Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 57

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

5 Kataginosko Convicted and Condemned Judging Paul by Judging Peter What follows isnt pleasant. But we find it written nonetheless. It shows Shauwl attacking Shimown unmercifully. This diatribe is the reason that I provided you with an alternative perspective on Shauwls perceptions of Shimown, Yaaqob, and Yahowchanan, and why we considered whether they were supposed or actual pillars. Having spent much of my life in business, I recognize that this all smacks of a turf warof one man trying to expand his territory, his area of responsibility if you will, vying for the jurisdiction of others. Worse, the arrogant statements which preceded this upcoming bout of character assassination, the repeated attempts to seek the approval of others and then putting them down, as well as the name-calling that ensues at the opening of the third chapter of Galatians, suggests to me that Paul may have suffered from insecurity. I have personally witnessed its divisive power up closewhich is why I am so aware of its telltale signs. And while I am over-sensitized when it comes to any manifestation of insecurity, there can be, at least in rare instances, a silver lining. If mild insecurity, or more accurately, inadequacy, is mediated by reliance upon Yahowah, where He fills the void, then human insufficiency becomes an opportunity for God to demonstrate His power through a flawed implement. Moseh / Moses stuttered. Dowd / David was a traitor. Solomon was gluttonous. Shimown was impulsive. They are all testaments to the fact that Yahowah does His best work through people who recognize that they are useless without Him. At this point some of you may be confused, thinking that insecurity would make someone shy, which flies in the face of Paul being an egomaniac (by his own admission in Colossians 1:24: now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in Christs afflictions and elsewhere). But those who suffer from deep seated insecurity compensate with conceit, because it masks their infirmity. They are aggressive, even conniving, tearing others down to lift themselves up. And knowing that they are vulnerable, they constantly tout their

own truthfulness, while at the same time proactively and dishonestly besmirching the reputations of all those they perceive may be a threat. But more than anything, an insecure person comes to view themselves as being imminently important, even indispensible, so much so they will accept no rivals. Paul was a textbook case, as was Muhammad. The malady of insecurity makes an individual particularly vulnerable to the wiles of Satan. In that an entire chapter has passed before us since we last contemplated a Galatians passage, before we continue, here are the first ten verses of the second chapter: Later thereafter in the sequence of events, through fourteen years also and in addition, I went up to Yaruwshalaim along with Barnabas, bringing along also Titus. (2:1) I went up, but then downward from uncovering an unveiling revelation which lays bare, and set forth, laying down to them the beneficial messenger which I preach among the races down from ones own, uniquely and separately, but then to the opinions, presumptions, and suppositions, not somehow perhaps into foolishly and stupidly, without purpose and falsely, I might run or I ran. (2:2) To the contrary, and making a distinction, not even Titus, a Greek, being, was compelled, forced or pressured to be circumcised (2:3) now because on account of the false brothers brought in surreptitiously under false pretenses, who slipped into the group to secretly observe the freedom and liberation we possess in the Maaseyah Yahowsha in order to enslave us. (2:4) On account of now because the false brothers brought in surreptitiously under false pretenses, who slipped into the group by stealth to secretly observe the freedom and liberation we possess in the Christo, Iesou, in order to enslave us, making us subservient. (2:4) With regard to whom, we did not yield in order that the truth of God would continue to exist advantageously among you. (2:5) Moreover, from those who were of the opinion they were someone important based upon some sort of former existence, I am indifferent, and dont see them as having any particular merit. In the presence of God, men cannot claim authority or rank. To be sure, the opinionated added nothing advisable to the conversation and did not provide useful counsel or comments. (2:6)

Rather, on the contrary, see, believing that the healing and beneficial messenger the uncircumcised, inasmuch as Petros the circumcised. (2:7) For indeed, the functionality inside Apostle Rock the circumcised, also facilitated me to the races and nations. (2:8) And knowing and recognizing the Charis-Charity / Gratiam-Grace given to me, Yaaqob, the Rock, and Yahowchanan, the presumed and regarded existing pillars, gave the right hand of fellowship to me and Barnabas to the races and nations, but they to the circumcised. (2:9) Only just to remember the cause of the poor, who also myself eagerly did my best to do this. (Galatians 2:10) If you are scratching your head wondering how anyone in their right mind could possibly consider this disjointed, jaundiced, self-serving, and egotistical rant to be inspired Scripture, you are not alone. But nonetheless, you are up to speed with Pauls race against Yahowah, Yahowsha, their prophets and disciples. Even though the Rock is credited for having treated Shauwl like a lost brother in Yaruwshalaym, when Shimown went to Syria, the love was not reciprocated... But (de) when (hote) Kephas (Kephas the Rock) came (erchomai) to (eis) Antioch (Antiocheia then the capital of Syria, but now in the southern tip of Turkey; derived from a transliteration of Antiochus, which was the name of a Syrian king, meaning to drive against), I was opposed and against (kata) his (autos) presence (prosopon face, person, and appearance), taking a firm stand in hostile opposition (anthistemi resisting and setting myself up against him; from anti, against and opposed to, and histemi his stand, his presence, and him becoming established), because (hoti) he was (eimi he is and will be) convicted and condemned (kataginosko judged to be guilty, to lack accurate information and to be devoid of understanding; from kata, opposed to and against, and ginosko, knowing, and thus ignorant). (Galatians 2:11) Shimown was seen as a threat to Shauwls authority and dominion. It is as simple as that. This has nothing to do with what Peter was doing, but instead with what Paul was like. If we were to consider the entirety of the Greek lexicon, it would be difficult to find words more condemning than anthistemi and kataginosko. Histemi speaks of Yahowsha standing up for us so that we could stand with Him, established upright at His side. To be anti-histemi is to be opposed to Yahowsha and His purpose. Since Shimown Kephas was not anti-histemi, it was not appropriate for Shauwl to treat him this way.

Ginosko is the Greek equivalent of yada, the operative name of the book Yada Yah, meaning to know Yah. Therefore to be kata / against ginosko/knowing, is to be opposed to knowing God. One of the most telling traits of chronically insecure individuals is that they are cunning enough to plaster their perceived foes with their own flaws. So by causing Shimown to respond and defend himself, proving that he isnt against knowing God, Shauwl has effectively deflected attention away from himself in this regard and blurred the issue. This strategy makes it more difficult for Shimown / Peter to demonstrate that Shauwl / Paul is actually the one who is opposed to knowing Yahowah, because the audience is at the very least confused by the name calling, the labels, and the subsequent smoke. If you pay close attention to political campaigns, you notice that this approach is as ubiquitous as it is disingenuous. It is also the way powerful conspirators behave towards those attempting to expose their schemes. The one trying to alert others so that they dont become victims of those scheming against them are discredited and labeled cooks, thereby forcing them to defend themselves. In so doing, the audience is distracted, often confused, and the truth is lost in the midst of the slanderous attacks and name-calling. An ocean of evidence is tossed aside by a single mocking sound-bite. It is a clever, albeit evil, tactic. For Shauwl, this was personal. Paul was against the very presence of the Rock in Antioch. He went out of his way to demonstrate his hostility. He openly and publicly declared his opposition to one of Yahowshas closest and most beloved Disciple. And then he judged him, saying that Shimown was convicted and condemned, even ignorant and irrational. Save overtly renouncing Yahowah, denouncing the Torah, and denying Yahowsha, there was nothing Shimown / Peter, of all people, could say or do which would justify this level of attack. Shimown may have been wrong about something, and if he was, it wouldnt have been the first time. But, as passionate as Kephas was, he never bothered to defend himself personally. He turned the other cheek, and left Syria. Shauwl, however, would press his case against this amazingly important individual. And in the process, he would incriminate Yaaqob, Yahowshas brother, as well. In the King James, this passage reads: But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. Their rendering, which is inadequate, was derived from the Latin Vulgate: But when Cephas had arrived at Antiochiam, I stood against him to his face, because he was blameworthy. Uncomfortable conveying the inflammatory nature of kataginosko and anthistemi, the New Living Translation followed in the footsteps of their predecessors. But

when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong. To put this in perspective from a geographic perspective, Antioch is less than one-hundred miles from Shauwls hometown, Tarsus, and that may have been part of the problem. It is nearly 400 miles, due north, along the coast road, from Jerusalem. Peter was a long way from home. As we turn to the next verse, we find another conflict between the late firstcentury manuscript of this passage, and modern renderings, whereby multiple individuals instead of one certain individual arrived while Shimown was eating. Therefore, following Shimown Kephas long journey, we find Shauwl saying: Because (gar), before (pro) a certain individual (tina someone) came (erchomai) from (apo) Yaaqob (Iakobos), [Shimown] was eating together (synesthio consuming a meal in association) with (meta) the (tov) people of different races and places (ethnos a group of individuals from many nations), but (de) when (hote) he came (erchomai), he withdrew (hupostello timidly hesitated and cowered, kept silent while trying to avoid contact) and (kai) separated (aphorize) himself (heautou), out of (ek) fear of (phobeomai frightened by) the circumcised (peritome read Jew). (Galatians 2:12) By saying that Peter hupostelo withdrew, Paul was announcing to anyone familiar with Greek, that Peter was no longer an apostello Apostle (one who is sent off). And as such, we can be assured the Paul meant for us to understand dokei presumed and supposed in the most negative light. Shimown Kephas was doing what Yahowsha had asked of him. He had left home to bring Gods redemptive message to the world. He was breaking bread in fellowship with brothers whom we can only assume were part of the called-out assembly. Then, a Jew arrived. While Shauwl would have had no way of knowing if he had been sent out by Yaaqob, its certain that Shimown wouldnt have been afraid of him if he had been. And if the crime of which the Rock was guilty was timidity, if it was withdrawing rather than engaging, and if that was what constituted Shimowns conviction and condemnation, no one would ever be saved. While I understand that Peter wasnt perfect, its perfectly clear that this onerous rant against him wasnt godly. The problem is no longer just the grammar, its the attitude. And its also Pauls style. Given his previous propensity for spin, its likely that Shimown had a valid reason to leave (like being allergic to Shauwl), but Paul left this reason out in order to make Peter look bad. Rather than recognize Shimowns enormous liberty with respect to the Towrah and its Covenant, Shauwl was cleverly trying to infer that Shimown was

compelled to leave because of the crushing control mechanisms of Rabbinical Judaism. He then was positioning himself as the brave Paladin of God, standing in the gap for the benefit of all mankind. None of it was true, but that didnt seem to matter. In the context of Pauls offensive assault on Peter, we are compelled to consider Shauwls behavior in light of what he called the deeds of the flesh and the fruit of the spirit, delineated in Galatians 5. While I wont repeat those attributes here, juxtaposed against these past few verses, we must conclude that either Paul wasnt imbued with the Spirit or he was a complete hypocrite. Of this unfortunate incident, the KJV wrote: For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. Jeromes Latin Vulgate reported: For before certain ones arrived from Iakob, he ate with the Gentibus. But when they had arrived, he drew apart and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. Feeling at liberty to adlib, the liberated NLT scribed: When he first arrived, he ate with the Gentile Christians, who were not circumcised. But afterward, when some friends of James came, Peter wouldnt eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was afraid of criticism from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision. Shauwl never wrote the word Christian. The name cannot be found in any Greek manuscript attributed to him. Not one, not once. Further, there was absolutely no indication in the text that the issue was an insistence on the necessity of circumcision. To the contrary, this point had already been vetted. Shauwl continued his assault: He (autos) acted hypocritically (synypokrinomai), and also (kai) the remaining (loipos) Yahuwdym (Ioudaios transliteration of the Hebrew, meaning Related to Yah). As a result (hoste therefore) also (kai) Barnabas was led away (apago), himself (autos) a hypocrite (hypokrisis an insincere pretender). (Galatians 2:13) This tells us that Galatians was written after the Yaruwshalaym Summit in 50 CE, but before Barnabas and Shauwl split up the following year. And based upon what we read in Acts, this may well have been the disagreement which led to their less-than-amicable parting. Scripture encourages us to be critical of false teaching, telling us to expose and condemn lies and liars, but the Rock was neither a false teacher nor a liar. If he was either of these things, his acknowledgement that Yahowsha is the Maaseyah, the Son of the Living God, would have to be stricken from the record. And the books of First and Second Peter would have to be expunged.

If this were the case, it would have dire consequences for Christian theology. The lone, thin, hope of considering Pauls letters Scripture, is allegedly found in 2 Peter 3:12-17. But if Shimown is as Shauwl calls him, a man who was convicted and condemned, judged to be guilty, devoid of understanding and accurate information, and thus ignorant, then Peters letter would be worthless, as it wouldnt be trustworthy. Moreover, considering what Shauwl just wrote, it isnt even remotely plausible that Shimown wrote a ringing endorsement of Paul. Constructively criticizing the way Shimown had left a meal might well have been appropriate if it engendered a conversation on how Pauls and Peters interpretations of the Torah might have differed in this regard. But all we have here is personal condemnation and name-callingdevoid of enlightenment. And while my feelings are irrelevant in this matter, this makes me nauseous. But once again, the problem isnt with the fidelity of the Greek manuscripts, but with the words Shauwl dictated. So its hard to be critical of the KJV: And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. The LV is reasonably accurate as well: And the other Iudi consented to his pretense, so that even Barnabas was led by them into that falseness. The NLT, however, created a conversation to suit their constituency. As a result, other Jewish Christians followed Peters hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. While it pains me to ponder the consequence of these words, we must. Collectively, Paul has said: But when Kephas came to Antioch, I was opposed and against his presence, taking a firm stand in hostile opposition, because he was convicted and condemned. (2:11) Because, before a certain individual came from Yaaqob, was eating together with the people of different races and places, but when he came, he withdrew and separated himself, out of fear of the circumcised. (2:12) He acted hypocritically, and also the remaining Yahuwdym. As a result also Barnabas was led away, himself a hypocrite. (Galatians 2:13)

In that it is especially germane to our discussion, lets pause here in the midst of Pauls vicious attack on Peter to consider what the victim had to say about his accuser. For that, we must turn to Second Peter 3:12-17. There we find Shimown: eagerly expecting the coming presence of the day of Yahowahand accordingly looking forward to His promise of new heavens

and a new earth in which those who are acceptable, correct, and approved (dikaiosune) will live. (2 Shimown / He Listens / Peter 3:12-13) The operative word in this passage is dikaiosune, which was rendered acceptable, correct, and approved. It is the opposite of anthistemi hostile opposition and kataginosko convicted and condemned, the terms Paul used against Peter. Dikaiosune is focused upon the manner in which souls are approved by God. It speaks of thinking correctly so as to become acceptable. It is based upon dikaios, which is defined as becoming upright by observing Gods instructions. Dikaiosune is therefore the fulcrum upon which Peters evaluation of Paul will pivot in this circumstance, especially since Paul is seen opposing the Torah. In this regard, it is also instructional to know that dikaios is based upon dike and deiknuo which convey the idea of exposing the evidence to determine if something is consistent with that which is authorized. Continuing to speak of becoming acceptable so as to live in heaven, Shimown says: Therefore (dio for this reason) loved ones (agapetos dear friends), eagerly expect (prosdokao confidently look forward to) this, earnestly making every effort (spoudazo diligently endeavoring to do your best to become ready) to experience Him (heuriskomai autos to discover and learn what is necessary to be found by Him) pure and spotless, without blemish or defect (aspilos undefiled without fault) also avoiding judgment (amometos being blameless) with regard to (en) reconciliation (eirene being joined in a harmonious relationship). (2 Shimown / He Listens / Peter 3:14) Those who earnestly make every effort to observe the Torah can expect to experience Yahowah in a purified state. They will avoid judgment, because they have been reconciled with regard to the Covenant relationship. As an interesting aside, in two verses we have already learned more from Peter than we have learned in two Pauline chapters. Peter wrote about how we can be made right with God while Paul has written about how he is right. Expecting not to be judged, expecting entrance into heaven, and expecting to personally experience Yahowahs presence as a result of being correct with regard to the Torah, constitutes the breadth of Shimowns message. And to this he adds: Consider (hegeomai think about and regard, be directed and guided by, be counseled and led by) the degree which (kathos accordingly) the Upright One (KY Yahowah) steadfastly forebears (makrothumai showing restraint which consistently and patiently endures) the process of our salvation (soteria the means to our deliverance). (2 Shimown / He Listens / Peter 3:15) This affirms that salvation is a steadfast and unwavering process, neither instant nor capricious.

