Chapter 4

Anomos

Lawless

To the Lawless I am Lawless...

The reason we have taken a detour into the book of Acts in the midst of this review of Paul’s letter to the Galatians, is that Luke’s testimony provides the best contemporaneous platform from which to judge the veracity of Paul’s writings. So while we are here, there are many additional things we can learn.

Since Peter is going to be our star witness, it’s appropriate to begin with his testimony. Speaking of what he had experienced during the Miqra’ of Shabuwa, and in the days, months, and years which followed, Shim’own Kephas said: "And (kai) Yahuweh (ΘΣ), the one who knows hearts (kardiognostes), provides testimony, speaking of (martyreo – witnessing on behalf of and vouching for) giving (didomi – producing and granting, appointing, assigning, and bestowing) them (autois) the Set-Apart (agion – and purifying) Ruwach/Spirit (ΠΝΑ), just as (kathos – for the same reason and to the same degree) also (kai) to us (emin). And no one can make a distinction (diakrinomai – can create a separation) between (metaxy) us (emon) and (kai) them (auton) in that which is trustworthy and reliable (pistis) cleansing (katharizo – healing and purifying) their (auton) hearts (kardias)." (Acts 15:8-9)

This is a brilliant opening statement by Shim’own Kephas, especially considering the nature of his adversary. In direct opposition to Paul’s "but I say," Yahshua’s Disciple affirmed that with regard to salvation, "Yahweh’s testimony" is all that matters. Then, the Rock further differentiated himself from Sha’uwl, and he identified the source of his effectiveness: "the Set-Apart Ruwach/Spirit." In the previous chapter we learned that Paul’s power came from a masculine individual whom he later identified as "a messenger of Satan," who he admitted controlled his "enormous ego" with "a sharp prod."

Humble, Shim’own told those assembled before him that his ability to "provide Yahuweh’s testimony" wasn’t unique to him, because "the Set-Apart Ruwach/Spirit" had "been given" to "them,"—a reference to his audience: the Yaruwshalaym Called-Out Assembly.

Also in direct contrast to Sha’uwl, the Rock said that "no one should make a distinction between us and them," which was to say that the world should not be divided between Yahuwdym and Gowym. All of Yahweh’s Spirit-filled troubadours are called to share God’s healing and beneficial message with everyone—regardless of race or place.

As a result of the ecumenical fulfillment seventeen years earlier of the Torah’s promise regarding Seven Sabbaths, where everyone was invited to celebrate their adoption into our Heavenly Father’s family—Gowym and Yahuwdym, men and women, young and old, rich and poor, free and slave—there was no longer a distinction between who was called to witness to people of different races, sexes, ages, or economic status. By way of the Set-Apart Spirit, we are all empowered to share Yahweh’s testimony with everyone. Further, we all become Yahweh’s children the same way, because there is only one Way.

But then, according to the text, Paul stood up and interrupted Peter. We know this because Shim’own wouldn’t consider "trying to trap God." Also, Sha’uwl’s willingness to twist the Torah, and test God in the process, has become legendary. So the wannabe Apostle declared: "Now (nyn) therefore (oun), who (ti) submits a test and attempts to trap (peirazo – tempts) God, placing (epitithemai) a yoke (zygos) upon the neck of the Disciples (mathetes – followers who are tutored) which (on) neither (oute) we (emeis) nor (oute) our (emon) fathers (pateres) had the ability (ischuo) to endure (bastazo – accept, bear, and carry)?" (Acts 15:10)

Luke is playing the role of a historian here, so we cannot blame him for the incomprehensible and unsupported nature of this question. The fact remains: we don’t know who Paul said was trying to trap God—although it would be reasonable to assume that Sha’uwl was once again lashing out at those who were advocating the Torah. Further, we don’t know what Paul’s test may have entailed, although we know that he considered the Torah to be a test that no one could endure. And while his yoke was not defined, circumcision or the Torah (or both) would be reasonable guesses.

