that is why He referred to them as disciples, meaning those who learn. But from this introduction, as well as from the introductions to the Corinthians, Romans, Colossians, and Ephesians, we know that Paulos coveted the title the actual Apostles were unwilling to give him, and yet so all-consuming was his craving to be seen as important, he arrogantly and presumptuously overstepped his bounds. And the reason we know that Paul intended Apostle to be his title, rather than a

descriptive presentation of his purpose, is that he writes Paul called an Apostle, in his letters to Rome and Corinth. In that Paul claimed to speak in the name of the Maaseyah Yahowsha, we are compelled to consider his statements in light of the Deuteronomy 13 and 18 tests established by God to evaluate the authenticity of such assertions. There, Yahowah delineated the six signs of a false prophet: they speak in His name, they are arrogant, overstepping their bounds, their words are inconsistent with the Torahs instructions, they recite the names of foreign gods, their historical presentations are inaccurate, and their prophetic promises fail to materialize. Shauwls greeting tells us that he was convinced that he did not represent any human institution, and that would include the ekklesia, the Greek term most similar to the Hebrew Miqraey Called-out Assembly. And thats a bit of a problem because Yahowah and Yahowsha were represented by the Yaruwshalaim Ekklesia. And that would make Shauwl a freelance operator and an independent contractor. The flip side of this admission is problematic. If Shauwl didnt write on behalf of what he learned from men in Rabbinical school, then his ubiquitous references to the nomos must denote the Torah as opposed to Rabbinical Law. This being the case, the principle methodology used by those who are Torah observant to reconcile Pauls epistles with Yahowahs Word was torn asunder by the wannabe Apostles opening statement. The facts are evident and undeniable. There is no getting around the realization that the nomos is an object of scorn and ridicule in this epistle. And at no time does Shauwl associate the nomos with Rabbinical Law, by citing Talmudic sources. Not once ever. To the contrary, his examples and citations are all from the Torah, clearly identifying the document he is assailing. Shauwl/Paulos/Paul proved himself to be out of touch with the truth, and therefore with Yahowah and Yahowsha, by his insistence that the Torah is a set of binding commandments and other strict rules, which was the position held by the religious rulersthe Phariseeswhom Yahowsha spent a good deal of His time refuting and rebuking. So whether he was referring to the Oral Laws of the rabbis or to the Torah itself, he was still in the dark with all his conclusions. Based upon his opening stanza, Paul hasnt positioned himself as the founder of a religionalbeit, that is what he has become. His greeting displays neither religious qualifications nor a religious agenda. In fact, he only used the word religion twice, and both times it was to condemn the institution. That is a sobering thought if you are a Christian. Paul would, however, contradict himself and establish all of the trappings for his new religion, replete with a paid and empowered clergy and a plethora of

personal edicts. And as usual, he perverted Scripture to make his assertions appear both reasonable and divine. (Read 1 Timothy 5:17-18, 1 Corinthians 9:1-11, and then 16:1-3 for evidence of this.) I am aware the Christians have been led to believe that Jesus Christ was the founder of the religion of Christianity, and that Paul spoke for Him, but that conclusion isnt supportable. The institution of Christianity is founded on Pauls writings, not Yahowshas words or deeds. After all, Yahowsha was Torah observant. Every minute aspect of His life and His teachings were derived from, inspired by, and governed in their entirety by the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. To his credit, Shauwl was aware, and has accurately stated, that God is our Father. He is the one who enabled Yahowsha to fulfill Bikuwrym by reuniting Yahowshas soul with His Spirit. And while it may not mean much to many, since nekros is based upon nekus, meaning corpse, the end of the verse actually reads as I have rendered it. While raising Him from the dead sounds more familiar to our ears, only Yahowshas physical body suffered the indignity of death, not His soul, nor His Spirit. (This isnt a small technical point either because FirstFruits is symbolic of our souls being reborn Spiritually into our Heavenly Fathers Family. And as Ive previously mentioned, the Torah says the following regarding the body of the Passover Lamb: And do not leave it until morning, and what remains of it before morning you are to burn with fire.) Often overlooked, four of the most common Divine Placeholders for Gods names and titles were used in this passage. The , , , and represent: Maaseyah, the Implement of Yah, Yahowsha, meaning Yah Saves, Yahowah, or Elohym-God, and His favorite title Ab-Father, based upon the first word in the Hebrew lexicon. Examples of placeholders not used in this particular verse, but ubiquitous throughout the rest of the Greek texts, and universally found in every first-, second-, third-, and early fourth-century manuscript, describe the RuwachSpirit, the Edon-Upright One, and the Upright Pillar. And Placeholders for Mother and Son, like Father are also common, but not universal. While codices dating to the first three centuries differ somewhat among themselves, and differ significantly from those composed after the influence of General Constantine, the use of Divine Placeholders is the lone exception to scribal variation among the early manuscripts. These symbols for Gods name and titles are universally found on every page of every extant codex written within 300 years of Yahowshas day, without exception. But, nonetheless, they are universally ignored by Christian translators, writers, and preachers. By including them here in the text, as all of the Disciples themselves did, it is incumbent upon us to correct 1,700 years of religious tampering and corruption.