Makrothumia, which was translated steadfastly forebears, is a compound of thuo, meaning to be slain and sacrificed, and macros, for all time. It therefore provides a telling word-picture of Yahowshas Passover and Unleavened Bread sacrifices. Thumos speaks of being exasperated, and of waging a war with great passion, even showing animosity and anger. This suggests that while God is exceptionally displeased with mankinds choices, and angry about our corruptions of His message, these things have not caused Him to abandon the battle to save us from ourselves. It also says that His solution to what we have done is eternal, lasting throughout time. So far, Peters words have been practically perfect. The path to heaven has been delineated, step by step without distractionthat is, until now. In the midst of the second half of the 15th verse, Peter suddenly turns his attention from our salvation to Pauland I suppose that is because they are related (albeit not in a good way). And (kai) accordingly (kathos inasmuch as), our (ego) dear (ho agapetos esteemed) brother (adelphos [and thus not Apostle]), Paulos (Paulos Latin for little and small), through (kata in accord with) the (ho) human wisdom (sophia insights gleaned and capacity to understand derived from mans knowledge, intelligence, experience, science, and philosophy [and thus not Godly inspiration]) that had been given to (didomai granted and assigned to and experienced by) him (autos) wrote to (grapho) you (su). (2 Shimown / He Listens / Peter 3:15) Based upon how Shauwl treated Shimown, and based upon the fact that he vociferously condemned him in the very letter Peter was now referencing, it strains credulity to believe that that Yahowshas Disciple penned the word agapetos dear and esteemedunless the esteemed connotation was a tongue-in-cheek reference to Pauls notorious ego. It is, to my mind, much more likely that second- and third-century scribes operating under Marcions influence augmented the text to serve their religious interests. It is the most reasonable explanation. But, more on this in a moment. Whether or not Peter actually wrote our dear/esteemed brother, Paulos, I cannot say, but considering what Paul had written about Peter in his Galatians epistle, it is unlikely in the extreme that he felt this way. So, as I just mentioned, we would be wise to see Shimowns tongue planted firmly in his cheek, and his eyebrows raised mockingly, regarding the notion of esteemed. Further evidencing this, the status Paul craved most was to be considered an Apostle, yet Shimown did not credit him as such. And speaking of mocking, while sophia can describe any form of wisdom, every lexicon identifies it first and foremost as the wisdom of menthe

synthesis of education and experience, of philosophy and science. In this light, consider the difference between Peter and his adversary, Paul. While the Disciple had no formal education, and had learned everything he knew from walking in the footsteps of the Maaseyah, Shauwl had been born a Roman citizen, a Pharisee. He was educated in Tarsus of Cilicia, the home of what was then a most prestigious university. And Shauwl studied Judaism at the feet of the worlds leading religious authority. From Peters perspective, Paul was steeped in human understanding. Since it implies human philosophy, the statement through the wisdom given to him should not be construed as a compliment or an endorsement of Pauls understanding of Yahowahs planespecially as presented in the Galatians epistle. The source of these insights is only tangentially identified, and Peter isnt saying that he is agreeing with what Paul has written. You may have noticed that the final clause of 2 Peter 3:15 speaks of a specific letter which had been written by Paul to a particular audience. So to understand which letter Peter was referring to we have to conduct a little investigation. In 2 Peter 3:1, Shimown says that this is the second letter I am writing to you. And in 1 Peter 1:1, we learn that Shimowns first epistle was addressed to those who reside as foreigners scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappodocia, Asia, and Bithynia. The lone point of intersection between Pauls letters and Peters recipients is Galatia. And not so coincidently, this is the letter in which Peter was openly condemned by Paul. Before we press on, remember that Paul continually insisted that Peters ministry was limited to Jews, while his realm was comprised of the rest of the world. Obviously Peter didnt agree. Last time I checked, foreigners scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappodocia, Asia, and Bithynia, are not Jews in Judea. Therefore, when Paul implied that Shimown, Yaaqob, and Yahowchanan had agreed with him that their ministries were limited to the circumcised, he was either misinformed or lying. This known, Peters next line reads: And (kai) even as (hos like and in a similar way (denoting a weak relationship between things)) in (en with regard to) all (pas) letters (epistole epistles), inside (en) they speak (laleo talk) around (peri and remotely about; from peran, meaning to the extremity and beyond, and heteros, that which is different and opposed to) this (houtos). (2 Shimown / He Listens / Second Peter 3:16) Considering the context, this, the subject in this case, remains Gods unwavering and unchanging nature with regard to salvation. Therefore, the phrase suggests that the letters Paul penned speak around this subject. That is to say

that circular reasoning is being used to convey a view which is opposed to and different than Gods position. To fully appreciate Shimowns next line, it behooves us to contemplate the meaning of duysnoetos, which will be translated difficult to understand, below. As a compound of dus, meaning opposed to, difficult, and injurious to, and noeo thinking, the word may actually mean: opposed to understanding and injurious to thinking. And that would considerably change the tone of what follows. Within (en) them (autos), that is to say, there are (hos eimi there is the existence of) some things (tis) difficult to understand (duysnoetos hard to comprehend or detrimental to understanding), which (ho) the (ho) uneducated (amathes unlearned and ignorant) and (kai) malleable (asteriktos those with flexible and changeable views, perspectives, and attitudes) will misinterpret and distort (strebloo will pervert, twist, change, and turn), (2 Peter 3:16) I unequivocally agree with the Rocks assessment. As a result of the writing quality and ambiguity, as a result of his affinity for self-promotion and his tendency to contradict himself, Pauls letters are difficult to understand, especially in light of his propensity to twist the truth and misquote Scripture. And because of their deficiencies, they are remarkably easy to misinterpret and distort, especially among those who are ignorant of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, as well as those who ignore the teachings of Yahowsha. And that is why they have become a stumbling block for so many, and a hindrance to understanding. But, even more telling, Pauls letters are detrimental to our understanding. And that is why they are so lethal. Someone who isnt properly informed about the enduring value of the Torah would be easily swayed by this charlatan and his onslaught of circular reasoning. One of the reasons that Shauwls letters are so prone to misinterpretation is the window dressing that accompanies them. He claims to be an Apostle, although he was not appointed as such. He claims to speak for God, and yet he consistently misquotes Him. He claims to represent the Maaseyah and yet by separating Yahowsha from the Torah, Shauwl, not the Rabbis nor Romans, wielded the most deadly and devastating blow. He claims that he cannot lie, and yet that is all he has done. These things combined with the placement of his letters in the Bible, as if they were Scripture, work to enhance the credibility of one of the worlds most egregious deceivers. Add to this the fact that over a billion people believe this mans rhetoric, and you have the recipe for religious perversions of monstrous proportions. Even here, steeped in Pauline Doctrine, Christian apologists will claim that I am misinterpreting Paul. And yet all Im actually doing is presenting his words as

accurately as is possible, exposing his strategy, and holding him accountable for contradicting God. I am relating to you what Yahowah had to say of him through His prophet Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk. If you recall, Yahowah said: Moreover, because the intoxicating wine and inebriating spirit of the man of deceptive infidelity and treacherous betrayal who tries to influence and control others without justification through trickery and deceit, is a high-minded moral failure, an arrogant and meritless man of presumption, so he will not rest, find peace, nor live, whoever is open to the broad path, the opportunistic, duplicitous, and improper way associated with Shauwl. He and his soul are like the plague of death. And so those who are brought together by him, receiving him, those who associate with and join him, those who are removed and withdrawn from the company of God, assembling with him, will not be satisfied. All of the Gentiles, the people from different races, nations, and places, will gather together unto him, all of the people from different races and nations in different places. They do not ask questions, any of them, about him. Terse references to the word they lift up as taunts to ridicule, with clichs becoming bywords with implied associations to mock and counterfeit, along with allusive sayings with derisive words (malytsah mocking interpretations wrapped in enigmas are arrogantly spoken). There are hard and perplexing questions which need to be asked of him (chydah la there are difficult enigmas to be solved, dark and hidden secrets, and double dealings, to be known regarding him). And they should say, Woe to the one who claims to be great and increases his offspring, to the one who thrives on numbers and who considers himself exceedingly important, even as a rabbi, none of which apply to him. For how long will they make pledges and be in debt based upon his significance, pursuant to the weight and burden of his testimony and the grievous honor afforded him? (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:5-6) It appears as if Shimown and Yahowah view Shauwl and his writing similarly if not identically. How about you? Before we move on to Shimowns next thought, you should know that the conjunction kai is typically used as punctuation, designating the end of one sentence and the beginning of another. If that is the case here, it would isolate the difficult concepts contained in the letters from the Scriptural reference at the end of the verse. Along these lines, of the 9,280 times kai appears in these Greek manuscripts, it is either not translated (serving as punctuation), or it is conveyed as an And at the beginning of a sentence. The also rendering found below, which was used to connect these thoughts, is appropriate a scant five percent of the times we see kai in the text. Therefore, in spite of the fact that there is no verb

in the sentence fragment which follows, the odds are that the introductory and concluding clauses in the 16th verse are actually separate thoughts. and/also (kai) like (hos as in a somewhat similar way denoting a weak relationship between) the (ho) remaining (loipos inferior) writings (graphe), to the consequence of (pros with regard to) their (autos) own individual (idios ones distinct and unique) destruction and annihilation (apoleia complete and utter ruin and obliteration). (2 Shimown / He Listens / Peter 3:16) There are many obstacles to understanding here. First, hos conveys a weak association, not a strong one, as is required for Pauls letters to be considered as anything more than written correspondence. In this light, while the word graphe is usually used to designate Scripture, all it actually means is writing. As such, Peter used the verb form of this same word, grapho, to convey the idea of writing a letter in the prior verse. Also, in the context of one letter written to the Galatians, followed by the comment as is the case with all letters, Peter may well be, and probably is, expanding his critical evaluation to include everything Paul has written, as opposed to just the Galatians epistle. In that way, he wouldnt be disparaging Gods Word, indicating that it was somehow deficient. But in the unlikelihood that Peter was referring to Scripture, at least his final thought would be accurate. Those who are ignorant of the Torah, those who misinterpret and distort Scripture, are destined to have their souls annihilated. They dont know God, and God doesnt know them. The same fate awaits malleable individuals. Because they are easily swayed by religious rhetoric, most will find their souls destroyed at the end of their mortal existence. And if, as reason dictates, Peter was addressing the rest of Pauls letters, then once again he would be accurate. Those who approach them out of an ignorance of the Torah and Yahowshas statements regarding it, will find their souls annihilated in accord with the Torahs presentation of the path to salvation found in the Miqraey. Pauls message was wrong, which means that those who believe him will be wrong. Peter is warning Christians about the consequence of Pauline Doctrinecalling it deadly and destructive. While Peter stubbed his toe from time to time, he never wavered from the path. When it came time to stand up and boldly declare the truth, Peter led the way. And that is why it would be ridiculous in the extreme to suggest, as Christians do, that Peter meant the remaining writings to be a reference to Scripture, as opposed to Pauls remaining letters. Because if he were referring to other Scripture, then Peter would be inferring that Yahowah and Yahowsha were poor communicators, and that their message of salvation was misleading and difficult to understand. There is no chance Shimown Kephas would ever say such a thing. Especially in light of the fact Scripture says:

Yahowahs Towrah (towrah teaching, instruction, guidance, and direction) is complete and entirely perfect (tamym without defect, lacking nothing, correct, sound, genuine, right, helpful, beneficial, and true), returning, restoring, and transforming the soul. Yahowahs enduring testimony and restoring witness is trustworthy and reliable, making understanding (hakam educating and enlightening oneself to the point of comprehension) simple for the open-minded and receptive. (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:7) The Torah is only difficult to understand if it is viewed from the errant perspective of Pauline Doctrine, disassociated from Yahowsha, taken out of context, poorly translated, not considered as a cohesive whole, or read by someone whose thinking and attitude have been corrupted by Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, who have been beguiled into believing that it is comprised of laws to be obeyed as opposed to teaching to be understood. Moreover, what little may have been somewhat obscure to those unwilling to invest the time required to understand, was subsequently explained by Yahowsha. Ill grant you that while some prophetic passages were a challenge to unravel, at least initially, Yahowshas dictation to Yahowchanan in Revelation has unlocked most every mystery. It is the New Testament which has been distorted and discredited by the inclusion of Pauls letters to infer that Gods Word has been annulled. Its not the other way around. But in the end, the question remains: what exactly is meant by the Greek loipos? Most every English translation says that it means other. They do this to infer that Pauls letters are Scripture. But there are many problems associated with this conclusion. First among them is that the primary Greek word for other is allos, not loipos. Allos is translated other or another 143 of the 160 times it appears in the Greek text. Allos, not loipos, is defined as another person or thing of the same kind. Therefore, allos, not loipos, would have been the perfect word to use here if such an association were actually intended. The very fact that it wasnt, tells us most of what we need to know. Second, while loipos can be translated others when speaking of people and things, loipos is a plural feminine adjective. In this context it appears to be modifying the feminine plural noun graphe, so it would have to be written others Scriptures, not other Scripture. But there is only one Divine revelation referred to by Yahowsha as the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, not multiple sets of scriptures. However, if Peter was referring to Pauls remaining writings, then everything fits. So please give this realization your full consideration.

Third, along these lines, the primary definition of loipos is remaining, not others, which is why it was rendered as such above. Loipos is derived from leipo, meaning: that which is left. By way of confirmation, in Mattanyah / Matthew 25:11, loipos was used for the first time in these Greek manuscripts. There it was used to describe the remaining bridesmaids who were denied entry to the wedding for lack of oil, a metaphor for the Spirit. Loipos was used in Acts 2:37 as a reference to the remaining eleven Disciples who witnessed Shimowns speech on the Called-Out Assembly of Seven Sabbaths. Fourth, leipo also carries the derogatory connotations of forsaken and inferior, which in this context becomes a serious problem. In this case, Peter would be referring to Pauls writings as being inferior and damned, in essence turning the tables on his tormentor. And fifth, its worth noting that in Greek, adjectives usually follow the nouns they are modifying. But in this case, loipos precedes graphe, which is unusual. Therefore, the other Scripture connotation required to infer that Pauls letters were inspired, isnt remotely accurate. Moreover, there is no textual basis for the continuous adding of he and his in English bibles, which is also required to make the connection between Paul, his letters, and the Writings. The ESV, for example, adds he does, his letters, and he speaks, all without justification. Although the Rocks point has been made, I would be remiss if I didnt share the last two lines of Shimowns epistle. In the context of Pauls remaining letters being easily twisted, misunderstood, and even inferior, what he said is especially relevant. You, therefore (oun), beloved (agapetos dear one), knowing this in advance (proginosko possessing this foreknowledge), be on your guard (phylassomai keep away from this and be especially observant) in order that (hima) [you] are not (me) led astray, associating with (synapagomai are not carried off to judgment and separation because of) the deception and delusion of (plane) the un-appointed one (athesmos the wicked and unprincipled one who serves and gratifies himself by rejecting and annuls the validity of that which has been established, doing away with it), forsaking and falling away from (ekpipto becoming inadequate and ceasing to exist, perishing by foregoing) ones individual (idios) guarantee of safety and being preserved (sterigmos receiving affirmation of confirmation, becoming established, upright and stable). (2 Shimown / He Listens / Peter 3:17) If Peter had meant to say that Pauls letters were Scripture, he would not have warned the Galatians to be on their guard so as not to be led astray into deception or delusion by the un-appointed one, the wicked and unprincipled one who sought to gratify himself by annulling the Towrah.