So while we are once again searching to clarify Sha’uwl’s ill-defined terminology, the context provided by Luke at the very least provides a handrail, helping us identify the burden which the wannabe Apostle thought was being placed upon the Disciples. Yet we do not know what was so horrible about this yoke of which Paul was speaking, that no one could endure it. In this regard, it is as if we have returned to the muck and mire of Galatians.

And speaking of Sha’uwl’s first epistle, we are reunited with two of his favorite words: alla and charis. "To the contrary (alla), through (dia) the Charis-Charity/Gratia-Grace (charis – mercy, kindness, and favor) of the Upright One (ΚΥ), Yahushua (ΙΥ), we trust and rely (pistos) to be saved (sozo) according to (kata) this (on) manner (tropos – way of life) also (kai) those (ekeinos – a pronoun referencing people who are relatively distant or absent)." (Acts 15:11)

"Alla – to the contrary" means that what follows is different than that which was stated previously. So, if the Torah was Yahweh’s unbearable test, trap, and yoke, then the alternative according to Sha’uwl is "Charis-Charity"—the Greek goddesses known to us as the "Gratiam-Graces." And while Sha’uwl said that we must "pistos – trust and rely to be saved," he most likely meant for his audience to hear "believe," not trust (in that he never provides sufficient information to trust anything he says). Further, he qualified his contrarian view as being "according to this manner: through (dia) the Charis of the Lord (kuriou) Iesou (Iesou) we believe to be saved." While I understand that this dialogue was spoken in Aramaic, all we have is a Greek transcription, with the oldest extant manuscript dated three centuries later, so it wouldn’t be prudent to give Sha’uwl the benefit of the doubt regarding his terminology, especially considering the errant nature of his theology.

As pagan goddesses, the Charis are associated with "the Lord," which is Satan’s title, but they are not related to Yahshua. In fact, memorializing their name in this context was expressly forbidden by Yahweh.

Sha’uwl’s testimony was invalid, as was Sha’uwl’s path to salvation. Forgetting Paul’s affinity for the Graces for a moment, "believing Yahshua" hasn’t saved anyone. Salvation has nothing to do with our "faith." Satan believed that Yahshua was the Messiyah, and he understood the merit of His sacrifice, but it didn’t do him any good. Our salvation is a function of choosing to pass through the door (Passover) that Yahweh has provided, and then walk along His path from Unleavened Bread to Shelters, trusting and relying upon Yahweh every step of "The Way" to "Life." And that’s the "Truth."

"But (de) keeping silent (sigao – holding one’s peace), the whole (pas) large assembly (plethos – multitude and great crowd) listened to (akouo) Barnaba (Barnaba – a transliteration of bar naby; meaning in Aramaic, the son of a prophet, transliterated Barnabas) and (kai) Paulou (Paulou – of Latin origin meaning small, transliterated Paul) make fully known (exegeomai – provide detailed information on) the extent (hosos) of (o) Godly (ΘΣ) signs (semeion) and (kai) wonders (teras – portentous events or extraordinary omens) in (en) the (tois) nations (ethnos – races and places) through (dia) them (auton)." (Acts 15:12) During the fulfillment of the Called-Out Assembly of Seven Sabbaths, the book of Acts says that three thousand souls were saved with more added each successive day, so it was not surprising that the Yaruwshalaym Called-Out Assembly was large by this time.

But we must be careful with regard to Paul’s claim to have produced "signs and wonders." Rather than serve as proof of his ministry, it may actually be another nail in his coffin.

In Matthew 24:4, seventeen years in advance of the day they would benefit from this advice, Yahshua warned His Disciples to be especially wary of the likes of Paul. His Olivet Discourse begins with: "And Yahushua (ΙΣ) responded judgmentally (apokrinomai – used discernment to separate fact from fiction; a compound of apo, separate, and krino, to separate, choosing right from wrong), telling (eupen) them (autos), ‘Pay attention and be perceptive (blepete – look closely and watch out, be careful and discerning, think and understand), lest (ue) someone (tis) will cause you to wander away from the truth (planaomai umas – deceive and delude you, leading you astray)." (Matthew 24:4)

In a private meeting in which only His Disciples were present, Yahshua "told them to pay attention and to be careful, lest someone will cause you to wander away from the truth, deceiving and deluding you." Since this warning was stated specifically to and for the Disciples, might this someone be Paul, and the occasion be the Yaruwshalaym Summit? And if not him, who? If not then, when?