The very fact that these placeholders are found on all of the more than onehundred manuscripts unearthed prior to the mid fourth-century, tells us that it wasnt a regional or scribal choice. Instead, they convey something so profoundly important that they were purposefully inscribed throughout the original autographsin the texts penned by the authors of these Greek texts. And so while these manuscripts all differ from one another with regard to their wording; the only constant is the one thing every translator has ignored. There isnt even a footnote in any of our English translations indicating that these Divine Placeholders were universally depicted in all of the oldest manuscripts, including the codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. As a result, Christians do not know that these symbols existed, much less that they were later replaced by translators, substituting the very names and titles which would have been written out by the original authors had they been intended. (For those interested in a comprehensive presentation and analysis of the use and significance of the Divine Placeholders study the His Name Volume of An Introduction to God (www.IntroToGod.org).) Kappa Sigma and Kappa Upsilon, in capital letters with a line over them, were used to convey Yahowahs name and Yahowshas Upright One title, even though every English bible replaces these symbols with the Lord, which according to God is Satans title. The fact Kappa Sigma conveys Yahowah, the preponderance of the time it is used, is something I discovered when translating Greek quotations of Hebrew passages cited by Yahowsha and His apostles. This obvious conclusion has been reaffirmed recently by the publication of early Septuagint manuscripts. In them we find a transition from writing Yahowahs name in paleo-Hebrew in the midst of the Greek text throughout the first and second centuries, to using the symbolism of Kappa Sigma to represent Yahowahs name beginning in the third-century. So, we now know for certain, what seemed perfectly obvious before: the Divine Placeholders and were used to designate Yahowahs name in a language whose alphabet could not replicate its sounds. Also by finding Yahowah written in paleo-Hebrew in the oldest Greek manuscripts of the Covenant Scriptures, especially in those dating to the first and second centuries BCE and CE, we have an interesting affirmation that my initial rationale regarding the Divine Placeholders was accurate. Yahowahs name cant be accurately transliterated using the Greek alphabet, so to avoid a mispronunciation, the Hebrew alphabet was initially used, and then, after Hebrew became a dead language, Greek symbolism was substituted. Moving on, the placeholders Iota Epsilon (), Iota Epsilon Nu (), Iota Sigma (), Iota Epsilon Sigma (), Iota Upsilon (), and Iota Nu () were

used to convey Yahowshas name every time it is found in the Greek manuscripts. And that means that there is absolutely no basis whatsoever for the 17th-century corruption written as Jesus. Beyond the fact that there was no J sound or letter in English prior to the 17th century, and never in the Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, or Latin languages, Jesus isnt an accurate transliteration of Iesou, Iesous, or Iesounwhich were conceived as a result of Greek gender and grammar rules. But most importantly, none of these names was ever written in the Greek textnot once, not ever. It is therefore inappropriate to transliterate something (to reproduce the pronunciation in the alphabet of a different language) which isnt present in the text. So the name Jesus is a colossal fraud purposely promoted by religious leaders desirous of separating Yahowsha from Yahowah, and the Torah from the Healing and Beneficial Message. The title Maaseyah was represented by Chi Rho (), Chi Rho Sigma (), Chi Sigma (), Chi Upsilon (), Chi Rho Upsilon (), Chi Omega (), Chi Rho Omega (), and Chi Nu (). More on these Divine Placeholders in a moment. The Hebrew el and elohym, meaning Almighty, but most often translated God, were conveyed using the placeholders Theta Sigma (), Theta Upsilon (), Theta Omega (), and Theta Nu (). And while Gods name and title are not interchangeable, there are times when these placeholders represent Yahowah instead of His title, God. Ruwach is the feminine Hebrew noun for Spirit. Without exception, the Set-Apart Spirits title throughout the Greek historical and eyewitness writings was conveyed using the placeholders Pi Nu Alpha (), Pi Nu Sigma (), and Pi Nu Iota (). Just as Yahowah is our Heavenly Father, the Ruwach Qodesh is our Spiritual Mother. In addition to these two names and three titles, the noun and verb form of upright pole, and to affix to an upright pillar, were always rendered Sigma Rho Omega Sigma and Sigma Rho Omega followed by Mu Alpha Iota to indicate the verbboth with a line over them to signify divinity. Making sure that we wouldnt miss the Divine connection between the upright pole and the Upright One (the edon of the Torah), stauros was never written out in the Greek text. But this connection between God and the Doorway to salvation was lost when the Roman Catholic Church ignored the placeholder and then changed the reference to suggest that it signified a pagan cross. Now this is important, because it means that the Church ignored what was actually written and then deliberately and knowingly changed the meaning of what had been conveyed. The cross was a common religious symbol used throughout antiquity in Babylon, Egypt, Greece, and Rome to signify the intersection of the constellation

Taurus (the Bull which represented the sun god) with the sun during the Vernal Equinox. The closest Sun-day to this event was called Easter by these pagans who believed that their sun god impregnated Mother Earth on this day, giving birth nine months later on the Winter Solstice (then December 25th) to the Son of the Sun. Solar worship, known as Sol Ivictus (the Unconquerable Son) was thereby incorporated into Constantines new Christian religion where it remains to this day. This process began with his vision of a flaming cross superimposed on the sun, which was his god, and with the edict: Under this sign conquer. In addition to these seven universal placeholders, we find Father when used in reference to our Heavenly Father, Mother when used in reference to our Spiritual Mother, and Son, when designating Yahowsha, rendered in the same format when they refer to our Heavenly Father, Spiritual Mother, and to the Son of God, in most of the earliest manuscripts. And what I find especially affirming about this is that the title Mother was designated by a Divine Placeholder in the Codex Sinaiticus when Yahowsha discussed the real meaning of the Second of Seven Instructions etched on the Second of Two Tablets. Now, returning to Christ, and the improper titles appearance in English translations of the Galatians 1:1 passage, it turns out that the over-scored Greek symbols Chi Rho (), Chi Rho Sigma (), Chi Sigma (), Chi Upsilon (), Chi Rho Upsilon (), Chi Omega (), Chi Rho Omega (), and Chi Nu (), werent based upon Christos, Christou, Christo, or Christon, but instead upon Chrestusan entirely different word. Christos means drugged. As proof, the one time it was actually written out in the Greek text, it was used to say that the Laodicean assembly applied a manmade drug, an ointment in this case, to their eyes. (And of course thats also interesting, in that its being applied to the current church age.) Chrestus on the other hand means useful implement, and upright servant, as well as merciful one, and it was used to depict the good and beneficial work of a moral servant. As such, this affirms my earlier conclusion that rather than write ha Messiach the two times the adjective appears in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, Daniel most likely wrote ha Maaseyahtelling us that the Suffering Servant would be the Implement Doing the Work of Yahowah, the Upright Servant and Useful Tool God would use to save all mankind. In this regard, there is no chance that Yahowah would miss this opportunity to associate this essential title with His name. Likewise, there is no chance that Rabbis, who are adverse to Yahowahs name and authority, wouldnt substitute their preferred title for their least favorite title, disassociating it from Yahowahs name, given the opportunity. Therefore, through this evidence Im not advocating the use of Chrestus, but instead MaaseyahImplement of Yah. Chrestus is nothing more than an affirmation of this important symbolism.