It is also worth noting that many people consider Galatians to be Pauls worst letterthus invalidating the notion that other epistles were inferior. And as it relates to the quality of the writing, his first letter was his worst. But when it comes to content and message, three of the next four are inferiorFirst and Second Thessalonians and Second Corinthians. And in due time, we will explore the justifications for this conclusion. Its little wonder that Christians disassociate this verse from the preceding one. This one line undermines most of what Paul will say in the remainder of his Galatians epistle, as Peter is establishing the Torah as the source of our salvation. Peter was actually saying that the Galatians epistle, like all of Pauls letters, would lead countless people astray, into the deception and delusion of being without the Torah, which would in turn cause them to forego their salvation. Those who are not grounded in the Torah, do not understand Yahowahs plan of salvation, and thus they are easy prey for the likes of Shauwl and his misguided and misleading religious rhetoric. In this regard, Peters fulcrum term, dikaiosune, remains extraordinarily pertinent. As you recall, it speaks of thinking correctly so as to become acceptable. Based upon dikaios, it conveys becoming upright by observing Gods directions, and of exposing the evidence required to teach and prove that which is consistent with that which is authorized. Therefore, my friends, if you twist each of Peters words to reflect their most advantageous connotations relative to Pauls epistles, and thus manipulate Peters highly critical review of Pauline Doctrine, convoluting it into a glowing endorsement, then youd still have to remove the second half of 2 Peter 3:16 and all of 2 Peter 3:17 from the context of this discussion. Otherwise, why would he tell those he loves to be wary of Pauls epistles, to be on their guard lest they be led astray into the delusion of the un-appointed one and thus lose their hope of salvation? After all, if he isnt advising us to be wary of Pauls letters, then Peter would be saying that the Torah itself is a hindrance to understanding. And since thats ridiculous in the context of Peters life and writings, this conclusion affirms that Shimown Kephas was condemning Shauwls epistles, not commending them. Bringing it all together, here is what Peter wrote to the Galatians about Paul and his epistles: Paulos, through the human wisdom that had been given to him, wrote to you. And even as in all epistles, inside they speak around this using circular reasoning. Within them, that is to say, there are some things difficult to understand, and detrimental to understanding, which the uneducated and ignorant, as well as those who are malleable, will misinterpret and distort, also like the remaining inferior writings, to the consequence of their own individual destruction and annihilation. You,

therefore, beloved, knowing this in advance, be on your guard and keep away from this in order that you are not led astray, associating with the deception and delusion of the vile and self-serving un-appointed one who discounts that which has been established, forsaking and falling away from ones individual guarantee of safety and of becoming established upright. (2 Shimown / He Listens / Peter 3:15-17) To suggest, as Christian apologists do, that Peter said other Scripture was detrimental to understanding, as opposed to Pauls letters, is to demean Shimown, Yahowah, and Yahowsha. Not wanting anyone to miss his point, and therefore miss the opportunity to benefit from Gods gift of salvation, Peter completes his message with these words. But grow in the mercy and knowledge and understanding of our Upright One and Savior, the Maaseyah Yahowsha. He is great and glorious, now and into a day eternal in space and time. This is trustworthy and true. (2 Shimown / He Listens / Peter 3:18) Knowledge and understanding leads to trust and reliance upon the eternal Light of the universe. Notwithstanding the last two verses, if 2 Shimown 3:16 represents the one and only hope Christians have for their assertion that Pauls letters were Scriptureword for word inspired by Godthen they are out on a limb of their own making. The Rock gave no such assurances.

Before we move on, a word about Marcion of Sinope is in order, especially because Papyrus 72, the oldest extant manuscript containing Shimown / Peters epistles, was likely influenced by him. Suffice it to say for now that Marcion played a pivotal role in the formation of the Christian New Testament canon, especially with regard to textual liberty (inaccuracy), and the inclusion of Pauls contradictory epistles. Born to a bishop in Sinope around 85 CE, Marcion, a wealthy ship owner, fled to Rome during Rabbi Akibas Bar Kokhba revolt in 133 CE. There, he studied under Cerdo, an influential Gnostic. In the process, Marcion became a raging anti-Semite who rejected Yahowah and the entirety of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. He saw Paulos of Tarsus as Gods only true Apostle, and he sought to elevate his ten epistles, as well as his own significantly edited version of Luke and Acts (which were written under Pauls influence), to Scriptural status while at the same time, rejecting all other books. In his view, one which shaped Christendom in the second and third centuries (and on to this day), Yahowah was a lesser, wrathful, tyrant and evil demiurge when compared to the all-forgiving, loving, and gracious god, Ieosus

Christos, found in Pauls epistles. Ironically, his dualistic view was both Gnostic in nature and shared by the Jewish theologian, Moses Maimonides. Had it not been for Marcion, in all likelihood, all of Pauls letters would have been rejected as apocrypha and ultimately disassociated from the eyewitness and historical texts over time. They would not have been canonized, and they would never have been considered Scripture. And had this occurred, the Christian religion would not exist. Christians are universally ignorant of the influence Marcion had on their faith because Marcionism was ultimately denounced as heresy in 144 CE, not so much because he was wrong, or even because some of his opinions were inconsistent with the emerging Church in Rome, but because his message was divisive, and thus bad for business. But that didnt stop Marcion from preaching to large crowds and forever altering the mindset of the religious community. Foremost among his influences, Marcion was the first to refer to the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms as the Old Testament, in the sense of being the obsolete will of a now retired and out of touch deity. In its place, and as a replacement, he promoted his New Testament, a canon comprised of his heavily edited versions of Pauls epistles, Luke, and Actswhere all things Jewish were removed or demeaned. In the process, Marcion established a division which had not previously existed, and he created the notion that the Torah was now obsolete, having been replaced by the Gospel of Grace. Anything which didnt support this view was either erased or ignored. It was a transition in perspective that would influence and haunt Christianity forevermore. And while these teachings and titles continue to permeate Christian doctrine, Marcions most haunting legacy was his propensity to edit the text so that it could be interpreted to support his religious views. Over time, Marcion became the father of whats called the Western, Popular, or Free text of the Christian New Testament. Under his influence, scribes were free to harmonize the accounts, improve their readability, and add their own traditions and beliefs as they saw fit. Marcion not only made copious copies of his Gospel and Bible, his followers becane prolific copyists, and using Marcions considerable wealth, they flooded the empire with their versions of Luke and Paul. And as a result of the sheer quantity, immense popularity, and appealing anti-Semitic tone of their manuscripts, much of what now appears in todays Majority Texts of Luke, Acts, and Pauls epistles, is suspect because it has all been heavily edited. Papyrus 72, the late third-century manuscript we were unfortunately required to use in our rendering of Second Shimown / Peter (in that it is the oldest surviving witness to Shimowns letters), is the most Free, and thus least literal, of the seventy manuscripts which predate Constantine. It was written by someone

who was neither a professional scribe, nor interested in accurately conveying what had previously been written. And as such, Marcions fingerprints were all over it. Therefore, we need to be sensitized to anything and everything which artificially elevates Paulespecially when derived from the hand of Shauwls most outspoken critics, the Disciples Shimown, Yaaqob, and Yahowchanan.

Yahowsha made yet another prediction regarding Paul. It was the last He would make before returning to heaven. But as was His custom, His preamble provided the information we would need to understand it, so lets begin there. This was already the third appearance by Yahowsha () with the Disciples, after rising from lifelessness. Therefore, while they ate breakfast, Yahowsha () said to Shimown Kephas, Shimown, of Yahowchanan, do you love Me more than this? He said, Yes, You are aware (oieda) that I love You. He said to him, Feed (boskomai tend to and nourish) My sheep. He said to him again, a second time, Shimown, of Yahowchanan, do you love Me? He said, Yes, You recognize (oieda) that I love You. He said, Shepherd (poimaino guide, care for, feed, protect, tend to, and assist) My sheep. He said to him a third time, Shimown, of Yahowchanan, do you love Me? Grieved, the Rock said to Him, You are aware of (oieda) everything. You know (ginosko) that I love You. Yahowsha said to him, Tend to (boskomai feed and nourish) My sheep. (Yahowchanan / Yahowah is Merciful / John 21:14-17) Yahowsha wasnt talking to Shimown about grazing, about sheep, or about animal husbandry. The sheep are Yahowahs children. Their food is Gods Word: the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. As a shepherd, Yahowsha was asking Shimown Kephas to guide and protect His flock, keeping His sheep out of harms way, while keeping the wolves at bay. And never forget, they were and remain His sheep, not Peters, and especially not Pauls, a popes, nor a pastors. Tending to Gods children requires a shepherd to be properly prepared, which means Shimown would have to diligently study Gods Owners Manual, so that he would be able to teach the Heavenly Fathers children what they need to know to survive and grow, and to quickly recognize problems and resolve them appropriately. To properly tend sheep, the Rock would have to remain

vigilant, which is to say that he must never let his guard down, lest a diseased animal, unfit food, unhealthy behavior, or predator harm Gods flock. And the best way to do that would be to nurture Gods children on the merit of the Torah, so that they would be equipped to care for their children for generations to come. Cognizant that Yahowsha was telling Shimown Kephas to fend off false prophets by properly feeding, directing, and protecting His children, regardless of place or race, Yahowsha provided this prophecy to Shimown regarding Shauwl before returning home Truly (amane), truly (amane), I say (lego) to you, when you were young (neos newly born), you girded yourself (ezonnues second person singular indicative of zonnymi tied the belt of your own garments), and walked (peripateo traveled and directed your life) whenever and wherever (hotan) you desired (thelo decided, intended, and determined). But (de) when you grow old (gerasko when you age), you will extend (ekteneis stretch forth) your hands, and another (allos a different kind of person), he will gird (zosei third person singular future of zonnymi, he will fasten a strap around the midst of) you (se), and he will move you (oisei third person singular future of pheromai he will bring, carry, guide, or drive you) where (hopou) you do not (ou) intend (thelo want, decide, desire, or propose). He said (lego) to him, You should follow My path (akoloutheo moi follow and accompany Me, and be My disciple; from a, be unified and one with, keleuthos, the Way). (Yahowchanan / Yahowah is Merciful / John 21:17-19) As was the case with much of what Yahowsha told His disciples, Yahowchanan may not have understood this prophecy. If he actually wrote the commentary which was added much later, then he incorrectly assumed, with Yahowshas crucifixion vivid in his mind, that the reference to you will extend your hands was a prophetic portrayal of the nature of Shimowns death. But the verb ekteneis you will extend was written in the second person singular tense, you will extend your hands, not in the third person pluralas in they will extend your hands, which would be required for crucifixion. (Moreover, since we dont actually know how Shimown died, its likely that the commentary was added much later by a scribe.) What Yahowsha was saying to Shimown is that in the act of reaching out to feed His flock, someone would tie him up and take him to a place he did not intend to go. The keys to unraveling how this would occur, and to identifying the perpetrator, are zonnymi, pheromai, and akoloutheo. On the surface they mean gird, move, and follow, respectively. But to understand the prophecy, we will have to dig a little deeper.

Zonnymi, translated gird, is from zygos, which means to tie together and to yoke, to apply a burden, or to enslave. It was used by Paul to speak of the yoke of the Torah being an unbearable burden. And he will soon be so bold to declare that the Torah enslaves. Remember Acts 15:10: Now therefore, who submits a test and attempts to trap God, placing (epitithemai) a yoke (zygos) upon the neck of the Disciples which neither we nor our fathers had the ability to endure (bastazo accept, bear, and carry)? (Acts 15:10) The fact that Yahowshas statement was delivered in the third person singular, it is describing one particular individual who would place a yoke upon Shimown. The only person who admitted to doing this was Shauwl / Paul. Similarly, pheromai, he will move you, was transcribed in the third person singular, as oisei. One individual in Peters future was able to drag the Rock to a place Peter had not intended. After pushing Shimown out of Antioch, and driving him back to Yaruwshalaym, Shauwls rhetoric and force of personality caused Shimown to cower as he had before, and even retreat, leaving Yahowshas flock to be devoured by a wolf in sheeps clothing. Moreover, as we shall soon witness in Ephesus, in Acts 19 Paul admits to setting boundaries for Yahowshas Disciples, notably Shimown and Yahowchanan. And even Peters comments regarding Pauls epistles were used in a way the Rock never intended. Rather than being used to warn Gods sheep to be on their guard lest Pauls epistles lead them to their own demise, Christendom twisted what Peter wrote to infer that Pauls letters were Scripture. Peter had been taken to a place he did not intend to go. As a compound of a, signifying unity and being part of, and keleuthos, the Way, Yahowsha used akoloutheo to tell Shimown / Peter to Follow The Waythe narrow path to God continually described by Yahowsha as being accurately and completely delineated within the Torah. This is especially relevant when considered adjacent to Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:5: Moreover, because the intoxicating wine and inebriating spirit of the man of deceptive infidelity and treacherous betrayal who tries to influence and control others without justification through trickery and deceit, is a highminded moral failure, an arrogant and meritless man of presumption, so he will not rest, find peace, nor live, whoever is open to the broad path (asher rachab the wide, greedy, opportunistic, duplicitous, and improper way) associated with Shauwl. He and his soul are like the plague of death. And so those who are brought together by him, receiving him, those who associate with and join him, those who are removed and withdrawn from the company of God, assembling with him, will not be satisfied. All of the Gentiles, the people from different races, nations, and places, will gather together unto him, all of the people from different races and nations in different places.