I realize that Christian apologists will say that this warning (one which they have not heeded by the way) was meant for others—including for us today. And by way of extrapolation, they would probably be right, at least up to the point that they ignored that this warning also had to apply to Yahshua’s audience—the Disciples. If it was not pertinent to them, and if this situation didn’t materialize during their lifetime, then the opening statement of the Olivet Discourse (Yahshua’s most comprehensive prophetic revelation) was erroneous.

And in that light, there is but one event and one individual who caused them (Yahshua’s Disciples) to be deceived and deluded: Sha’uwl at the Yaruwshalaym Summit. And it occurred because they did not pay attention to everything He had told them. And it occurs today for the same reason.

Moving on to the next element in this imminent prophetic warning: "For (gar) many (polys) will come (erchomai) in (en – [from Papyrus 70; whereas the more recent NA²⁷ reads "by means of (epi)"]) My (ego) name (onoma – reputation), saying (lego – claiming), ‘I (ego) exist as, belong to, or represent (eimi – I am and I stand for) the (o) Messiyah (ΧΣ – the Implement of Yah). And (kai) many (polys) will wander away from the truth (planaomai – will be deceived and deluded).’" (Matthew 24:5)

Since it is easy to blend Yahshua’s thoughts together, let’s consider them one at a time. Initially He said: "many will come in My name," and indeed, many have, but not all of those who have claimed to represent God have been deceitful.

The most literal rendering of eimi in the middle clause of this next verse, would suggest that Yahshua predicted that many people would say "I am the Messiah." And while there have been plenty of isolated nutcases like this, with the most famous being Rabbi Akiva’s Shim’own Bar Kokhba, and the most recent being David Koresh of the Branch Davidians, their victims are usually counted in the hundreds, sometimes thousands, but seldom millions or billions.

Those who have led the most people astray, and thus satisfy the final clause of Yahshua’s prophetic warning, simply claim to "represent" the Messiah, which is one of eimi’s connotations. And while Paul would tell the Galatians that they had treated him as if he were the Messiyah, Paul typically claims to speak for him—to represent Him.

I would count the billions of Christians who have been led away from Yahweh and His Torah, who have been deceived and deluded by Paul’s Gospel of Grace, as "many." In fact, it would be hard to identify another individual who has misled more people than Paul. It is why I refer to him as the most influential man who ever lived.

Second unto Paul would be "Muhammad," who has also misled billions. But Allah’s Messenger only claimed to be the Messiyah as he approached Yathrib. It was following the Satanic Verses, when his tattered reputation needed a boost. Moreover, Muhammad never spoke in the Messiyah’s name, because he didn’t know it. The Qur’an calls Yahshua "Issa," which is an Arabic transliteration of "Esau." And Muhammad never claimed to represent the Messiyah, but instead Allah. So, he would be disqualified from this prophecy. Not to mention the fact that he lived six centuries after the lifetimes of Yahshua’s Disciples.

Then depending on whether eimi is rendered "exist as," "belong to," or "represent," other candidates might be Rabbi Akiva, General Constantine, or Adolf Hitler. Although President Barak Obama displays a bit of a messianic complex as well.

Before we move on, I’d like pause a moment and contemplate a fairly stunning reality. Paul has repeatedly claimed to speak for the Messiyah Yahushua, and yet in all of his sermons, and in all of his letters, he only quotes Him once! The lone citation is found in 1^st Corinthians 11:24-6, and even it is wrong.

Moreover, as we have seen with Galatians, Yahweh’s Word has only been cited to belittle it. And when we compare that to Mattityahu and Yahuchanan, where Yahshua’s words and deeds dominate the text, or to Zakaryah or Yashayahu where Yahweh’s words reign supreme, this comparison serves to awaken us to the fact that, unlike the others, Paul was speaking for himself. Simply stated: Paul wrote as if his words were God’s, and yet they seldom if ever are.