The fact that Yahowshas Disciples selected Chrestus, not Christis as the closest Greek allegory to Maaseyah, cant be distinguished from the first, second, third, and early fourth-century Greek placeholders for Maaseyah, because Chi Rho, Chi Rho Sigma, and Chi Sigma, represent both words equally well. But, that isnt to say that there isnt a textual affirmation for Chrestus; there is. In all three depictions of the epithet used to depict the first followers of The Way, in Acts 11:26, 26:28, and in 1 Peter 4:16, Codex Sinaiticus reveals that Crestuaneos was penned initially, not Christianous. The same is true with the Codex Vaticanus. Then, after Constantines corrupt rule, Crestuaneos, meaning useful tools and upright servants was replaced by Christianous, transliterated as Christian today, but literally meaning those who are drugged. (If you are a Christian reading this, please take the time to not only verify the accuracy of this realization, but also to consider its implications.) But there is more. The Nestle-Aland 27th Edition Greek New Testament reveals that Chrestus () was scribed in 1 Peter 2:3, not Christos. Their references for this include Papyrus 72 and the Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest extant witnesses of Peters (actually of Shimown Kephas) letter. In Shimowns letter, which was attested by both ancient manuscripts, the Apostle tells us: As a newborn child, true to our real nature (logikos be genuine, reasonable, rational, and sensible), earnestly desire and lovingly pursue (epipotheo long for and crave, showing great affection while yearning for) the pure and unadulterated (adolos that which is completely devoid of dishonest intent, deceit, or deception) milk in order to grow in respect to salvation, since we have experienced (geuomai partaken and tasted, have been nourished by and perceived) Yahowah () as the Useful Implement and Upright Servant (Chrestus the Upright One who is a superior, merciful, gracious, kind, and good tool). (1 Shimown / He Listens / Peter 2:2-3) In the fact that we find Chrestus written in the Codex Sinaiticus, and the placeholder written in P72 in the same place in this passage, we have an early affirmation that the Divine Placeholder representing the title Maaseyah was based upon the Greek Chrestus. The related Greek term, chrestos, means: kind, good, useful, benevolent, virtuous, and moral, as in the sense of being upright. Words directly related to chrestos and chrestus speak of integrity in the sense of being trustworthy and reliable, receiving the benefit of a payment, as in providing recompense and restitution, of fulfilling ones duty, as in being a loyal servant, doing what is beneficial in the sense of healing us, transacting business, as in fulfilling ones mission, providing a Divine message and response, in the sense of being the Word made flesh and Savior, being fit for use, as in being Yahowahs Implement, and conveying a beneficial and trustworthy message

which produces a good result, which is synonymous with euangelizowhich is to convey the healing and beneficial message of Yahowah. Writing about the great fire of Rome circa 64 CE, the famous Roman historian Tacitus (the classical worlds most authoritative voice on that time and place) in Annals 15.44.2-8, wrote: All human effortsand propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the fire was the result of an order [from Nero]. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Chrestuaneos by the populous. Chrestus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate. So now from this secular source, we have additional evidence in favor of Chrestus over Christos, of the Useful and Merciful Servant, over the Drugged One, and Chrestuaneos over Christianios, those who are useful and merciful servants, over those who are drugged. The placeholders are errantly called nomina sacra by theologians, which is Latin for sacred names. The moniker is wrong on three accounts. First, only two of the ten placeholders designate a name, while seven convey titles, one represents a thing, in this case the Upright Pole, and one the process of becoming the Doorway to Haven. Second, there is nothing sacred in Scripture, only individuals and things which are set-apart. The human term sacred is religious (meaning devoted to the worship of a deity in a religious service and worthy of religious veneration), while the divine designation set-apart is relational. It explains the association between Yahowah and the Set-Apart Spirit, for example. Third, the Greek is already a translation of Aramaic conversations, and often of Hebrew citations, so adding the Latin nomina sacra designation is another step in the wrong direction. Christian scholars use the same hypocritical sleight of hand to explain the universal presence of the placeholders in the Greek texts that Rabbis have deployed to justify their removal of Yahowahs and Yahowshas name from the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. They suggest that the names were considered too sacred to write. But if that were true, if the Disciples thought that these ten names and titles were too sacred to write, then why are they written today? If it was wrong then, it cannot be right now. Anyone who has spent fifteen minutes reading any portion of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms from any one of the hundreds of Qumran manuscripts recognizes that the too sacred to write notion is in complete conflict with