Written as akolouoei, it was rendered in the second person singular present active imperative tense. Second person singular indicates you, and thus Yahowsha was addressing Shimown to the exclusion of others. The use of the present active tense indicates that He wanted Peter specifically to follow The Way right now, at this very instant, and never stop. The imperative mood was deployed to express that this instruction was subject to the exercise of freewill, and yet it was expressing an earnest desire. This was supportive advice upon which a choice should be made, and thus in full recognition that Shimowns volition was in play. Yahowsha wanted the Rock to Follow His Way to the Fathernot Pauls way of faith which was different (by his own admission) and led in the opposite direction. Should you wonder why I referred to Paul as a wolf in sheeps clothing, lets turn our attention to Baresyth / Genesis 49:27, where Yahowah spoke about Shauwl, the man who has become the most infamous member of Benjamins tribe. But first, lets affirm that Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin. The wolf in sheeps clothing wrote: I say, therefore, that God () has not (ue) pushed away, rejected, or repudiated (apotheomai) His people (laos nation or common individuals). May it never be (ue genoito). For indeed (gar), I am an Israelite (Israelites transliteration of Hebrew Yisrael), from (ek out of) the seed (sperma semen singular) of Abraham (Abraam a transliteration of the Hebrew Abraham), from the tribe (phyle) of Benjamin (Beniamin a transliteration of the Hebrew Benyamyn). (Romans 11:1) While the connection to Benjamin was all we were looking for, Id be remiss if I didnt correct Pauls erroneous statements. God temporarily rejected Yisrael in Howsha / He Saves / Hosea, divorcing them for infidelity. And He has repudiated them countless times in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms for their false teachings and their participation in pagan rites. While Yahowah, Yisrael, and Yahuwdym will be reconciled, Pauls may it never be is in conflict with the Scriptural testimony. Further, Yisrael and Yahuwdym were supposed to be a people set apart unto Yahowah, making them the antithesis of laos common. So since we know that Paul has once again twisted Gods word, it is incumbent upon us to determine why. And in this case, the reason is obvious. Pauls theory is: since God has not rejected or repudiated His people (at least according to Paul), it serves to reason that He has not rejected or repudiated me, for indeed I am an Israelite. Moreover, there is even a twinge of a messianic complex being revealed here with Paul saying that that he is from the seed (singular) of Abraham, a distinction that would otherwise be redundant to Israelite. The Messianic nature of the seed of Abraham will be twisted in the

third and fourth chapters of Galatians as Satans Messenger strives to separate Yahowsha from the Torah. Before we consider another of Yahowahs predictions regarding Shauwl, remember that in the Chabaquwq / Habakkuk prophecy which calls Shauwl out by name, we find a reference to a later time: So therefore the expectation and subsequent realization of this revelation from God is for the appointed time. It provides a witness to and speaks in the end. Whatever extended period of time is required for this question to be resolved this shall not be proven false. Expect him in this regard because indeed he will absolutely come, neither being delayed nor lingering. (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:3) With this in mind, the preamble to another of Yahowahs indictments regarding Shauwl is found in Baresyth / In the Beginning / Genesis 49:1, where we read: And Yaaqob called his sons and said, Gather together so that I may declare to you what is to befall you in the last days. And then, speaking of this Benjamite, and his animosity toward the Maaseyah (who is presented coming from Yahuwdah in verses 8-12), the Towrah reveals that at the time of the Maaseyah: Benjamin (Benyamyn) is a wolf (zaeb a predatory animal) viciously tearing apart, continually mangling and actually killing (taraph creating his food by tearing and plucking the life out of his victims) in (ba) the morning (boqer early part of the day) literally and consistently devouring (akal actually feeding upon) his prey (ad), and in the evening (ereb during the dark of night and end of the day) he divides and destroys (halaq apportions, assigns, distributes that which they have harmed and ruined) that which has been spoiled (shalal possessions of value, plunder, and prey). (Baresyth / In the Beginning / Genesis 49:27) It is further indicting to know that the horrible crime perpetrated by this wolf from the tribe of Benjamin, would occur during Yahowshas lifetime. You see, in the tenth verse of this same discussion, we were told: And the tribe and scepter (shebet the family and authority) shall not depart (lo bow) from (min) Yahuwdah (Yahuwdah those who are related to Yahowah), or the staff of the leader with the authority to inscribe instructions (wa mahoqeq the power to lead and to write authorized prescriptions for living; from chaqaq to cut in and cut out, to inscribe and engrave, and to establish guidance (scribed in the rare poel stem, whereby the object receives the benefits of the verbs action)) for understanding (min byn) His footsteps (regel), until (ad) indeed (ky) the arrival (bow) of Shyloh (Shyloh to Him to which these things belong and from whom reconciliation flows (the home of the Ark of the Covenant and the Tabernacle of the Witness which is used in reference to the Maaseyah)).

Also, at the close of the fourth millennia, every tribe except Yahuwdah and Benyamyn were lost and thus unknown. As such, there really is no other viable candidate for this dire prophecy other than Shauwl. The experts say that Benyamyn is a compound of ben, meaning son, and yamyn, conveying either right, right hand, or south. As such, we mi ght see this connotation reflected in Shauwls attempt to position himself as Gods right hand man. Or perhaps, this could be a reference to Paul leading his flock Christianssouth, and back into the wilderness. Further, Shauwl has already spoken of the right hand being offered to him. And it has become obvious that Shauwl, a man named after Sheowl, served as Satans right hand. But I also see yam in the names root. Yam is the Hebrew word for sea, and it is symbolic of Gowym, as opposed to Yahuwdym, who are associated with the erets land. After all, it is hard to miss Pauls repetitive and braggadocios claim of dominion over Gentiles. Taraph is a precisely prophetic portrayal of what Shauwl would do to the Torah, and to his victims. Written in the qal imperfect, like akal, taraph reveals that the wolf actually tore it and them apart, continually mangling what God had literally said, consistently ripping the life out of the Torah which ultimately led to the ongoing and unfolding death of countless Christian souls. Pauls food, which Christians continually devoured, came from the rotting and neglected carcass of the Word of God which he had viciously attacked and literally torn apart. And like a zaeb, Paul was cunning as a wolf. He was a predator masquerading as the Shepherds right hand, while dressed as one of His sheep, to pluck souls away from the flock. Boqer in the morning, meaning the first part of the day, provides many interesting insights. First, Paul was the first to mangle Yahowshas message. As Thomas Jefferson wrote: Paul was the great Coryphaeus (voice and leader of the chorus), and the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus. (From Jeffersons letter to W. Short (Published in The Great Thoughts by George Seldes (Ballantine Books, 1985, page 208))) Second, Pauls treachery occurred at the very beginning of the fifth day of human history, as measured from the fall of Adam. So this timing is indicative of his timing. According to the Genesis account, this is the time of confusion when new religions ravaged the world. Third, the morning reference adroitly connects Yahowshas breakfast conversation in which the prophecy warning about Pauls predatory practices was revealed.

And fourth, Shauwl began his career murdering those who came to know and trust Yahowsha. (Acts 7:58, 8:1-3, and 9:1) And then in Galatians 2:9, he claims Gentiles has his exclusive prey. His constant wrangling for money, or plunder, would then dominate his later writings, and thus the evening of his career. Akal, rendered devouring, and meaning to eat and feed upon, in addition to to consume, ruin, and destroy something valuable, is an even more exacting fit for Yahowshas prediction. It was in the act of feeding Gods sheep that Paul viciously savaged and devoured Peter. Likewise, Yahowah is not speaking of wolves and their prey in a literal sense, but instead of predators and their victims, His sheep. Ereb, translated evening, is indistinguishable in the text from arab, which means desolate and lifeless in addition to making a pledge which exchanges one thing for another. Pauls lifeless pledge was that belief in his Gospel of Grace replaced trusting the Torah. And lest we forget, Shauwls credibility is derived from his mythical, albeit not actual, encounter on the road to Damascus and his subsequent imagined journey to Arabia. Halaq doesnt just mean divides and destroys. It also speaks of someone who is a smooth talker, and a slick operator, as well as of the slippery slope they lead their victims down to their ruin. Halaq is flattery, words that reflect illegitimate praise. And it describes the use of seductive words which are deployed to persuade people in a suggestive manner. Paul was the poster child for halaq. Additionally, halaq is a smooth stone used as an impromptu religious altar, and as a stand-in for an imaginary god. Grace, Gratia, and Charis fit this bogus bill. And that leaves us with shalal the spoils, the victims and their possessions. At the end of the day, under the cover of darkness, Pauls legacy, the Christian Church, divvies up what they have been able to confiscate from the lives of those they have destroyed. So it is hard to miss the connections between Paul and Benjamin, and between Paul and the destructive wolf, as well as between Yahowahs predictive description and Yahowshas prophetic warning. Benjamin was not only the last name on Yahowahs list, and the last prophecy in Baresyth / Genesis, the reference to Shauwl was the last prediction Yahowsha would make before He returned to heaven. There is but one man in all of human history who fits Yahowahs and Yahowshas prophecies: Shauwl.

It should also be noted that Yahowah provided other Benjamites a better option: Concerning (la) Benyamyn, he said (amar he accurately and completely declared (qal stem and perfect conjugation meaning literally and totally)), The beloved (yadyd those who are attractive to and loved) of Yahowah () choose to consistently and genuinely live (shakan elect of their own volition to continually dwell, actually campout, and always remain (qal stem, imperfect conjugation, jussive meaning collectively conveying a reality which is an ongoing choice)) by approaching with (la) absolute confidence through complete trust (betach reliance which is proven and bold, leading to salvation) upon His, the Almightys (al), protective covering (chophaph shelter, enclosure, and shield, keeping the beneficiary safe from harm) over and around him (al) each and every day (kol ha yowm). And by understanding (wa byn so by comprehending) His supportive garment and His outstretched arm (katheph His willingness to adorn us by shouldering our burdens, reaching out His arm while at our side) he lives (shakan he dwells, camping out, inhabiting His home). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 33:12) Absolute confidence is the antithesis of faith, putting Yahowahs declaration in irreconcilable opposition to the fulcrum of Pauline Doctrine, of salvation through faith. Diligent and disciplined observation of the prevailing evidence followed by careful and discerning consideration leads to knowing and understanding, which in turn facilitate trust, and thus complete confidence.

The reason I said that Yahowshas prophetic warning was the last He would make before returning home, is that from heaven, Yahowsha warned Yahowchanan about the wannabe Apostle. Writing to the Called-Out Assembly in Ephesus, the place where Yahowchanans and Shauwls footsteps and writings crossed paths, the Maaseyah in heaven told His beloved Disciple: I am aware of and recognize (oida) your (sou) works and undertakings (ergon the things you have responded to and have engaged in) and the difficult and exhausting encounters (kai ton kopos the bothersome trouble burdens encountered) and your (sou) unswerving and enduring perseverance (kai ten hypomone continual steadfastness and unwavering dependability, fortitude under circumstances where other succumb) and that (kai oti) you cannot possibly accept, tolerate, support, nor endure (ou dynamai bastazo you havent the will, desire, or state of mind to take up with, walk along side of, lift up, or carry forward, advance, sustain, or promote) that which is incorrect, immoral, injurious, pernicious, destructive, or baneful (kakos errant, wicked,

wrong, evil, harmful, noisome, morally corrupt, diseased, culpable, mischievous, demonic, or hurtful having an ill effect, a bad nature which is not as it ought to be, and a mode of thinking, feeling or acting which is invalid). And you have observed, examined, and objectively tested (kai peirazo you have scrutinized, coming to learn the nature and character of someone through enquiry, judging them and catching the mistakes of) those who claim and maintain (tous phasko those who say, affirm, profess, declare, promise, or preache) of themselves (eautous) that they are (eimi) apostles (apostolos a special messenger who is prepared and sent forth) but are not (kai ouk eisin). And (kai) you have found them (heurisko autos you have examined and scrutinized them, you have come to understand, discovering and learning through closely observing them that they are) false, deceitful, and deliberate liars (pseudes are pretending to be something they are not, they are erroneous deceivers). (Revelation 2:2) It is especially relevant to this statement that Ephesus was the only city listed among the seven described in Yahowshas Revelation letters where Paul and his pals were known to have preached. And it is the only one with a warning against false Apostles. Surely this is not a coincidence. While Revelation is a prophetic book, Yahowshas commendation was written in the present and past tense. And that is significant because Yahowchanan scribed Revelation in 69 CE, seven years after Shauwl wrote his letter to the Ephesians, and two years after the wannabe and self-proclaimed imposter Apostles death. So considering the fact that Paul and his traveling companions were the only men who claimed to be Apostles in Ephesus during this short span of time, Yahowsha was calling Shauwl an errant, demonic, deceitful, charlatan. We are without excuse. Christians cannot claim that they were not warned about this horrible man. Even Yahowshas parting comments paralleled things we have read pertaining to the distinction between Yahowahs Way and Pauls way. And you have loyal steadfastness and enduring consistency (hupomone) and have endured (bastazo) through My name. You have worked hard (kopiao) and have not grown tired. (Revelation 2:3) Since Ive made the claim that Paul and pals preached in Ephesus, and that they presented a contrarian view to that of Yahowshas Disciples, and notably, Yahowchanan, and thus singled themselves out as being the deceitful liars who were falsely claiming to be apostles, lets consider the evidence. Ill be providing this testimony using the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear to be as accurate as possible. What follows is

based upon Pauls personal testimony, which was presented as a historical portrait by Luke, so much of this is difficult to read. But it became in the the Apollos (one of Pauls accomplices and a man who still bore the name of the Greek god Apollo) to be in Corinth (the Greek city in which Paul preached the longest and to which he wrote two early letters, in the second of which he admitted to being demon possessed by a messenger of Satan), Paulos, having gone through the uppermost parts, came down to Ephesus so as to find which Disciples. (Acts 19:1) And he said against and regarding (pros) them, If conditionally, spirit holy you received having trusted the ones but to him but but not if conditionally spirit holy there is we heard. He said, But into what then were you immersed? And they said, Into Yahowchanans immersion. (Acts 19:2-3) Said but Paul, Yahowchanan immersed immersion of change mind to the people, saying to the coming after him that they might believe this is in the Iesous. So having heard, they were immersed into the name of the Lord Iesous. (Acts 19:4-5) And having set on them the hands of Paul came the spirit of the holy on them. They were speaking but in tongues and were speaking inspired utterances. Were but the all men as twelve. (Acts 19:6-7) While it is impossible based upon the quality of this testimony to know for certain what actually happened, I suspect that based upon information Paul received from Apollos in Corinth, Shauwl felt threatened. He recognized that his message was vastly different than Yahowshas Disciples, and he was convinced that one or more of them was treading upon his exclusive dominion over every race and nation. So he headed south, arriving in Ephesus to determine who was responsible for the encroachment and then to reestablish himself as the exclusive source of salvation for Greeks and Romans. When he arrived, rather than meeting with Shimown or Yahowchanan, Paul undermined them, suggesting that the Spirit they received as a result of responding to Yahowchanan was not the right spirit. This is why Paul used pros to say that his contrarian message was regarding and against the Disciples, not to them. But then this dialogue gets a bit murky because Pauls next sentence has two hypothetical conditions, three buts, and a negation. And yet as we continue to read, some things become abundantly clear. When Paul learned that these people had been immersed in Yahowchanans message, Paul immediately claimed that Yahowchanan had changed it, altering their thinking. He then questioned the nature of the spirit they had received. He told them that they should instead believe that Iesous had sent him. So after listening to Pauls contrarian view, these

Ephesians were re-baptized by Paul, with Paul laying his hands on them in the name of his Lord. This then imbued these men with an entirely different spirit, one which caused them to blather on in tongues, believing that they were inspired prophets. But whatever they were saying, they were now Shauwls twelve disciples, just as Yahowsha had chosen twelve. That was bad, but it gets worse. Paul was just warming up. And having moved into the synagogue he was speaking boldly for three months, disputing and persuading about the kingdom of the god. (Acts 19:8) Here, speaking boldly was from parrhesiazomai, which means that he was using the freedom to speak in an unreserved manner. It is a compound of pas, which means individually, and rheo, meaning to pour forth. So let there be no mistake: this was Shauwls message and his alone. Also insightful, disputing was from dialegomai, which means to argue against someone using different thinking. It is to contend with and convince though discourse. Even more important, take notice of the order of the verbs. The message and spirit of Yahowchanan had to be dialegomai disputed prior to Paul peitho persuading others to obey and to become followers. Peitho speaks of tranquilizing those who listen, inducing them through words to believe, persuading them to favor one individual over another and to join with them. So it is hard to miss the fact that Paul is confessing to the crime Yahowsha addressed in His letter to Ephesus through Yahowchanan. I have always held hypocrites in low esteem. Shauwl is a textbook case. He erroneously presents his Gospel of Grace as the alternative to obeying Gods Torah, which he presents as an onerous set of laws. And while there is no Hebrew word for obey, and while Torah does not mean law, Paul routinely lashes out at people for not obeying him. And now because some were becoming stubborn and they were disobedient, speaking abusively of and maligning the way before the multitude, having separated from them, abandoning and forsaking them, he appointed and marked off boundaries, separating and excluding the Disciples through daily disputes in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. And this took place for two years so that everyone residing the Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Judeans and Greeks. (Acts 19:9-10) Just as Yahowsha had explained, there were some in Ephesus who did not believe Paul. And while Yahowsha praised them for rejecting the liar and his lies, Paul saw them differently. He said that they were skleruno stubborn and obstinate. Based upon skleros, Paul viewed those he could not beguile as hard, harsh, and rough men who were stern, offensive, and intolerant.