Continuing with the Olivet Discourse, Yahshua’s warning to His Disciples was advanced twenty verses later with: "Then (tote) if (ean) someone (tis) says to (eipon) you (umeis), ‘Behold (idou – indeed, suddenly now, look) here in this place (hode – in this case positioned near the speaker) the Messiyah (ΧΣ),’ or, ‘in this case here (hode),’ do not (me) think that they are trustworthy or reliable (pisteuo).’" (Matthew 24:23) Paul claimed to have seen the Messiyah on the road to Damascus, and then again in Arabia. The sandal still fits. And it fits Sha’uwl alone, as no one else made such claims during the lifetimes of Yahshua’s Disciples.

Since Yahshua’s next statement isn’t extant in any pre-Constantine manuscript, we don’t know how Mattityahu may have written "pseudochristoi," if indeed he wrote in Greek. The Ebionites, who formed a Called-Out Assembly in Yaruwshalaym under Ya’aqob in the first century, were the first to propose a Renewed Covenant canon, and they claimed to have read Matthew in Hebrew. And while there are a score of credible witnesses to this fact, the oldest Hebrew manuscript in our possession dates to the Middle Ages.

However, since we are considering the possibility that Paul was a perfect fit for Yahshua’s warning, it is instructive to know that the Ebionites, who were first-century followers of The Way, specifically excluded Paul’s letters from their canon, as they considered him to be a false prophet. It wasn’t until Marcion in the early second century that Paul was canonized, even promoted as "the only true Apostle," bequeathed with the foreboding distinction of being "God’s chosen Messenger."

Translated from a mix of Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek, and then Greek to English, this is what the only Messenger who was God, said: "Because (gar) pseudo-christs (pseudochristoi – false-messiahs) and (kai) pseudo-prophets (pseudoprophetai) will stand up and arouse (egeiromai – will rise up, awaken, and stir the comatose), doing (didomi) great (megas) signs (semeion) and (kai) wonders (teras – portentous events) in order to (hoste) delude and deceive (planao – causing people to stray from the path), even (kai) if it were possible (ei dynatos – if they were able), those who were chosen (eklektos – those who select and are selected, from ek, out of, and legos, the Word)." (Matthew 24:24)

When Paul got up before the Yaruwshalaym Ekklesia and tried to impress them by bragging about the "signs and wonders" he had performed, using the exact same phrasing Yahshua had warned about, the Disciples should have remembered this conversation regarding someone who would "planao – lead them astray, deceiving and deluding them," and responded appropriately. Paul has now failed three tests: Yahshua’s and Yahweh’s.

Interestingly, even Paul associates "signs and wonders" with Satan and Torah-lessness in 2 Thessalonians 2:7-10, which we will review shortly. So even Paul-fixated Christians ought to have been alarmed.

I have always seen the humor in Yahshua’s style. Here, rather than just saying that a person would rise up and arouse people, claiming to speak for Him while doing signs and wonders, in order to deceive, He said that "if it were possible," he would delude "even those who were chosen." While all of us are given the opportunity to choose God, there were twelve individuals who were chosen by God. So by augmenting his false-prophet warning with this particular hypothetical in front of this unique audience, the Word was elbowing the Apostles in the ribs—"Hint, hint, I’m talking to you."

But, Yahshua would be even more specific regarding Paul, tailoring the prophetic prediction to reflect the wannabe Apostle’s boast that he met with Yahshua in Arabia, the ultimate Scriptural "wilderness." Listen to God: "Look (idou – indeed, telling the listener to pay attention to this subject), I’ve told you this beforehand, forewarning you (proeipon umin – I have spoken to you about this previously, predicting in advance that it will occur in your future). If and when (ean) therefore (oun), someone says (eiposin) to you, ‘Look, indeed (idou), He exists (estin – He is (third person, singular and thus "He exists," and not "I exist") in (en) the (te) wilderness (eremos – uninhabited desert),’ behold, do not (me) leave (exerchomai – go away from) your place in (en) the treasured inner room of the home (tameion – the reserved and secure chamber of a household and storehouse where [the Spirit] will be distributed). You should not (me) trust him (pisteuo – think that what he has said is true)." (Matthew 24:25-26)

Juxtapose this with Paul’s claim to have encountered the Messiah on the road to Damascus, and then to meeting with Him in Arabia. Once again, Paul is not only a perfect fit for this warning, he is the only candidate who made these claims within the lifetimes of Yahshua’s audience. Yahshua specifically warned His Disciples about Sha’uwl’s deceptive message—and us through them. Are you listening?