Yahowahs approach to every name and title in Scripture including His own. Moreover, God in the midst of criticizing and rebuking religious clerics said: Their plan is for (ha hasab considering everything, their thinking, calculation, decision, devise, and account reveals that they are determined for) My people (am My family) to overlook, forget, and to cease to properly value (sakah to ignore, to be unmindful of, to lose sight of the significance of, and to no longer respond to) My personal and proper name (shem) by way of (ba) the revelations and communications (ha halowm the claims to inspired insights) which (asher) they recount to (saphar they proclaim, record, and write to) mankind (iysh), to their fellow countrymen and associates (la rea to others in their race and company), just as when in a relationship with (ka asher eth ba similarly as when engaged in the same relationship with) the Lord (ha Baal), their fathers (ab their forefathers and ancestors) overlooked, ignored, and forgot (sakah were not mindful of and ceased to appreciate the significance of) My personal and proper name (shem). (Yirmayahuw / Yah Lifts Up / Jeremiah 23:27) We know, however, that this clerical slight of hand began much earlier because Yahowah is recorded in His Torah warning that the crime of diminishing the use of His name was punishable by death and separation (in Qara / Called Out / Leviticus 24:9-16), whereas the Rabbis said that the use of Yahowahs name was a crime punishable by death. It is why Rabbis replaced Yahowahs name with Lord, under the guise that it was too sacred to say. Affirming this, the publishers in the preface of most every popular English bible translation openly state that they replaced Gods name with the LORD because of religious traditions, as if rabbinical authorization was a license to deceive. So if this same Rabbinical mindset was shared by the Disciples, we would have absolute proof that their writing style was influenced by religion, and was not inspired by the same God who conveyed the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. And that would mean that nothing in the Christian New Testament could be considered inspired, and thus to be Scripture. It is curious, of course, that not one in a thousand pastors, priests, religious teachers, or scholars even mentions the universal application of the ten placeholders on every page of every manuscript written within three centuries of Yahowshas earthly life. And yet, if any portion of the Greek text was inspired by God, then these ten placeholders were designated by God. It is as simple as that. Ignoring them would then be in direct opposition to Gods will. I am convinced that there are only two rational reasons for Yahowah to write out His name 7,000 times in the Hebrew Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, and include His titles countless times more, and then never have any of them written in the Greek manuscriptseven when Hebrew verses are being quoted.

First, Yahowahs name, Yahowshas name, and all of Gods titles convey essential truths in Hebrew which are lost in translation. Rather than replace those meanings with Greek pseudo-equivalents, Yahowah wants us to turn to the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms for complete explanations and accurate answers. The Torah is the foundation upon which Yahowahs plan is based, so to understand His plan, we have to view it from this perspective. The second reason is that the sounds produced by the 22 Hebrew letters differ from the sounds represented by the 24 letters in the Greek alphabet. Of particular interest, there is no Y, W, or soft H in Greek, the letters which comprise Yahowahs and Yahowshas name. And since names dont change from one language to another, and always sound the same, there was simply no way to transliterate Yahowah or Yahowsha using the Greek alphabet. So rather than change His name, or misrepresent it, God inspired the Disciples to use placeholders. Im not the first to recognize this predicament, or the first to deal with it. As I mentioned a moment ago, every extant first- and second-century BCE and CE copy of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, inserts Yahowahs and Yahowshas name into the Greek text using paleoor Babylonian Hebrew letters. It was only after the scribes were no longer conversant in Hebrew, that the Greek Divine Placeholders were used in place of Gods name. A prominent early manuscript scholar offered a different, albeit uninformed, comparison between the Greek placeholders and the presentation of Gods name found in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, of which you should be aware. He claimed that the Hebrew letters YHWH represented a contraction similar to what is found in the early Greek texts. But if that were true, every single word in the Hebrew text would be an unpronounceable contraction or placeholder. Said another way, Yahowahs name isnt written any different than any other Hebrew word or name used in Scripture or throughout Yisrael. But the reason that this isnt a problem is that the letters which comprise Yahowahs name represent three of the five Hebrew vowelswith the Aleph and Ayin representing the other two. Using these vowels, every Hebrew name, title, and word is pronounceable. Since there are very few things more important than understanding why the ten placeholders were used, and knowing what they represent, there is one more thing you should know. Technically speaking, there are actually eleven placeholders because the verb and noun form of Upright Pole, and to affix to an Upright Pole are both represented by Godly symbols. Also worth noting, while the seven placeholders representing Yahowahs and Yahowshas names and the titles, in addition to Upright Pillar in both its verb and

noun forms, are represented by Divine Placeholders 100% of the time on 100% of the Greek manuscripts dated to within 300 years of Yahowshas life here on earth, the remaining symbols, specifically Father, Mother, and Son, when applied to God, are commonly used, but not exclusively. And the reason for this is that the Greek words for father, mother, and son are too closely associated with their Hebrew equivalents to justify the ubiquitous application of a unique distinction. The entire purpose of these Divine Placeholders was completely undermined, however, when Greek words, titles, and errant transliterations were substituted for them. If you were to read the Textus Receptus or more modern Nestle Aland, you wouldnt even know that these symbols ever existed. The same is true with every popular English translation. A stunning amount of crucial information pertinent to our salvation was discarded in the process. Therefore, to the Christian, Yahowahs name became Lord, Yahowshas name became Jesus, the Maaseyah was changed to Christ, and the feminine Ruwach, became the gender-neutral pneuma, which was rendered Spirit. It is also how Upright Pillar migrated over time to cross. Yet if any of these words, titles, names, or symbols were appropriate, the Disciples would have simply written them in Greekbut they didnt. The truth is: Lord is Satans title. That is because the concept of lord represents the Adversarys agenda and ambition. At best, Jesus is meaningless, and at worst, it is the name of the savior of the Druid religion (Gesus), where the Horned One is God. Recognizing that Constantines initial share of the Empire consisted of Britain, Gaul, and Spain, where the Druid religion flourished, the selection of Gesus could well have been politically expedient, as was incorporating most every pagan holiday into the new religion. Worse still, christos means drugged in Greek. In fact, it is from the rubbing on of medicinal ointments that the anointed connotation of christos was actually derived. The Rx or Rho Chi symbolism associated with todays drug stores is a legacy of the first two letters in christos. And most shocking of all is that the placeholder for Maaseyah, , was actually based upon Chrestus, not Christosan entirely different word. And that is why all of the earliest manuscripts say that the first followers of The Way were called Crestuaneos, not Christians. They, like the one who had saved them, were useful tools and upright servants. Speaking of religious malfeasance, since Galatians is the principle text used to undermine Scriptures foundation, and since it is cited to undermine Yahowshas repeated affirmations that He did not come to annul the Torah, but instead to fulfill it, its important that we consider the source of the Christian justification: the King James Bible, and the Latin Vulgate upon which this