Shauwl said that they were apeitheo disobedient because they apeitheo refused to believe him. They were not persuaded, they refused to comply, and thus were in Pauls words: apeitheo contumacious, which is to be flagrantly disobedient and rebellious, disobeying an order or law without a good reason. Paul was laying down the law, his law, to which everyone had to obey or suffer the consequences. There was a new Lord in town. The next verb in Pauls intolerant diatribe was translated speaking abusively of and maligning. It is from kakologeo, which is to curse and revile, denouncing through evil and insulting speech. The verb is a compound of kakos, which describes that which is of a bad nature, an inappropriate mode of thinking, feeling, or acting which is troublesome, pernicious, baneful, and wicked, and logos, the spoken word. Paul, like all insecure people, was ever ready to curse his perceived opponents but would not tolerate any reciprocation. Yahowsha and His Disciples are often translated using histemi to convey that God stood up for us so that we could stand with Him. But Pauls twist on this is markedly different. Aphistemi, rendered having separated from them, abandoning and forsaking them, is colored by apo, which speaks of separation, even of abandonment. It tells us that Paul caused the rebellion and then avoided association, forsaking and abandoning the Disciples. But thats not the half of it. The very next verb is aphorizo. Speaking of Paul, it reads that he appointed and marked off boundaries, separating and excluding the Disciples. Aphorizos primary connotation is to determine, to define, and to mark off boundaries for those who are disreputable, specifically to separate them by establishing limits which they may not transgress. It means to divide and to exclude, to sever a relationship and to get rid of particular individuals. And when the object of such constraints are Yahowshas Disciples, Paul is at war with them. Contentious to the bitter end, Paul once again bragged of dialegomai arguing against and disputing the Disciples because their thinking was markedly different. But this time Paul was not to be found in the synagogue, in the place where those seeking to learn about Yahowah considered His Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. He turned to the Tyrannos Schole. Tyrannos is based upon kurios, denoting the Lord. But this time there would be no mistaking that this lord was a tyrant and despot seeking supremacy. And Paul was lecturing on his behalf. It is a fact little known by Christians, but if Pauls preaching is reflected in his letters, he never accurately shared the word of Yahowsha. In one of his thirteen letters he made a brief passing attempt, citing a few words Yahowsha spoke about Passover, albeit completely out of context, and even then he misquoted Him. So rest assured, when Shauwl claims that everyone in Asia

heard him preach the word of the Lord, its Satans message which is being proclaimed. Yahowah consistently refers to the Adversary as baal lord because Satan, like Shauwl, craves supremacy, mastery, control, and ownership. This very passage affirms Pauls predilection for these very same things. Yahowah and Yahowsha routinely tell us that dunamis ability, inherent power, miracles, signs, and wonders are often, if not usually, associated with false prophets. But since Christians dont listen to either, they typically associate such things with God. And yet here, Paul is saying that God had nothing to do with them. His supernatural power and his extraordinary mastery and skill were the work of his hands, conceived, fashioned, and brought forth without Gods assistance. Miraculous power and supernatural deeds and not having experienced the god were performed through the hands of Paulos . (Acts 19:11) Tugchano, which was negated in this statement by ou not in any way, speaks of hitting the mark and becoming a master, especially at throwing a deadly weapon. It was rendered here as having experienced, but be aware that it is an equivocal term denoting that the actions are only probable. It is used to describe extraordinary and unexpected performances which require uncommon skill. So that also on the being weak to be carried away from the skin of him handkerchiefs or aprons and to be settled from them the illnesses and annoying spirits to depart out. (Acts 19:12) Handkerchiefs is from soudarion, which also means a piece of cloth, towel, or napkin which may or may not be used as a burial cloth over the face of the deceased, to blow ones nose, to wipe perspiration for ones face, or to dry ones hands. It is of Latin origin. Aprons was rendered from simikinthion, another Latin word, which is a workers smock or bib-apron worn by common workers and servants to protect their clothing. So what Paul is saying here is that napkins and aprons were placed upon his skin and then carried to those who were sick, and that as a result annoying spirits were exercised from the diseased. It is creepy in the extreme, not unlike todays charlatans who fleece their flock by pretending to heal the sick. The term Paul chose to infer that his handkerchiefs were healing the sick, apallassomai, means to change, to settle with, and to reconcile, which then infers that the feeble may have simply come to accept their maladies. It is derived from allasso, which denotes exchanging one thing for another. Perhaps lepers stopped complaining when they were given malaria?

The spirits to depart out were called poneros annoying, burdensome, harassing, troublesome, wicked, corrupt, worthless, faulty, and criminal. But remember, the Spirit associated with Yahowchanan, Yahowshas most beloved Disciple, was rejected by Shauwl and replaced by another of his choosing. So I suspect that the reason Paul saw the Set-Apart Spirit as annoying, is that She was opposed to him. This account gets stranger by the moment. Consider what Paul claimed next (as recorded in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear and corrected by the Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains to be as accurate as possible)... But were attempting on some also the Judeans exorcists traveling about to be known for the possessing of the evil and annoying spirits the name of the Lord, Ieosus, put under oath saying you the Iesous whom Paulos announces in his official capacity. (Acts 19:13) Which the New American Standard Bible renders as: But also some of the Jewish exorcists, who went from place to place, attempted to name over those who had the evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying I adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preaches. There is no discussion of exorcism in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, nor in the Talmud or Oral Law of Yahuwdym, and there is no such thing as a Jewish exorcist. So this is a complete fabrication. More damning still, Paul, in his testimony to Luke actually admits the obvious: there is a difference between the Iesous whom Paulos proclaimed and the actual individual who was proclaimed by Yahowshas Disciples Yahowchanan and Shimown. But some were important, Skeva, a Jewish chief priest seven sons were doing this. (Acts 19:14) The New American Standard Bible published: And seven sons of one Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. Skeuas is of Latin origin, not Hebrew, and it means mind reader. But that is not the worst of it. No Jewish priest, much less a high or chief priest, by that name, or any other name remotely akin to Skeva / Sceva, ever existed. Furthermore, there never were any Jewish high priests living in Ephesus. Therefore, this too is a complete fabrication a fairytale. But having answered, the evil and annoying spirit said to them, Indeed, Iesous I recognize and this Paulos, I know and understand, but who are you? (Acts 19:15) Here, the New American Standard Bible reports: And the evil spirit answered and said to them, I recognize Jesus, and I know about Paul, but who are you? According to Shauwl, Satans demon only ginosko recognized and was generally aware of Yahowsha, while said demon epistamai knew everything there was to know, was completely acquainted with and totally understood Paul. An individuals choice of words, especially when making a distinction, reveal so

much about them. Such is the case with Shauwl, who like Satan, wants to be seen as having a higher status than God. And when we recognize that Shauwl fabricated this whole story for the express purpose of elevating his status and acclaim, it is especially devastating. Not it appears as if spiritual beings have legs and are leapers, that they have dominion over the sons of imaginary Jewish high priests, and that they have the power, authority, and inclination to disrobe and wound them... And the man, having leaped upon them in whom there was an annoying and evil spirit, having dominion over, overpowering and lording over both, was strong and capable against them so that naked and having been traumatized and wounded to flee out from that house. (Acts 19:16) This tall tale as chronicled in the NASB reads: And the man in whom was the evil spirit leaped on them and subdued both of them and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. While we should not be surprised, the New American Standard Bible edited Pauls testimony to correct an obvious contradiction. The seven sons became amphoteroi a total of exactly two, in the Greek text. Moreover, the point Paul is trying to make here is that Jews were incapable of doing what he did routinely. Paul claims to have influence over the demonic spirits which overpower and lord over Jews. So this became known to all Judeans and also Greeks, the ones residing in Ephesus. And pressing against, falling upon, and embracing fear and terror on all of them. And was being made large the name of the Lord Iesous. (Acts 19:17) Or from the NASB: And this became known to all, both Jews and Greeks, who lived in Ephesus; and fear fell upon them all and the name of the Lord Jesus was being magnified. So that there is no confusion, here the verb is ginomai came to exist, and gnostos, the basis of Gnostic, was used as an adjective to convey what is known and what can be known. Therefore, Shauwl was terrifying his audience by saying that those who rely on the testimony and ability of Jews will become demon possessed and it was only by believing him and his Lord that one could be saved from this horrible fate. And mind you, the Disciples Shimown, Yaaqob, and Yahowchanan were Yahuwdym. So this entire fabrication was conceived to make this point. This is not unlike a Christian preached threatening damnation and hell fire on those who dont submit. While the point has been made and underscored, that Paul was the false, selfproclaimed, and dishonest apostle who Yahowsha warned us against in His letter to the Ephesians, there is a bit more to this incredulous story. So many of those who believed were coming, agreeing, consenting, confessing, and professing

allegiance and declaring their practices. (Acts 19:18) Shauwl is therefore saying that he won, that the people of Ephesus believed him, consenting, confessing, and professing their allegiance en mass to him rather than to Yahowshas Disciples. And then to start a prescient that would haunt the world for centuries to come, Paul promoted the burning of books. So enough (de hikanos) of the ones who were busybodies and meddlers with their superfluous, impertinent, and trifling information and interference (ton ta periergos). Having received and experienced (prasso), having gathered together (symphero) documents consisting of scrolls and books (biblos), burning them (katakaio) in front of everyone (enopion pas). And they calculated, computing (kai sympsephizo) a monetary value, price and worth (time) of them and (autos kai) discovered (heuriskomai) fifty-thousand pieces of silver money (arguion myrias pente). (Acts 19:19) Unfortunately, there are no pronouns associated with the verbs or nouns in the first or second sentence, so it is difficult to understand who was doing what to whom and whose books were being burned. But there are some things we can discern. For example, with periergos, which in the plural means, busybodies, those who are meddlesome, trifling in the affairs of others, scurrying about and fussing over other peoples business, those whose words are disrespectful and unnecessary, Shauwl is taking one last swipe at Yahowshas Disciples, the men and message in went to Ephesus to refute. Based upon his testimony, they had meddled in his affairs, and thus were not respecting his exclusive dominion over the Greek and Roman world. Since this will become especially important in a moment, you should know that periergos is a compound of peri, which expresses the point from which an action proceeds, to be about or concerning that act, and ergon, the Greek word for works, speaking of actions, attempts, and undertakings. Paul uses ergon repeatedly to besmirch the Torah, saying that one cannot be saved by ergon works of the law. Also relevant to our understanding of whom Paul had eliminated from consideration, Paul not only uses this exact same word in his letter to Timothy, the only other time it appears, he defines it for us: But at the same time also they learned these thoughtless and useless ones (argos) were going around to the houses, not alone, but the thoughtless and useless ones to the contrary were foolish gossips and babblers, disrespectful tattlers uttering trifling, vain, and stupid things (phluaros) and busybodies and meddlers with their superfluous and trifling interference (periergos) speaking that which was not necessary or beneficial (me dei). (1Timothy 5:13) While Paul was actually demeaning women in this portion of his letter to his lover, Timothy, he left no doubt as to the meaning of periergos.

Now while it cannot be proven, based upon Yahowshas letter to the Ephesians regarding Shauwl and Shauwls testimony to Luke here in Acts, I suspect that the scrolls and books which were burned were comprised of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms along with the eyewitness accounts of Mattanyah and Yahowchanan. They were in irreconcilable conflict with Pauls message and they proved that he was lying. Furthermore, burning books shortchanges knowledge and impoverishes us. It never produces anything of value, especially money. And by putting this in a favorable light, the founder of the Christian religion legitimized a horrid practice. By way of example, rather than burning Qurans, I collected them, studied them, and then in light of what I learned from the Islamic Sirah / Biography, Tarikh / History, and Hadith / Oral Reports I was able to help many Muslims the world over reject their overtly Satanic religion. Recognizing that what Paul was encouraging was devastation, the authors of the New American Standard Bible took great liberty with their rendering of the Greek. And many of those who practiced magic brought their books together and began burning them in the sight of all; and they counted up the price of them and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. Now it should be apparent that one of the reasons we considered the meaning of the accusative adjective periergos, which was rendered busybodies and meddlers, of whom Paul had had hikanos enough, is to realize that the association of it with magic is imagined. Further, the first of the two successive verbs comprising the next thought is prasso to exercise, to receive, to do, to carry out, to practice, to experience, to undertake, to accomplish, and to engage with or in. This was followed by the verb symphero, which speaks of gathering together, to bear or bring together, to collect and to contribute. Both were addressing biblos documents consisting of scrolls or books. Not only wasnt the third person plural pronoun their ascribed to biblos, there is no justification for suggesting that these people were practicing magic or that the burned books pertained to the occult. That is not to say that you wont find magic buried in the definitions of periergos in the lexicons compiled by Christian publishers. It is there, but for the express purpose of justifying the unjustifiable of trying to make the founder of their religion appear sane. In affirmation of this, when the same word appears in the same authors letter to Timothy, there is no reference to magic in any popular bible translation, including the NASB, KJV, NIV, or NLT. Based upon this testimony, no informed and rational person would refute the fact that the individual Yahowsha referred to as a wolf in sheeps clothing during His first public declaration is the same individual he has called a false apostle and

deceitful liar in His final public statement. Remember, He said: I am aware of and recognize (oida) your (sou) works and undertakings (ergon the things you have responded to and have engaged in) and the difficult and exhausting encounters (kai ton kopos the bothersome trouble burdens encountered) and your (sou) unswerving and enduring perseverance (kai ten hypomone continual steadfastness and unwavering dependability, fortitude under circumstances where other succumb) and that (kai oti) you cannot possibly accept, tolerate, support, nor endure (ou dynamai bastazo you havent the will, desire, or state of mind to take up with, walk along side of, lift up, or carry forward, advance, sustain, or promote) that which is incorrect, immoral, injurious, pernicious, destructive, or baneful (kakos errant, wicked, wrong, evil, harmful, noisome, morally corrupt, diseased, culpable, mischievous, demonic, or hurtful having an ill effect, a bad nature which is not as it ought to be, and a mode of thinking, feeling or acting which is invalid). And you have observed, examined, and objectively tested (kai peirazo you have scrutinized, coming to learn the nature and character of someone through enquiry, judging them and catching the mistakes of) those who claim and maintain (tous phasko those who say, affirm, profess, declare, promise, or preach) of themselves (eautous) that they are (eimi) apostles (apostolous a special messenger who is prepared and sent forth) but are not (kai ouk eisin). And (kai) you have found them (heurisko autos you have examined and scrutinized them, you have come to understand, discovering and learning through closely observing them that they are) false, deceitful, and deliberate liars (pseudes are pretending to be something they are not, they are erroneous deceivers). (Revelation 2:2) So now the only unresolved question is whether Paul had accomplices working with him in Ephesus so as to justify the plural deployment of apostolous. And what we find is that Paul later in this same chapter of Acts admits to returning to Ephesus with Gaius and Aristarchus to meet Timothy and Erastus to resolve a controversy. We also find Paul bragging I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, in 1 Colossians 15:32. And then in 1 Timothy 1:3, Paul told Timothy to remain in Ephesus in order to command those who seemed important not to teach a doctrine different than his own. That letter begins so arrogantly, so presumptuously, and so inaccurately, I thought Id share it with you. And also because in it Paul claims that he was an apostle, further identifying him with Yahowshas Revelation warning because it is a very short list of men who made this claim in this place at this time. And none were as famous, influential, argumentative, or deceitful as Shauwl. Paul, apostle of Christou Iesou down from the command and direct order of God, rescuer of us, and Christou Iesou, the hope of us. (1:1) To