While we are on the topic of Paul hanging himself with his own words, I’d like you to consider his "conversion experience" alongside Yahshua’s statement regarding Satan. In Luke 10:18, we read: "Then He [Yahushua] said (eipon) to them [the seventy witnesses He had sent out], I saw (theoreo – closely examined) the Adversary, Satan (Satanas – the one who opposes) falling (pipto – descending and prostrating himself) as (hos – similar to) lightning (astraphe – as a bright beam or ray of light) from (ek) heaven (ouranos – the sky). Behold, I give you the authority to trample upon (pateo epano – tread upon, crush and devastate) serpents (ophis – snakes which serve as a metaphor for demons) and scorpions (skorpios – poisonous animal, from skopos, skeptics who conceal) and upon the whole of (pas) the hostile enemy’s (echthros – the hated and odious one’s opposing) power (dynamis). And absolutely nothing will harm you (adikeo – nor will you be doing anything wrong or unjust)." (Luke 10:18-19)

Now for Paul’s depiction of what he experienced: "It happened. I was traveling and approaching Damascus, around noon, then suddenly and unexpectedly (exaiphnes) nearby a burst of lightning (periastraphai – a flashing light, from peri, about, near, concerning, and on account of, and astrape, lightning, a beam or ray of bright light) from (ek) heaven (ouranos – the sky), an intense (hikanos – sufficient and adequate) light (phos) about (peri – near, around, and concerning) me (eme)." (Acts 22:6) Paul’s depiction is exactly as Yahshua had described the fall of Satan. Sha’uwl even used the same words.

While this is chilling in the extreme, it is worth noting that Paul’s explanation regarding this lightning strike differs in Acts 9:3, 22:6, and 26:13. No one else was affected by the bolt of lightning in Acts 22:6, but in Acts 26:13, Paul’s traveling companions are also enveloped in it. "In the middle of the day, King, I saw (eidon – perceived) from (ek) heaven (ouranos – the sky), beyond (hyper – for the sake of and on behalf of) the sun’s (helios) brightness (lamprotes – radiance and brilliance), shining around (perilampo) me (me) light (phos), and (kai) the ones (tous) traveling (poreuomai) together with (oun) me (emoi)." (Acts 26:13)

What’s troubling here, beside the fact that all three of Paul’s "conversion" accounts are materially different, is that the primary meaning of hyper isn’t "beyond," but instead "for the sake of and on behalf of." So in actuality, Paul was saying that the light "from the sky was for the sake of and on behalf of the sun’s brilliance, brightness and radiance, shining around me." This is akin to General Constantine, the first Pope, seeing a pagan cross in the sky superimposed upon his god, which was the "Unconquerable Sun," and then hearing the a voice—perhaps the same one Paul said he heard, saying, "In this sign conquer."

Additionally, you may have noticed that Yahshua gave His witnesses the express "authority to trample upon serpents and scorpions" in the context of confronting Satan’s power. We know that the Scriptural metaphor for Satan was established as a "serpent" in the Genesis presentation of the fall of man in the Garden of Eden. This symbolism was then reinforced four thousand years later by Yahshua when he said that religious clerics were the children of poisonous snakes in Matthew 23.

And while that explains the association between Satan and "serpents," why did Yahshua add "scorpions" in the context of His prophetic portrayal of Sha’uwl’s spiritual encounter? Those who were paying close attention know the answer. You may recall that Sha’uwl claimed that his enormous ego was held in check because: "I was given a sharp pointed prod (skolops – scorpion’s stinger) in the flesh of my physical body and human nature, Satan’s spiritual/demonic representative, in order that he would strike and torment me in order that I not become overly conceited." (2 Corinthians 12:6-7) In addition to being a "sharp pointed prod," skolops means "scorpion." In a criminal trial, as in this evaluation, the details tell the tale. And rest assured, there is yet another convicting detail hidden within this confession.