revision was ultimately based. Therefore, recognizing that the Greek text reads, Paulos, an Apostle not from men, and not even by the means of man, but to the contrary on behalf of the Maaseyah Yahowsha ( ). God () the Ab-Father () caused Him to be restored, to stand up, and to rise from a corpse, here is the KJV rendition of Galatians 1:1: Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;) It reflects its source, the Latin Vulgate: Paulus, Apostolus, not from men and not through man, but through Iesum Christum, and Deum the Father, who raised him from the dead. Sadly, the most recent rendition of Shauwls letter simply reiterated all of the same mistakes. Consider the New Living Translations regurgitation of prior prose: This letter is from Paul, an apostle. I was not appointed by any group of people or any human authority, but by Jesus Christ himself and by God the Father, who raised Jesus from the dead. Whats particularly regrettable regarding the New Living Translation is that the New Testaments coordinator was none other than Philip Comfort. And yet every book he has published on the extant early Greek manuscripts acknowledges the consistent presence of the Divine Placeholders. He isnt ignorant of them, and therefore, he is without excuse. Before we move on, please notice that all three translations transliterated apostolos, rather than translate its essential meaning. They all ignored the four placeholders found in the Greek manuscripts, and then improperly conveyed Yahowshas name, Yahowshas title, and Yahowahs title. Further, egeiromai, meaning to be restored, stand up, and rise, was inadequately translated in all three cases, as was nekros, meaning corpse, in addition to dead. If this had been Yahowchanans eyewitness account, I would have designated the placeholder as Yahowah, not God. But in the context of the Galatians text, I dont think that this is justified for reasons which would be premature for me to share now, but which will become apparent as we make our way through this epistle. And yet the single most important Scriptural message is that Gods one and only name is Yahowah, and that a god by any other name is a fraud. The second essential truth is that Yahowshas name designates the Saviors source and describes His mission. But all of this was lost by translators who became copyeditors and authors. As is the tendency with the spoken word, as opposed to the written word, Shauwl communicates by way of dependant clauses, some of which comprise a paragraph or more. This is the beginning of one such clause: With (sym) all (pas) my (ego) brothers (adelphos) [to] the set-apart assemblies (ekklesia) of Galatia (Galatians 1:2)

There are three useful insights here, one stated, two which are not. First, those who are set-apart unto Yahowah our Father, are brothers. We are family. Second, there is no basis for anything remotely related to a church in the Greek texts. Ekklesia is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Miqraey because the Called-Out Assembly is based upon the Torahs Called-Out Assemblies. Second only to the religious corruption of Yahowahs and Yahowshas names through the avoidance of the Divine Placeholders, the replacement of ekklesia with church is the most lethal copyedit found in the so-called Christian New Testament. Third, the book of Galatians is actually an open letter, or epistle. Shauwl was responding to a myriad of opponents who had criticized his preaching in Galatia. We are witnesses, however, to only one side of this debate in similar fashion to the never-ending argument which permeates Muhammads Quran. And in our quest for accuracy, the proper pronunciation of the name ascribed to this audience is Galateeah. Unlike what we find in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, where God is seen dictating His message to a prophet or scribe who then writes down what he has heard in his native Hebrew tongue, Shauwls letters are the result of dictating a stream of consciousness to a friend, someone who was not a professional scribe, in a language other than his native Aramaic and Latin, but instead in Greek. Pauls repetitive use of but I say, where I represents Paul, not Yahowah, differentiate the self-proclaimed Apostles epistles from Gods Word. It also positions Paul as the lead candidate for the wolf in sheeps clothing who would come in his own name and still be popularly received. As a result of this method, the kind of corrections and thoughtfulness that are possible with a word processor and copious study aids today, was not possible then. And that is why Shauwls letters contain some of the most difficult passages to translate appropriately. There are many missing words, such as [to] in the last verse and in the next one. And Pauls epistles are famous for their runon sentences. Moreover, in Galatians, Shauwl is being attacked, and he is clearly on the defensive, trying to justify his persona, authority, and teachings, especially those which stretch beyond the Torah. His credentials of being an Apostle were being questioned, because he was not a witness to Yahowshas words or deeds. Also, so that you know, Galatia was a Roman province in Asia Minor which extended to the Black Sea. The Galatians were originally Gauls who moved down the Rhine to mingle with Greeks and Jews. They were known for their quick temper, prompt action, inconsistency, and malleability. Shauwl knew them well, as he had traveled throughout their land in the pursuit of his mission. As we will do throughout this review of Galatians, here are the King James and Vulgate renditions of the second verse. The KJV says: And all the brethren