Timothy, genuine and legitimate child in faith, grace, mercy, peace from God, father, and Christou Iesou, our Lord. (1:2) Inasmuch as I summoned, pleaded, and appealed with you to remain in Ephesus [when I was] traveling to Macedonia in order that you might command those who act important not to teach a different doctrine. (1 Timothy 1:3) In Pauls mind, Ephesus was the primary battleground in his war with Yahowahs Torah and Yahowshas Disciples. Having fought for years against both, he would deploy every resource to keep his adversaries at bay. Now seeking to undermine the Torah with its long genealogies and administration of the Covenant family, Paul writes: So to be alert, beware of, watching out for myths and fables regarding family lineage and endless genealogies or whatever worthless imaginings, idle speculations, or controversies they maintain and favor the most, or the implied need to administer the household of God in association with the faith. (1:4) Therefore, according to Paul, his flock can dispense with the Torah, because all you need it love and a clean heart. But the end and result of the command is love from a clean and pure heart, good conscience, and sincere faith. (1:5) But if that was the case, why wasnt Yahowsha loving, even nice, when he lashed out so viciously at most all of those who opposed Him? By Pauls standard, Yahowsha would be condemned. Mind you, Yahowah does not agree with Shauwl either. According to God, those who ignore His seven annual invitations to meet with Him, either die with their souls ceasing to exist, or they are eternally separated from Him in Sheowl. If a clean heart, good conscience, and sincere faith were all that was required for salvation, Pauls claim that some deviated and strayed based upon idle discussions would be impossible. Evidence and reason are irrelevant to feelings and faith. Moreover, since the Torah encourages us to love God and explains how we should treat one another, why is it being presented so negatively? Yet, irrationally, we read: Of which some deviated, they strayed by meaningless conversations. (1:6) Purposing to exist as teachers of the Towrah, not ever considering what they say nor concerning what they state with such confidence. (1:7) No matter where one turns in Pauls writings, the argument is most always the same. It is Pauls teachings against the Towrahs teachings. And yet Paul wants everyone to believe that the God of the Towrah chose him, a rude, arrogant, often enraged, murderous, anti-Semitic, always duplicitous, and usually disingenuous man to undermine and contradict everything He had said and promised. As an example of this, since the God Shauwl claims authorized his mission also authored the Torah, how can that Torah only be good under an impossible

scenario? But we realize that the benefit of the Torah is only under the condition that someones behavior toward it is completely lawful and correct. (1:8) It is at this very place that Paul and pals differ from Yahowah and Yahowsha. The humans position Gods Torah as a set of laws which are only beneficial if they are all obeyed perfectly. God, however, presents His Towrah as a set of instructions which guide His children toward a relationship with Him so that by way of it promises, He can save them, empower, and enrich them. Since it is His Towrah, and since Yahowah and Yahowsha are of like mind on its merit and purpose, who do you suppose is right? It is Gods position that His Towrah guides individuals who are seriously flawed, directing them to the provisions He has provided to make His Covenant children righteous. Therefore, His Towrah is the only book for righteous individuals, because it was written expressly written to teach imperfect men and women how to become His children perfect in every regard. But Shauwl wants to associate the Towrah, not with righteousness, but instead with the worst of men. Listen... Recognizing this, that to righteousness the Torah is not in place, positioned, or appointed for those without the Torah, but instead to the disobedient who arent subject to it, the ungodly, and unholy sinners, and the worldly and godless, those who murder their fathers and who murder their mothers, murderous men,... (1:9) Since God says that there is one Towah for everyone, that its purpose is to make men righteous, that it is guidance to be followed not laws to be obeyed, that it makes us Godly by curing us of our sin, and that it clearly instructs us not to murder, methinks Paul is completely wrong. But nonetheless, since Paul despised those who were Torah observant, he continued to equate the Torah with the very things it opposed... ...fornicators, homosexuals, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and if something different, the beneficial and accurate instruction and doctrine is opposed to it. (1:10) Those trying to exonerate Paul, might protest, saying that the Torah isnt needed by righteous men because they are already perfect, and that Paul was actually suggesting instead that it was designed for faulty individuals. Put such justifications are silly. First, there is no mention of righteous men. Paul wrote to righteousness the Torah is not appointed, which is to say that, according to Paul, it isnt the Torahs purpose to perfect us. Second, since the only means to righteousness is by observing the Torahs instructions, the Torah is the one and only book every righteous man and woman has in common. Third, while the Torah can save a disobedient sinner, even a murderer, fornicator, homosexual, and lying slave trader, if these behaviors define an individual, as they are presented here, then such people would be adverse to the Torah because it is adverse to these behaviors. Fourth, this justification requires us to ignore

everything Paul has written up to this point and to believe that the Torah he has been assailing is actually the means to salvation. And fifth, in conclusion, Paul said that accurate instruction and beneficial doctrine is opposed to it, with it, representing the Towrah. Paul is so consistently arrogant, disingenuous, and duplicitous, I am seldom surprised by anything he says. But on occasion, something he writes is so evil it takes my breath away. Such is the case with his next line, where he is contrasting the glorious nature of his Gospel of Grace to the disgusting failures of Yahowahs Towrah. By and through (kata) the good news (to euangelion meaning: beneficial and healing messenger, but conscripted by Paul and corrupted by Christendom to represent his Gospel of Grace) the splendor and glory (doxa amazing greatness in heaven) of the blessed and happier (makarios more fortunate) God (theos) which (o) was entrusted (pisteuo put into the care) of me (ego). (1 Timothy 1:11) I suspect that Shauwl is saying that the god he invented and / or improve is blessed by his message and is happier than the old God of the Towrah. And also that his new and improved message was entrusted to him by the very god he had developed. Ive had enough. So now that we have demonstrated that Paul was the deceitful apostle immortalized in Revelation, lets turn the page and press on. We still have a lot of ground to cover.

Since we have not yet dealt with the fourth chapter of Galatians, and Pauls Two Covenant Theory, had we not considered Pauls testimony in Acts and First Timothy, you might have been left wondering what it was about this man that caused Yahowah and Yahowsha to be so adverse to him. After all, he was just one guy sharing his opinion. But there was there more to Paul than this. Returning to the book of Acts, we discover that Paul deliberately put a pagan proverb into Yahowshas mouth in the third of his three depictions of his lightning conversion experience. In Acts 26:14, with Shauwl defending himself before King Agrippa, we read: And we all (te pas) having fallen down to the ground (ego katapipto eis ten ge), I heard (akouo) a sound (phone) saying to me (lego pros ego) in the (te) Hebrew dialect (Hebrais dialektos Hebrew language), Shauwl, Shauwl

(Saoul Saoul a transliteration of Shauwl which means to question), why (tis who or what) me (me) are you pursuing (dioko are you making run, fleeing in haste and harrassing)? Difficult (skleros hard, harsh, violent, rough, and demanding) for you (soi) to kick and resist (laktizo to strike with the foot) against (pros) the goad stinger (kentron a sharp pointed stick used to prod animals, thereby controling them, the poisonous stinger of a scorpion with the power to injure and kill). (Acts 26:14) While hard to kick against or resist a goad stinger makes absolutely no sense whatsoever on this occasion, in this context, if we are to believe that this was spoken by Yahowsha, a modicum of research reveals that Pauls citation came from a common mythological proverb, derived from pagan literature. The phrase was first cited on line 790 of Euripides The Bacchae. In the play, kicking and rebelling against the sharp prod was used to describe the consequence of trying to resist Dionysus (the Greek god who was the son of the sun, renamed Bacchus in Rome). Because rebelling against popular religious beliefs is hard, those so inclined have to endure the havoc wrought by the religious establishment on them because of their refusal to worship their god or gods. This mythological citation from Euripides became a common Greek idiom. The Bacchae was named after Bacchus maenadsthe female followers of Dionysus. Bacchus was simply the Roman incarnation of Dionysus. Euripides story pictures the pagan god intoxicating those who believe him. They are shown striking rocks in Mosaic fashion with their thyrsus, Dionysus staff, such that water and wine gush from the earth. Honey trickles down from the thyrsus, just as manna came down from heaven. In fact much of what Euripides wrote, such as rivers flowing with honey, milk, and wine, and of gods children surviving in the midst of fire, all made their way into the Quran. In Euripides play, the maenads had King Pentheus cousin betray him, luring the king into the woods so they could murder him, literally tearing him apart, after he banned the worship of Dionysus. It was all reminiscent of the Babylonian Tammuz, for whom Christmas, Lent, Easter and the cross originated. So, we are left with the following choices. 1) Yahowsha revealed Himself to Paul in the exact same way as He witnessed Satan falling from heaven and then cited a pagan proverb because He couldnt think of anything better to say. 2) Satan revealed himself to Paul in his natural form and quoted a pagan proverb from Dionysius because there was no better counterfeit upon which to base Pauline Doctrine or the religion of Christianity. 3) Paul was struck by lightning and made up the rest of the story, citing the line from The Bacchae because he thought that the highly educated King Agrippa would be impressed by his grasp of Greek and Roman literature. And that by using the line Paul may have hoped

that King Agrippa would equate his god with Dionysius or Bacchus, with whom he would have been familiar. Should you be wondering why Dionysius (known as Bacchus in Roman mythology, Osiris in Egypt, and Tammuz in Babylon) would be chosen by Paul (or Satan), it is because he is the closest Greek counterfeit to Yahowsha. As the most recent of the twelve Olympian gods, Dionysius represented change: a new and different relationship with the gods. And unlike the vengeful gods of old, Dionysius was fun, even forgivingforeshadowing the Christian distinction between Yahowah and Yahowsha. Dionysius was an epiphany the manifestation of god who suddenly arrived on the scene. His appearance was said to illuminate his followers and change the meaning and essential nature of what had come beforein perfect harmony with Pauline Doctrine. Even today, January 6th is observed as the Epiphany, commemorating the Magi, or Gentile recognition of the arrival and appearance of God in keeping with the Dionysian Mysteries. And considering Pauls affinity for being both the Maaseyahs messenger, and being a divine example to be emulated, Dionysuss constant companion was Hermesthe messenger of the gods. Just as Yahowshas blood is represented by wine, Dionysius was the god of wine. Just as Yahowsha had a divine father (Yahowah) and a mortal virgin mother (Mary), Dionysius had a divine father (Zeus (the father of the gods)) and mortal virgin mother (Semele). Just as Yahowshas Heavenly Father told Joseph to carry the newborn child to Egypt, as soon as Dionysus was born, Zeus carried him away to Egypt to protect him from the envy of rival gods. By his death and resurrection, Dionysius was responsible for liberating his believers and thereby providing the faithful with eternal salvation, in complete harmony with being saved by way of faith in Pauls Gospel. Dionysius was not only killed and then resurrected each spring; his holy week mirrors the week-long Christian observance of Easter. The annual resurrection of Dionysius, on the Sunday closest to the Vernal Equinox, celebrated the promise of resurrection from the dead. As such, Dionysius, and thus Bacchus, was known as the Eleutherios Liberator, mirroring the central thrust of Pauline Doctrine where believers are freed from being slaves to the Law. In fact the mission of Dionysus was to bring an end to burdens and worries. According to Greek mythology, Dionysus was the first to open up communication between the living and the dead, paving the way for prayers to Mary and the Christian saints. Even the Roman Catholic Eucharist myth of transubstantiation, where priests turn wine into blood, was first practiced in the Dionysian religion.

Dionysus was a hermaphrodite, blurring the lines between male and female, and thus contributed to the corruption of Yahowahs symbols of father and mother, husband and wife. And he was sexually confused, as was Shauwl. Known as the god who inspired religious rituals, Dionysius holy week was celebrated over the course of five days each Spring. And it was the Dionysia which set the stage for the Christian replacement of Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits, with Palm Sunday (Passion Sunday), Maundy Thursday (institution of Communion), Good Friday (death and burial of Jesus Christ), Holy Saturday (where Jesus rested in the grave), and Easter Sunday occurring during the last week of the Babylonian festival of Lent. Just as the Christian Jesus Christ is bereft of his Hebrew heritage, Dionysus was an alien among the godsdistanced from his Olympian birth. And consistent with the Lord Baal manifestation of Satan, the bull, satyrs, and the serpent became the enduring symbols of the Dionysian religion. He is often shown as a mighty hunter, wearing leopard skin, and standing in a chariot drawn by black panthersall of which is symbolic of Nimrod, the father of the Babylonian religion. The thyrsus staff he is often depicted holding is distinguished by the adornment of a large pineconea phallic symbol representing coming forth from the seed, and thereby foreshadowing Pauls animosity to circumcision and his devotion to the seed of Abraham. By way of this seed the uninitiated were miraculously purified and enabled to dwell with the gods so long as they believed the words of his messengers. Especially troubling, considering Shauwls affinity of the Greek Charis and Roman Gratia, Dionysus was their father. They were the love children of his affair with Aphroditethe goddess of love. Two-hundred and fifty years before Shauwl associated Dionysus testimony with his conversion experience, Greeks living in what is now southern Italy, as born-again maenads, began celebrating the Bacchanalia, a drunken festival replete with grotesque debaucheries in which the faithful rebelled against all forms of authority, foreshadowing the Catholic celebration of Mardi Gras. Unfortunately, as horrible as this has been, our mission to uncover Shauwls dark side has just begun. There is more to the Dionysus line than first meets the eye. Turns out, Satan used it to tell Shauwl that he would not be able to rebel against himand that the Adversary had a way of controlling him. Pauls ego would be his vulnerability, and demon possession would be the implement. But before we document the connection between the sharp pointed prod that Pauls messenger of light said was hard to rebel against, and the sharp pointed prod that Paul said a messenger of Satan tormented him with, in order to control him, lets contemplate the context of the second confession. It begins

in the twelfth chapter of Second Corinthians. It is almost as troubling as the admission of being demon possessed. Only Satan and similar egomaniacs would say: Bragging (kauchaomai boasting, pronounced pride, and glorifying oneself) is necessary (dei beneficial and proper, compulsory and required), not (ou) burdensome (sumphero from sun, meaning with and together, and phero, to carry, bear, uphold, and bring a burden). (2 Corinthians 12:1) This attitude is what got Satan thrown out of heaven. And it is the attitude he hopes the rest of us will adopt so that we share his fate. Based upon its component parts, the verb sumphero, rendered burdensome, could also be translated bring together. It should not be rendered positively in the sense of good, beneficial, or advantageous apart from its use in a clause including ina, which denotes a purpose, goal, or reason for bringing together or bearing a burden. And in the sense of bringing together, the negation of ou not is akin to saying that Glorifying oneself is necessary, but not reconciling. Everything we have learned about Shauwl suggests that he used kuriou as a title for his lord, ruler, owner, and master, so I have rendered it that way: But (de) indeed (men) I will go there (erchomai will exist that way and move in that direction), to (eis) the Lords (kuriou the supreme authority, the ruler, owner, and masters) supernatural visions (optasia the acts of exhibiting himself and being seen) and (kai) revelations (apokalypsis disclosures in which he is unveiled). (2 Corinthians 12:1) And indeed, he did. In the seventh and eighth verses, Shauwl reveals that he was controlled by one of Satans demons one which his Lord would not remove. In that this passage is condemning in the extreme, we will also consider the Christian spin of Shauwls stunning confessions. Here is what was scribed in the King James Authorized Version: It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. Francis Bacon, the egotistical occultist and humanist who guided the publication of the King James Bible on behalf of his pontiff, purposefully deceived Christians with this rendering. Turns out it was an inaccurate paraphrase of the Latin Vulgate: If I must glory (it is not expedient indeed) but I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. Always ready to put lipstick on their favorite swine, the authors of the New Living Translation published: This boasting will do no good, but I must go on. I will reluctantly tell about visions and revelations from the Lord. The ego required to write about oneself in this way is unfathomable. I am aware of (oida) a man (anthropos) in (en) Christo (Christo to apply a drug), fourteen years earlier (dekatessares eton apo), if (eite) in (en) body or reality