which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia: In this case, its most egregious error cannot be blamed on the Latin Vulgate, which reads: and all the brothers who are with me: to the ecclesiis Galati. It is worth restating that few things in Christendom have been as harmful as changing the ekklesia, which is the called-out assembly, to church. It created the impression that Jesus Christ had conceived a new, Christian institution to replace the Chosen People, and that this religious construct was somehow unrelated to Yahowahs seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with Him, or even the Sabbath. And that led to the notion that the Feasts were nothing more than quaint Jewish holidays. But now at least, you know who to blame for this devastating corruption of the text. The Rosicrucian Francis Bacon, serving the political interests of King James, was the first to perpetrate this grievous, deadly, and damning corruption. His predecessors such as John Wycliffe, either transliterated ekklesia or wrote assembly. In their desire to be politically correct, the revisional paraphrase known as the NLT wrote: All the brothers and sisters here join me in sending this letter to the churches of Galatia. There is no Greek textual basis for and sisters, here, join me, in sending, or this letter. And ekklesia means called-out assembly, not churches. Also worth noting, only Galatians among Shauwls first five letters went out under his name alone. First and Second Thessalonians were sent from Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy. First Corinthians was from Paul and Sosthenes, while the immensely troublesome, indeed demonic, epistle of Second Corinthians bears Timothys name in addition to Pauls. In todays vernacular, Shauwl wrote Galatians before he had a posse. The evidence suggests that it was dictated in haste immediately after the Yaruwshalaim Summit, immediately before Paul fell in love with Timothy. Equally telling, is that while Shauwl will acknowledge Barnabas in this epistle, since the two severed their relationship in the immediate aftermath of the Yaruwshalaym Summit, he was excluded from the greeting and demeaned in the text of the letter. This next independent clause is a great example of why it is so difficult to determine what Paul was trying to say, and ascertain why he chose to be so provocative. At issue here: there is no verb, and Charis (Greek) and Gratia (Latin) is the collective name of a very popular pagan trio of goddesses. Charis-Charity/Gratia-Grace (charis loving kindness and the gift of goodwill) [to] you (humeis) and (kai) peace (eirene harmony and tranquility, freedom from worry) from (apo) God (), the Father (pater), and our (ego)

Upright One (), [the] Maaseyah () Yahowsha () (Galatians 1:3) Thankfully, charis is not found in the earliest and foundational books: Matthew or Mark (which was penned under the influence of Shimown/Peter). The Christian fixation on Charis, and its Roman manifestation, Gratia, is therefore a direct result of Paul. Charis appears 107 times in the self-proclaimed Apostles letters, and another 14 times in Acts, a book written about Paul and for Paul. The only other mentions of Charis in the Greek texts appear after the publication of Pauls epistles. We find charis used in just one conversation in John (1:14-17). It is found four times in Luke, a book written from Pauls perspective (of which there is no first-, second-, or third-century manuscript to verify these inclusions). Of the remaining 16 occurrences, we find all but two sprinkled in the poorest attested books: ten in Shimowns (Peters) letters (of which there are no reliable first-, second-, or third-century manuscripts (the late 3rd-century Papyrus 72 is extremely free (meaning imprecise and subject to substantial alterations), which suggests that it was heavily influenced by Marcion)), twice in Yaaqob/James (of which there is no pre-Constantine manuscript of the 4:6 passage in which it appears), once in Second John (of which there is no pre-Constantine manuscript), and once in Jude (but P78 doesnt include charis in the 4th verse indicating that it was later added by a scribe whose agenda was other than accuracy). The first use of charis in Revelation (1:4) is attested only by a fragment too small to validate which appears to be written by an untrained and unprofessional scribe (as determined by his penmanship) and in the late third-century on Papyrus 18, and is thus unreliable. The second purported inclusion of charis is in Revelation 22:21, but no pre-Constantine manuscript covers anything past the beginning of the 17th chapter. So, apart from the one exception, we have no verification that charis was used by anyone other than Paul prior to the fourthcentury. Charis is the name of the three Greek Graces, known as the Charities (Charites). The English word charity is a transliteration of their name. These pagan goddesses of charm, splendor, and beauty, were often depicted in mythology celebrating nature and rejoicing over fertility. Collectively they make four appearances in Homers Iliad and three in The Odyssey. The Charis were the daughters of Dionysus and Aphrodite. And that is particularly troubling because Paul puts one of Dionysus most famous quotes in Yahowshas mouth during his conversion experience on the road to Damascus. And as it would transpire, Pauls faith came to mirror the Dionysus cult (Bacchus

in Roman mythology), which is one of the reasons why so many aspects of Pauline Christianity are pagan. (These troubling associations are detailed for your consideration in the Kataginosko Convicted chapter.) The Graces were associated with the underworld and with the Eleusinian Mysteries. Their naked form stands at the entrance of the Acropolis in Athens. Naked frescoes of the Charites adorn homes in Pompeii, Italy which means that they transcended the Greek religion and influenced Rome where they became known as the Gratia. Their appeal, beyond their beauty, gaiety, and sensual form, is that they held mysteries known only to religious initiates. Francis Bacon, as the founder of the Rosicrucians, would have loved them. At issue here, and the reason that I bring this to your attention, is that Yahowah tells us in the Torah that the names of pagan gods and goddesses should not be memorialized in this way. Do not bring to mind (zakar remember or recall, mention or memorialize) the name of other (acher or different) gods (elohym); neither let them be heard coming out of your mouth. (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 23:13) And: I will remove and reject the names of the Lords and false gods (baalim) out of your mouth, and they shall be brought to mind and memorialized (zakar remembered, recalled, and mentioned) by their name no more. (Howsha / Salvation / Hosea 2:16-17) And yet the name of the Greek goddesses, Charis, is the operative term of Galatiansone which puts Paul in opposition to the very Towrah Teaching and God which condemns the use of their names. Simply stated: the Gospel of Grace is pagan. It is literally Gotts spell of Gratia. In ancient languages, its often difficult to determine if the name of a god or goddess became a word, or if an existing descriptive term later became a name. But we know that Greek goddesses, like those in Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, and Rome, bore names which described their mythological natures and ambitions. Such is the case with the Charites. The Charis came to embody everything that the word charis has come to represent: joy, favor, mercy, and acceptance, loving kindness, and the gift of goodwill. While we cant be certain if the name Charis was based on the verb chairo, or whether the verb was based upon the name, we know that it conveys: to rejoice and to be glad, to be well and to thrive when acceptance is granted. There is a Hebrew equivalent to this termone used in its collective forms 193 times in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. It is hen, sometimes vocalized chen, from the verb chanan. As a noun, it means favor and acceptance by way of an unearned gift, which is why it is often translated grace in English Bibles. To be chanan is to be merciful, demonstrating unmerited favor, and as such chanan

is usually translated to be gracious. The author of the eyewitness account of Yahowshas life, whom we know as John, was actually Yahowchanan, meaning Yahowah is Merciful. Before we move on, I want to bring your attention to another problem with our English translations. In this passage, the purpose of the placeholders for Yahowshas name and title, for Maaseyah, and for Yahowsha, were ignored as usual. And in both cases, the placeholders were replaced by the Greek title and name which does not actually appear in the oldest manuscripts: Christou Iesou. The errant title and name were then reversed and transliterated Jesus Christ. No attempt was made in any English bible to translate the basis of Yahowshas title, nor represent the Divine Placeholder with the actual Hebrew title it designated. And yet, the Greek charis, which is used as if it were a title in the phrase Gospel of Grace throughout these translations, wasnt transliterated, but instead was rendered Grace. At least, so it appears on the surface. But in actuality, rather than transliterating the names of the Greek goddesses into English, Grace is nothing more than the transliteration of the goddesses Roman name. Inconsistencies like this are troubling, because they prove that the translators cannot be trusted. Continuing our review of the sources of Christian corruption, the KJV begins verse 1:3 by offering the pagan Goddess to the Galatians: Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ, This time, their inspiration was the Latin Vulgate, which reads: Gratia and peace to you from the Father, our Domino, Iesu Christo. I am always interested in knowing how pagan terms enter into the religious vocabulary. In this case, we just learned that Grace comes to us by way of the Roman Catholic Vulgate. Gratia was the Latin name for the Greek Charis. And that is why they are known as the Graces in English. In Pagan Rome, the three Gratia, or Graces, were goddesses of joy, beauty, charm, happiness, and feasts. As personifications of happiness, prosperity, and well-being, and as the messengers for Aphrodite and Eros, the Gratia served as clever counterfeits for euangelionYahowshas healing and beneficial message. So all Christendom has done is transliterate the Roman name into English, and then base a religious mantra, the Gospel of Grace, upon the name of these pagan deities. This is deeply troubling. It is a scar upon the credibility of the texts. It is a mortal wound to Pauls epistles, and it is an irresolvable death blow to Christendom.

In the NLT, rather than Shauwl offering the Galatians Grace, the Father and Son are depicted doing so. May God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ give you grace and peace. All three translations got one name right, that of the pagan goddess, Grace. The other name and titles, they got wrongand those belonged to God. In fact, throughout this review, you will find that all of the most important names and titles, Yahowah, Maaseyah, Yahowsha, Upright One, Ekklesia, and Healing Message, are always rendered errantly while all of the made up or less meaningful names and titles are rendered perfectly in every English bible transliteration. And that my friends is incriminating. Shauwls introductory sentence continues with: giving (didomi producing and depositing) Himself (heautou) on account of (peri concerning and regarding) us (ego) missing the mark (hamartia wandering away from the path, being errant and mistaken, and being misled), so that (hopos) we (ego) can choose to be rescued, set free, and be taken (exaireomai elect and vote to be drawn, torn, and plucked) out of (ek) our present (enistamai) worthless, immoral, and corrupt (poneros wicked, evil, and valueless, annoying, burdensome, laborious, oppressive, and criminal) world system (onos human practices, standards, and circumstances), in accordance with (kata) the purpose and the will of (thelema the intent of) God (), our (ego) Father () (Galatians 1:4) While its a fairly small copyedit, modern Greek texts use hyper between giving Himself, and us missing the mark, but on Papyrus 46, we find peri, instead. While these words convey similar thoughts, hyper, meaning for the sake of and in place of, makes a stronger case, which is why scribes may have replaced peri with it. This known, there are some insights to be gleaned from this passage. To begin, the idea of Yahowsha producing and depositing Himself speaks of Yahowah being responsible for His manifestation as a man, and of His soul being placed in Sheowl to pay the toll so that we could freely choose to follow the path He has provided and enabled. While Paul doesnt make this connection, its instructive nonetheless. Second, the passage says that God did this because mankind has missed the mark and has wandered away from this path. The mark that we have missed is the Torah. And the way most have wandered away from is the seven-step path delineated in the Called-Out Assemblies. But, once again, there is no indication that Paul meant to convey any of this, and to the contrary will renounce these truths, yet his view should not stop us from finding truth in a lexicon.