(soma physically) I cant be sure (ouk oida dont really know what I saw or what happened), if (eite) outside (ektos out of and beyond) the body (soma physical reality) I dont really know (ouk oida do not remember or understand), God (theos) is aware (oida remembers), [I] was violently seized and forcibly snatched away (harpazo attacked, possessed, spoiled, and secretly controlled) in this manner (toiouton) until (hoes) the third (tritou) heaven (ouranos). (2 Corinthians 12:2) This all reminds me of Muhammads I cannot say for sure. Allah knows best. And along those lines, the Islamic Hadith and Quran also speak of multiple heavens. According to the Islamic scriptures, Adam, men with camel lips and rocks emerging from their mouths and behinds, and tortured women hanging from their breasts, lived adjoining the first heavenalong with a damsel with red lips who pleased Muhammad much. Issa (the Quranic Jesus) and Yahya (the Quranic John) were relegated to the second heaven. Rising above Yahowsha and Yahowchanan in Allahs third heaven, Shauwl would have met Joseph. Climbing the prophetic ladder, Shauwl would have encountered Enoch and then Aaron in the fourth and fifth heavens. According to Muhammad, the sixth heaven was occupied by the man whose Torah Shauwl will renounce: Moseh. Then in the seventh heaven, we find the Pen, Allahs House, angels performing prostration prayers, a tree whose fruit resembled clay jugs, and the headwaters of the Euphrates and Nile Rivers. Muhammads myths were more imaginative than Pauls. So that you know, the required definite article for the Maaseyah was not extant in the Greek, and the evidence suggests that Shauwl would not have used a title which identified Yahowsha with Yahowah as Maaseyah the Implement of Yah does. After all, severing this association was the purpose of Pauls epistles. It is also why I have rendered kuriou Lord because Satan is obviously the spirit behind this mythical journey. Having invested six years of my life to studying everything which is known about Muhammad and his formation of Islam, I realize that he made the same pronouncement, albeit his claim to have flown upon a winged ass was more colorful. Even Muhammads initial confrontation with Satans envoy in the cave was described identically to harpazo. Muhammad said that he was forcibly and violently seized by the spirit, that it attacked and controlled him, and that it possessed him. The only difference is that Muhammad went from the third heaven to the seventh heaven, where he met Allah, who told him that he wanted to be mooned, 50 times a day, with repeated religious prostrations. (These parallel stories are revealed in the With Whom Am I Speaking and Delusions of Grandeur chapters of Prophet of Doom.)

Also interesting, by dating this celestial excursion to fourteen years earlier, while his math is wrong, Shauwl was trying to associate this mythical journey to the third heaven with his pretend trip to Arabia. It is yet another comparison between Shauwl and Muhammad. Allahs messenger flew from Arabia to Yaruwshalaim / Jerusalem to visit with Issa/Jesus in the nonexistent temple, prior to heading off to heaven. It is interesting here that Yahowahs description of the Taruwah Harvest of souls known to Christians as the rapture (from Mattanyah 24:40), is transcribed using the Greek word paralambano, which means to receive at an appointed time, to welcome and accept, to gather individuals, bringing them together, and joining with them. It is from para, meaning with, beside, and near, speaking of proximity and association, and lambano, to take someone by the hand, to remove them, and to carry them away. But speaking of this same event, Shauwl used harpazo (in 1 Thessalonians 4:17), which speaks of being seized and violently snatched away. Harpazo means to attack, to gain control over, to possess, to physically harass and injure, to carry away by force, to spoil, and to secretly steal, plunder, and loot. The verbs paralambano and harpazo describe the difference between how the Spirit of Light and the spirit of darkness operate. Once again, the KJV: I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven copied the LV: I know a man in Christ: above fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I know not, or out of the body, I know not: God knoweth), such a one caught up to the third heaven. NLT: I was caught up to the third heaven fourteen years ago. Whether I was in my body or out of my body, I dont knowonly God knows. Even the I dont knowonly God knows is reminiscent of the Islamic Hadith, where the line is repeated countless times. It is also telling that none of these translations were willing to properly translate harpazo, for fear of exposing their prophets inspiration. The repeated if in reality or not and I dont really know tells us that in reality, none of this actually happened. It is yet another desperate attempt by Paul to artificially elevate his status. And (kai) I am aware of (oida was familiar with) such kind of (toioutos) man (anthropos) if (eite) in (en) body or reality (soma actuality or physically), or if (eite) without and apart from (choris separate from) the body (soma) or not (ouk), I dont really know (oida do not recall), God (theos) is aware (oida remembers), because (hoti) he was violently attacked, seized control of, possessed, and forcibly snatched away (harpazo) to (eis) paradise (paradeisos). And (kai) he heard (akouo) the antithesis of the word (arrhetos that which cannot be spoken and must not be expressed; from a, meaning negation, not, and naught, and rhema, word) words

(rhema) which (hos) cannot (ouk) possibly (exesti it is not permissible or lawful) to be spoken (laleo) [by] man (anthropos). (2 Corinthians 12:3-4) If we are to believe him, Satan, who is the antithesis of the Word, possessed Shauwl and forcibly took him to his favorite placewhere the Word is not known and cannot be spoken. Not recognizing that an unspeakable word is an oxymoron, and not realizing that Yahowsha is the Word, and thus the place Paul went is the opposite of paradise, the KJV wrote: And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. LV: And I know such a man (whether in the body, or out of the body, I know not: God knoweth): That he was caught up into paradise and heard secret words which it is not granted to man to utter. There is nothing secret about arrhetos. It is simply the negation of rhetoric, which speaks of the nullification of effective communication. It is the antithesis of studying persuasive written texts such as the Torah. NLT: Yes, only God knows whether I was in my body or outside my body. But I do know that I was caught up to paradise and heard things so astounding that they cannot be expressed in words, things no human is allowed to tell. They all missed the point: Satan took Shauwl to the place where the Word does not exist, and where its benefit has been nullified. It is the same place Paul has taken Christians. Today they call this godless place a church. This has been a gut-wrenching journey to a place more horrible than I could have imagined. All I can hope for at this point is to keep as many souls as possible from following Shauwl to Satans Abyss. For the sake of (hyper) such a thing as this (toioutos this sort of thing), I will brag (kauchaomai boast, glorifying myself), but (de) not (ou) boasting (kauchaomai) for the sake of (hyper) myself (emautou), if (ei) not (me) in (en) illness, impotence, and incapacity (astheneia weakness, sickness, disease, and timidity). (2 Corinthians 12:5) We are on the cusp of discovering what incapacitated Pauls ability to glorify himself, and learn what made him ill. (Although to be fair, all attempts at the former failed, and with regard to the latter, it made billions spiritually sick.) KJV: Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities. LV: For though I should have a mind to glory, I shall not be foolish: for I will say the truth. But I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth in me, or any thing he heareth from me. NLT: That experience is worth boasting about, but I'm not going to do it. I will boast only about my weaknesses.

For (gar) if (ean) I wanted (thelo and decided) to brag (dauchaomai boast and glorify myself) based upon what has happened (aletheia truthfully), it would not be (ouk esomai) inappropriate or unjustified (aphron without reason). So then (gar) I will say (ero) I will abstain (pheidomai avoid this). But (de) someone (tis) [who is] not (un) me (eme) might logically think (logizomai use their mind and reason to calculated and conclude) beyond (hyper over and above and because of) this (o). He will see and understand (blepo he will look at, consider, discern the nature of, actually face, and beware of) me (me), or (e) he will listen to (akouo pay attention, receive the news) something (ti) from (ek) me (emou), continuing (kai) the extraordinary (hyperbole extreme, abundant, exceedingly excellent, and excessive) exposure and disclosure (apokalypsis revelation of the truth, unveiling and baring of the true nature). Therefore (dio) in order that (hina) I not become overly conceited (me hyperairomai not lift myself up, exalting myself, becoming excessively arrogant), I (moi) was given (didomi offered, granted, assigned, bestowed, and furnished) a sharp pointed prod (skolops a troublesome, injurious, irritating, and painful sharp stick, a stake, splinter, thorn, or scorpions stinger) [in] the flesh (sarx physical body and human nature), [by] Satans (Satanas the Adversarys) spiritual representative (aggelos supernatural envoy and messenger), in order that (hina) he would strike and torment (kolaphizo beat and violently punish, correct, chastise, restrain, afflict, and prune) me (ego) in order that (ina) I not become overly conceited (me hyperairomai not lift myself up, exalting myself, becoming excessively arrogant). (2 Corinthians 12:67) Skolops a sharp pointed stick used as a prod, a stinger, and a scorpion is clearly associated with Pauls use of kentron a sharp pointed stick used to prod animals and control them, the poisonous stinger of a scorpion in Acts 26:14, where Paul says that he was told by Dionysus, in the guise of Jesus, that it would be hard to rebel against him. And that means that Acts 26:14, which describes Pauls meeting with the flashing light on the road to Damascus where he was told that he could not repel, and Second Corinthians 12:7, which describes the way Satan possessed and controlled Paul, are related. The common denominator is a false god and a wannabe godSatan. Since this passage is so incredibly incriminating, you might be interested to know that Greek words which are related to skolops a sharp pointed prod, include skopeo: something dangerous to be on the lookout for, to notice by being carefully observant, and to be very concerned about. Skopos: a goal toward which someone is being directed, striving for a specific purpose. Skorpizo: to scatter, disperse, and separate. Skorpois: a supernatural demonic power and

stinging scorpion. Skotia: a dark and evil realm. Skotos: the abode of evil and demonic spirits. And skolios: to be unscrupulous and morally corrupt, to be perverse and deceitful, and to warp a path making what was once straight crooked. Here are the Christian interpretations of 2 Corinthians 12:6-7 for your consideration. KJV: For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me. And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. LV: For though I should have a mind to glory, I shall not be foolish: for I will say the truth. But I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth in me, or any thing he heareth from me. And lest the greatness of the revelations should exalt me, there was given me a sting of my flesh, an angel of Satanae/Satan, to buffet me. NLT: If I wanted to boast, I would be no fool in doing so, because I would be telling the truth. But I won't do it, because I don't want anyone to give me credit beyond what they can see in my life or hear in my message, even though I have received such wonderful revelations from God. So to keep me from becoming proud, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger from Satan to torment me and keep me from becoming proud. The most influential Catholic translation, the Authorized Protestant translation, and the most recent Evangelical translation, all say that a messenger from Satan was used to control Paul. And yet not one Christian in a million associates Pauls thorn in the flesh with Satan, or with demon possession. Their religion has blinded them. Demon possession is yet another thing Paul and Muhammad had in common. Describing the vicious bout with Satan in a cave outside Mecca, Muhammads Hadith report: The commencement of divine inspiration to Allahs Messenger was in the form of dreams that came true like a bright light. The prophet loved the seclusion of a cave near Hira. The angel came to him and asked him to read. The Prophet replied, I do not know how to read. Then the angel caught me forcefully and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any more.Then the Apostle returned from that experience; the muscles between his neck and shoulders were trembling, and his heart was beating severely. He went to Khadija and cried: Cover me! Cover me! She did until his fear subsided. He said, Whats wrong with me? I am afraid that something terrible has happened to me. (Bukharis Hadith: Volume 1, Book 1, Number 3 & Volume 6, Book 60, Number 478) The truth came upon him while he was in a cave. The first form of revelation was a true vision in sleep. He did not see any vision but it came like the break of dawn. The Prophet said, I had been standing, but fell to my knees and

crawled away, my shoulders trembling. When the terror had left me, he came to me and said, You are the Messenger of Allah. Muhammad said, I had been thinking of hurling myself off a mountain cliff I feared for my life. (Tabaris History: Volume 1, page 67) Aisha said that when Allah desired to honor Muhammad, the first sign of prophethood was a vision of brightness of day shown to him. He stayed seeing and hearing things as long as it pleased Allah. Then Gabriel came to him with the gift of Allahs Grace. (Ishaqs Sira: page 105) He pressed me so tightly that I was near death. When I thought that I was nearly dead, he said: Read in the name of your Lord who created man of coagulated blood. Read! Your Gracious Lord taught by the pen. I remained gazing at him and that distracted me from committing suicide. I could not move. Khadija sent her messengers in search of me and they gained the high ground above Mecca so I came to her and sat by her thigh. I said, Woe is me. I am possessed. Im afraid Im going out of my mind and being possessed by an evil spirit. (Ishaqs Sira: page 106) In the beginning of the Messengers prophetic mission he used to spend a month every year in religious retreat on Hira. This was part of the practice of Tahannuth in which the Quraysh used to engage during the Jahiliyyah [period of ignorance before Muhammads recitals]. Tahannuth means self-justification. (Tabaris History: Volume 1, page 70) Then, at the end of his life we find: Aisha, the wife of Allahs Apostle (may peace be upon him), reported: Allahs Messenger (may peace be upon him) left my apartment during the night. Then he came and he saw me in an agitated state. He said: Aisha, what has happened to you? Do you feel jealous? I said: How can it be that a girl like me would not feel jealous in regard to a husband like you? Thereupon Allahs Messenger said: It is your devil who has come to you. I said: Allahs Messenger, is there a devil with me? He said: Yes. I said: Is there a devil attached to everyone? He said: Yes. I said: Allahs Messenger, is there a devil attached to you also? He said: Yes. But my Lord has helped me against my devil and as such I am absolutely safe from his mischief. (Muslims Hadith Chapter 14, Book 39, Number 6759) And by way of confirmation: Allahs Messenger said: There is none amongst you with whom is not an attach from amongst the jinn, a devil. The Companions said: Allahs Messenger, is there a devil with you too. Thereupon he said: Yes, but Allah helps me against him so I am safe from his hand and he does not command me but for good. (Muslims Hadith Chapter 14, Book 39, Number 6757)