Third, we see freewill being affirmed in this verse, because exaireomai, translated can choose to be rescued, set free, and taken is a compound of haireomai, meaning to choose, to prefer, to elect, and to vote, and ek, which means from or out of. It is literally out of choice and thus defines freewill. Fourth, according to the passage, it is the will, purpose, and intent of God, our Father to have us choose to be drawn out of the world. This speaks of Moseh, whose name means to draw out, and of the Exodus, where Yahowah drew His people out of the crucible of Mitsraym (Egypt). It is the plan of salvation memorialized and celebrated by the Miqraey, which lie at the heart of the Torah. At issue, however, as we read further into Pauline Doctrine, is that Yahowah and His Torah will soon be presented as an unbearable burden and as the source of enslavement, said to be of the flesh not of the spirit which was equated with evil, so we are compelled to ask: who is this god whom Shauwl believes wants to liberate us? Along these lines, recognize that I usually cite Yahowahs name in reference to the (Theta Upsilon) or (Theta Sigma) placeholders, because that is Yahowahs intent. Having translated hundreds of Greek quotations of Hebrew Scriptural passages where Yahowahs name was written, I have consistently witnessed these placeholders in the exact location in which Yahowahs name was inscribed. So, Im simply following Gods example. But as Ive already shared, Im reluctant to do so in Pauls epistles for reasons which will become apparent in subsequent chapters. The fifth insight which can be gleaned from Galatians 1:4 is that in the crucible of Egypt, like in Rabbinical Israel, and like in the entire Roman Empire, we find an onos worthless, immoral, and corrupt world system, ones steeped in oppression and crafted by man. They represent an annoying, wicked and burdensome mix of religion, politics, and militarism which is seen as being valueless and criminal. This is mans world, a mix of human practices and standards. And it is from this that God is desirous of rescuing and freeing us, so long as we are willing. However, be forewarned, that while I have associated this world system with man at this point in our discussion, before we are finished with this epistle, Shauwl will connect it with Yahowahs Torah, and thereby disassociate himself from this positive perspective. Sixth, in this passage, we are not being called into religion or politics, but instead away from these things. This serves as a forerunner of Revelations famous Come out of her my people, where Yahowah is calling us out of Babylon. And seventh, we might infer from this verse that Shauwl may have recognized that the Judean, Galatian, and Roman religious and governmental

institutions were evil. In actuality, they represented a system from which we need Gods assistance to become free. And if we were to apply this to our time, it means that the present Western, Communist, and Islamic religious institutions and governments are immoral and oppressive. However, since belittling and annulling the Torah will become the central thrust of Galatians, we must be careful when speculating about from which system Shauwl wants to liberate us. As I have already insinuated, later in this epistle, the author will directly associate the Torah with rudimentary worldly systems something he reaffirms in his letter to the Collosians. The message laden within the Greek text, as well as the reference to freewill, is lost in the version of Galatians 1:4 found in the KJV: Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father, Other than present wicked age, the Vulgate is identical. The NLT, however, decided to be more creative: Jesus gave his life for our sins, just as God our Father planned, in order to rescue us from this evil world in which we live. While the inclusion of a subject is required, Jesus name isnt part of this clause. Further, arbitrarily adding a subject to the clause artificially elevates the writing quality, giving the false impression that this could have been inspired by God. Moreover, there is no basis for his life or our sins in the Greek text. Shauwl wrote giving Himself on account of us being misled. While the consequence of going in the wrong direction is death, for which Yahowshas mortal life was given, the consequence of wandering away down the wrong path is separation from God, and the remedy for that was the separation of the Maaseyahs soul from Yahowah on Unleavened Bread. The NLT also ignored the freewill aspects of exaireomai, and thereby obfuscated the merit of the passage. Along these lines, the New Living Translation misconstrued Gods message as well. Yahowahs desire, rather than his plan, is for us to come out of mans religious and political schemes. Yahowahs plan, rather than His desire, is the means to that endspecifically Yahowshas fulfillment of the Called-Out Assemblies. Shauwls long sentence concludes with the following clause: to (eis) whom (hos) the manifestation of brilliant, radiant, splendor (doxa the glorious reputation and the appearance of shining light, amazing might, glory and benevolence) [belongs] forever and ever (onos onos). Amen (amane is trustworthy and reliable). (Galatians 1:5) It should be noted that doxa, translated radiant splendor, is from dokeo, which means to think and to be judgmental. This combination of things

enlightens the path to God. But, once again, we must be careful here because Shauwl equates Satan to a messenger of light in 2 Corinthians 11:14, and his depiction of the flashing light he experienced on the road to Damascus (revealed in Acts 9, 22, and 26) is identical to Yahowshas depiction of Satans fall from heaven (Luke 10:18-19) passages which we will analyze and compare in due time. The Greek word amane is a transliteration of the Hebrew amein, meaning trustworthy and reliable. Capitalized as Amen, it becomes a transliteration of the name of the Egyptian sun god: Amen Ra. And as such, Amen is the name of the god to whom Christians pray when they say, in Gods name we pray, Amen. So, based upon its position at the end of this clause, and its reemergence in Shauwls signoff at the end of this letter, there would be no justification for translating the meaning of the word, strongly suggesting that the inappropriate transliteration was intended. It is interesting in this regard to note that among many of the obelisks around Rome, including one now at the center of the Vatican, their bases are inscribed with testimonials to the sun. In fact, one in front of St. Johns Basilica still has the inscription The Name of our God is Amen. Such obelisks were then sanctified by Christian clerics and became church steeples replete with crosses. As we probe the King James and Vulgate, it appears obvious enough that they wanted us to believe that the Egyptian sun-god, Amen Ra, was eternal and glorious. The KJV reads: To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. The LV says: To him is glory forever and ever. Amen. But they were not alone. The NLT conveys the same message: All glory to God forever and ever! Amen. The only difference between them is that the NLT arbitrarily added God, and thereby associated this title with Amen. There is an advantage to dissecting every verse, one at a time, but there is also a benefit to seeing a writers thoughts presented as a collective whole. Here then is Shauwls opening statement: Paulos, an Apostle, not of men, and not even by the means of man, but to the contrary on behalf of the Maaseyah Yahowsha, God, the Father, caused Him to rise from a corpse, (1:1) with all my brothers to the set-apart assemblies of Galatia, (1:2) Charis/Gratia/Grace to you and peace from God, the Father, and our Lord, the Maaseyah Yahowsha, (1:3) giving Himself on account of us being misled, so that we can choose to be set free from our present immoral world system, in accordance with the purpose of God, our Father, (1:4) the manifestation of brilliant light forever. Amen. (1:5)

LE: YY 01-15-2013