Returning to Satans prototype for Muhammad, Shauwl said: Because of (hyper) this (toutou), three time (tris) I begged (parakaleo pleaded with and urged) the (ton) Lord (kurion Master and Owner) in order that (hina) it be removed (aphistemi be withdrawn and separated, exorcised and alienated, go away and keep away; from apo, meaning separated from, and histemi, being able to stand upright) from (apo) me (emou). (2 Corinthians 12:8) Just as arrhetos was the negation of the Word, aphistemi is the antithesis of Yahowshas purpose: to stand up for us so that we might stand with Him. Therefore, to be aphistemi is to be separated from Gods purpose. Speaking of his most attractive pagan goddesses, Pauls Lord said: And (kai) he has said (rheo), My (moi) Charis-Charity/Gratia-Grace (charis) is sufficient and satisfies (arkeo possesses and guards) you (soi). For (gar) my (mou) supernatural power (dunamis) is fulfilled and obeyed (teleo and brought to fruition and corresponds) in (en) weakness, disease, impotence, and incapacity (astheneia illness, sickness, and timidity). (2 Corinthians 12:9) Satans will and power is fulfilled and obeyed in our weakness. He probes for a flaw, and then he capitalizes. Pauls mortal stigma was ego; his weakness was insecurity. Satan simply harnessed his hatred for Yahowah, the Torah, and Gods Chosen People. Translating Jeromes Latin, the King James Bible wrote: For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. LV: For which thing, thrice I besought the Lord that it might depart from me. And he said to me: My gratia/grace is sufficient for thee: for power is made perfect in infirmity. NLT: Three different times I begged the Lord to take it away. Each time he said, My grace is all you need. My power works best in weakness. Considering what Shauwl has just written regarding his vision in his letter to the Corinthians, and his demonic associations, Yahowahs perspective is in order. He said: If a prophet arises among you and stands in your midst, or a dreamer of dreams (halam halowm a visionary who sees revelations), and gives a sign or a wonder, and if that sign or wonder comes to be, if he speaks to you saying follow after other gods whom you have not known (yada), saying lets serve them, do not listen to the prophets words (dabar and message), or to those of the dreamer of dreams. Indeed this is a test, a means to measure and prove (nasah) whether or not it can be affirmed that you know (yada) and love (ahab enjoy an affectionate, familial relationship with) Yahowah (), your God, with all your heart, and with all your soul. (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 13:1-3)

Without hesitation, you all should walk (halak) with (eth) Yahowah (), your God, respecting and revering (yare) Him. Closely examine and carefully consider (shamar observe) His terms and conditions (mitswah His codicils for the covenant relationship). Listen to (shama) His voice (qowl). Serve (abad) with (eth) Him. And to (ba by, alongside, and in) Him be associated and cling (dabaq stay close and be joined, be united and cleave). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 13:4) But that prophet who dreams that dream (halam halowm the visionary who reveals that revelation), he shall be put to death (muwt) because (ky) he has spoken words of (dabar communicating and urging) rebellion (sarah revolt and hostility, withdrawal and turning aside) against (al / el and before the Most High), Yahowah (), your God, who led you out (yasa freed you) from (min) the realm (erets land) of the crucible of Egypt (misraym), your Redeemer who ransomed, rescued, and delivered you (padah paid for your freedom from ownership and captivity) from the house (bayith) of bondage (ebed slavery and work), for (la) seducing and scattering (nadah for enticing and causing you to stray) from (min) the (ha) Way (derek the path) which relationally (asher) Yahowah (), your God, instructed and directed (sawah taught and guided) for you to walk (halak) in (ba). Purge (baar remove and rid, destroying by burning) this evil (ra disagreeable and malignant, displeasing and unpleasant, adversarial and injurious, miserable person and message) from (min) your midst (qereb). (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 13:5-6) That was pertinent to Paul. It was sage advice. While Im normally opposed to using English translations for any purpose other than to incriminate them, the New Living Translation does such a wonderful job of incriminating Paul, that I thought Id share it with you. You have made me act like a foolboasting like this. You ought to be writing commendations for me, for I am not at all inferior to these super apostles, even though I am nothing at all. When I was with you, I certainly gave you proof that I am an apostle. For I patiently did many signs and wonders and miracles among you. The only thing I failed to do, which I do in the other churches, was to become a financial burden to you. Please forgive me for this wrong! (2 Corinthians 12:11-13) Some of you admit I was not a burden to you. But others still think I was sneaky and took advantage of you by trickery. But how? Did any of the men I sent to you take advantage of you? When I urged Titus to visit you and sent our other brother with him, did Titus take advantage of you? No! For we have the same spirit and walk in each other's steps, doing things the same way. Perhaps

you think were saying these things just to defend ourselves. (2 Corinthians 12:16-19) Since we have been comparing Shauwl and Muhammad, detailing the similar nature of their conversion experiences and challenges with demon possession, I thought Id share a few more interesting comparisons. Just like Muhammad, Shauwl was a sexist. In his world, men would lord over women: But (de), I want and propose to (thelo desire, hold the opinion, take pleasure and delight in, and intend to impose upon) you (umas) to be aware (oida to realize and remember) that (oti) every (pas) man (andros adult male) is of preeminent and superior status as head (kephale uppermost). The Maaseyah exists as (estin) the head, and thus is superior (kephale hold preeminent status). But (de) [with] woman (gunaikos), man (aner) is of preeminent and superior status as the head (kephale uppermost), and then (de) of the (tou) Maaseyah God (theos). (1 Corinthians 11:3) They would be considered shameful, and women would be forced to covered up for fear of being abused. But (de) all (pas) women (gune) praying or prophesying (proseuchomai e propheteuo), uncovered (akatakalyptos), the head (te kephale) shames (kataischyno) her head (autes ten kephale). For one (gar en) it is (eimi) also the same as (kai to auto) having been shaved (xyrao). For if (gar ei) the woman (gyne) is not covered up (ou katakalyptomai), (kai) lets shear her (keiro cut off her hair) but (de) on the condition (ei) the disgraceful and shameful (aischros) woman (gyne) to be sheered (keiro) or (e) shaved (xyrao) is covered up (katakalyptomai). (1 Corinthians 11:5-6) Just like Muhammad, Shauwl wanted women veiled and out of sight: In (en) you (umin plural second person, dative (speaking of indirect objects for whom something is done) these things (autois plural masculine dative) exist which are (estin) fitting, proper, and appropriate (prepei): Separate and judge (krino evaluate) a woman (gunaika) who is uncovered (akatakalyptos unveiled, literally not hidden by a veil) praying (proseuchomai) to God (theo). (1 Corinthians 11:13) Just as in Muhammads Quran, Shauwl wanted men to lord over women. So he wrote: The (ai) woman (guvaikes) [to her] own individual (idios) man (andrasin adult male) like (os as) the Lord (kurio master, owner, ruler, and supreme authority). (Ephesians 5:22) For those who may protest, suggesting that Yahowah said something similar to Chawah in the in Baresyth / Genesis 3:16, such claims are based upon errant translations. God actually said: And toward your husband and man your strong emotional feelings is why he will liken this to you and he will govern with you (mashal ba he will make a proverb of this similarity and he will have

his way with you, he will rule with you, he will speak of himself in comparison to you). The concluding preposition, ba, means with, not over. Also, just as Muhammad created a religion named Islam Submission, Shauwl served his Lord by demanding submission: To the contrary (alla), just as (os) the called-out assembly (ekklesia) is submissive to and controlled by (hypotassomai is subordinate, submits and obeys, is brought under firm control, is yoked and subdued, is subjugated and placed in submission under) the Maaseyah in this way (houto). And the woman (gunaikes) to the (tois) man (andrasin) in (en) everything (pas). (Ephesians 5:24) Hypotassomai is a compound of hupo, meaning under, and tasso, an assigned and orderly arrangement. It is the antithesis of freewill. And it should be noted that the malak / aggelos spiritual messengers errantly known as angels or demons based upon their allegiance, are saba arranged as conscripts in a command and control regimen in which they are required to fall in line and submit. It is little wonder Pauls entire Damascus Road affair smacks of falling in line and surrendering all of which is the antithesis of freewill. Shauwl, on behalf of Satan, wants to completely control mankind, raping humans of their freewill, so that they will suffer his fate. It is a destiny far worse than returning to bondage in the crucible of Egypt.

Beyond what Shimown had to say about Shauwls letters, there are additional ways to ascertain the merits of his epistles. One such clue would be to examine the writing quality. For that, I present Exhibit A: Galatians 2:14. But before we ponder this incomprehensible verse, please note that Papyrus 46, dated to as early as 85 CE, and no later than 125 CE, omits kai ouchi zao Ioudaikos, from the end of this passage. Translated, the nonexistent phrase means and do not live Yahuwdym. So, with the scribal additions in brackets, along with the omitted words, Shauwl evidently recited: Nevertheless (alla), when (hote) I saw (horao perceived as a result of seeing with my own eyes) that (hoti) [they] were not (ou) walking upright (orthopodeo in the straight path) with (pros) the (o) truth (aletheia that which is in accord with what really happened) of the healing and beneficial message (euangelion), I said (eipon) [to] Kephas in front of (emprosthen) all (pas): If (ei) you (sy) Yahuwdym (Ioudaios Jews) become (hyparcho live and exist) like the nations (ethnikos adapt to the customs of foreigners) [and (kai) do not (ouchi) live (zao) [like] Yahuwdym (Ioudaikos

according to Jewish customs)], how (pos in what way) [do you] necessitate by compulsion (anagkazo compel and force) the nations (ethnos people from different places and races) to live as [a] Yahuwdym (Ioudaizo to adopt and conform to Jewish customs)? (Galatians 2:14) Literally, then the question Paul posed reads: If you Yahuwdym become like the nations, how necessitate by compulsion the nations to live as Yahuwdym? While poorly written by any standard, the first half of this is reasonably clear. Shauwl, whose message was the antithesis of Yahowahs Word, thought that Shimowns actions were inconsistent with the truth of the beneficial message he was professing. And I suppose that the reason he didnt explain why he felt the Rock was wrong for leaving is that it actually would have made Shimown look good. For the record, Shimown would have been in violation of Rabbinical Law for sharing a meal with Gentiles, and in compliance with it when he left. Since nothing else was mentioned, any other conclusion would be speculation. The menu wasnt described. All that we know is that the participants were mixed with regard to their ethnicity. The second half of the verse makes no sensewith or without the omitted clause. Yahowah does not want Yahuwdym to adopt the cultures and traditions of the Gentile nations, ostensibly because they are pagan. But by the same token, Yahowsha made it clear that the societal customs and traditions of the Jews were errant, hypocritical, and even Satanic. Further, freewill and choice are sacrosanct, and thus compulsion is abhorrent to Yahowah, as is any form of oppression or submission. Therefore, this is pointless, irrelevant at best, and likely errant. While the Talmud, Oral Law, and Rabbinical traditions are Jewish customs, and unworthy of our attention, the Torah isnt comprised of Jewish law, or Jewish traditions. The Torah is Yahowahs instructions for living in this world and in the next. So since Jewish customs and traditions are inconsistent with the truth of the healing message, why would Shauwl want Shimown to force people to submit to them? In this regard, Yahowsha, not Shauwl, provided a compelling example of how the Pharisees, the ultra-religious Jews who were devoted to their traditions and Oral Law, imposed their ill-conceived rules on Yahowahs children. He said to them, You have a finely-crafted way (kalos) to reject and invalidate (atheteo to nullify and dispute the validity of) the instruction (entole and precept) of Yahowah () in order to (hina) establish (histamai maintain and uphold) your (sy) tradition (paradosis handed down teachings, or oral law). For Moseh (Mouses) said, Recognize and respect (timao highly value, honor,

and revere) your Father () and your Mother (MTA), and, He will be separated and die (thanatos experience the separation of the mortal soul from the body), ceasing to exist (teleutao being finished), who reviles and denounces (kakologeo who insults, abuses, demeans, slanders, and speaks evil of) our Heavenly Father () or Spiritual Mother (MTA). (Mark 7:9-10) While I shared this with you to demonstrate that Yahowsha recognized that Rabbinical Law was inconsistent with the Torah, and thus destructive, I dont want you to miss the fact that Father and Mother were represented by Divine Placeholders, affirming that they represent our Heavenly Father and our Spiritual Mother. After all, the one unforgivable sin in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms is to insult and demean Yahowah, our Heavenly Father, and the one unforgivable sin presented in the eyewitness accounts is to insult and demean the Set-Apart Spirit, our Spiritual Mother, because without Her we cannot become Gods Covenant children. That is what Yahowsha is inferring here. In this regard, kokologeo is especially telling. Comprised of kakos and logos, it speaks of those whose words convey a bad attitude because they view things from the wrong perspective, as their mode of thinking is errant, and thus their speech is troublesome, injurious, pernicious, and destructive. The Maaseyahs teaching with regard to the Rabbinical law continued with: But you say (lego attest and imply), If a man tells his father or mother, Whatever benefit and assistance (opheleo advantageous help and assistance, even profit) you would have received (doron from an offering, gift, present, or contribution) from me is Korban (korban a Hebrew word designating a gift offering used to approach and come near God), you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother, invalidating the authority of (akyroo nullifying and voiding) the Word (Logos) of Yahowah () by your tradition (paradosis teachings or oral law) which is handed down as if it were an authorized instruction (paradidomi delivered verbally into your custody as something to be observed, and yet condemns). And you do (poieomai perform and profit from) a great many very similar things such as this (toioutos which closely resemble this example, and yet provoke and irritate). (Mark 7:11-13) Whats happening here is that the Rabbis had devised a wealth preservation scheme that, according to their oral law, allowed religious Jews to shirk their responsibilities, in direct defiance of the Spirit of the Towrah teaching. And that is why Yahowah said through the prophet, Howsha: My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being ministers for Me; because you have forgotten the Towrah of your God, I also will forget your children. (Howsha / He Saves / Hosea 4:6) Rather than nailing Martin Luthers thesis against indulgences on the doors of a

Catholic cathedral, affixing Yahowahs testimony to the door of every Christian church might actually open some eyes. So returning to Shauwls somewhat unintelligible diatribe about religious Jews acting like Gentiles and compelling Gentiles to act like religious Jews, the only possible sense I can make of this is to think that the presence of a Jew immersed in Rabbinical traditions made Shimown feel uncomfortable, so he left the meal rather than confront him. Then, Shauwl, wanting everyone to know that Judaism and its Rabbinical Laws were inconsistent with Yahowshas healing message, was disappointed by the Rocks failure to make this distinction. Albeit, the odds of any of that being Pauls intent is extremely remote. But if we were to let our imaginations run wild, we might assume perhaps that Shauwl was also trying to say that Jews, especially those who had become followers of The Way, shouldnt emulate Gentile customs nor compel anyone to adhere to the Oral Law. Perhaps then the problem lies in the writing quality itself, where we are compelled to add words to make sense of the letter, but not with the thoughts Shauwl was trying to convey. Okay, so that was a stretch. Either way, regarding Galatians 2:14, the KJV conveys: But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? And Jerome wrote in his Latin Vulgate: But when I had seen that they were not walking correctly, by the truth of the evangelii, I said to Cephas in front of everyone: If you, while you are a Jew, are living like the Gentiles and not the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to keep the customs of the Iudaizare? While the NLT reads even more smoothly, it is a flight of fancy: When I saw that they were not following the truth of the gospel message, I said to Peter in front of all the others, "Since you, a Jew by birth, have discarded the Jewish laws and are living like a Gentile, why are you now trying to make these Gentiles follow the Jewish traditions? At this point, we leave the chastisement and reenter the realm of affirmations. We (emeis) are (ontes) natural (physis) Yahuwdym (Ioudaios Jews) and (kai) not (ou) from (ek) the sinful (hamartolos those who are disinherited and who wander away from the path in error, missing the way) nations (ethnos races). (Galatians 2:15) This not only makes sense, its consistent with the whole of Scriptureat least removed from the context of what preceded it. Yahowah doesnt want His children to emulate the sinful ways of the nations, so this verse. in this context, by affirming this, seems to be suggesting that it is appropriate to follow Jewish traditions, and its not. The reason that I found it to

be accurate, at least as a standalone statement, is that Yahuwdym are naturalized members of Yahowahs family, whereas Gowym are adopted sons and daughters. But while the Greek was sensible, the English in the KJV is not: We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, LV: By nature, we are Iudi, and not of the Gentibus, sinners. NLT: You and I are Jews by birth, not sinners like the Gentiles. While that was as clear as mud, it was better than Paul throwing mud. LE: 03-25-2013