While it’s a big picture item, it is also worth noting that in the Olivet Discourse, in the context of warning His Disciples about the likes of Paul, Yahshua said that when He returns, He will be seen by everyone from the horizon in the west to the east, and not just by a one fellow in the company of a handful of others. If Yahshua was telling the truth, Paul was lying.

So could it be, is it possible that Yahshua was right about Paul? Was his bout with the lightning bolt actually an encounter with Satan disguised as Yahshua? It is interesting to acknowledge, after all, that Paul alone seemed to know: "For such are false prophets, treacherous and deceitful (dolios – tricky and clever) workmen (ergates – perpetrators) masquerading as (metaschematizo – converted and transformed so as to appear, disguised and pretending to be) [the] Messiyah’s (ΧPΥ) Apostles (apostolos – prepared messenger who is sent out)." (2 Corinthians 11:13)

At the time Paul wrote this letter to the Corinth Called-Out Assembly, he alone met this description. And history tells us that no one else feigned Apostleship relative to the Corinthians. And since there is no evidence that Paul ever issued an accurate prophecy, there is no reason to view this as a prediction. (Paul’s lists of future human attributes were not only vague, they were common to his day, especially in Rome. And since it has not yet occurred, there is no way to verify Paul’s unique interpretation of the "rapture" or curious rendition of Satan’s demise.)

Most every English translation ignores the inclusion of "autos-himself" in this next verse, because of what it implies. And of course, they aren’t keen on providing a complete translation of thauma, because this sounds like a confession. Literally, in the order Paul wrote the words, the next sentence reads: "And (kai) no (ou) wonder, himself a great object of worship (thauma autos – himself a wonderful, marvelous and miraculous vision and individual to be admired)." (2 Corinthians 11:14) But before we conclude that Satan was being called "great," and a "wonderful object of worship," a word of caution is in order.

There is no direct Greek equivalent to the English word "do" with regard to "do not," so it could be, and probably should be, supplied. This reshapes the text to read: "And do not marvel (thauma – be amazed or wonder)..."

Also, while autos, translated "himself," follows the noun "thauma – wonder" in the Greek text, and proceeds the conjunction "gar – For," which begins the next thought or sentence, depending upon the punctuation, it is common for conjunctions to follow pronouns if the thoughts are being combined, as opposed to being isolated in separate sentences. But adding to the potential confusion, Paul routinely omits pronouns in his letters, so the specific inclusion of autos after thauma, would normally convey "himself a marvel." Moreover, there is no denying that Paul is taken in by Satan’s "glorious manifestation and radiant brilliance" in 2 Thessalonians, a passage we’ll review in a moment.

Yet since there is a way to avoid the problem of praising Satan here in 2 Corinthians, by adding "do" in front of "not," and then repositioning the pronoun, I’m compelled to join the first and second halves of the 14^th verse into a single sentence. Combined, they would then read: "And (kai) [do] not (ou) wonder (thauma – marvel at this miraculous vision, nor be amazed in admiration) [at this], for indeed (gar), he (autos), the Adversary Satan (Satanas) changes his appearance (metaschematizo – masquerades, disguising himself, transforming his image) into (eis) a spiritual, heavenly messenger (angelos – divine representative) [of] light (photos)." (2 Corinthians 11:14)

And while that solves one problem, it creates another. This is exactly like Paul experienced him. And as always, Paul’s inadequate writing style remains especially prone to misinterpretation, leaving us wondering what he actually meant to say. Further, Satan’s origin and name, a "malak – spiritual messenger" named "Halal ben Shachar," tells us that he is a "spiritual, heavenly messenger radiating light," so this is hardly news. 

And yet Paul’s next line is as clear as it is telling. It is designed to deflect attention away from him being judged a false prophet.  So Paul says that rather than evaluate him objectively based upon his words, comparing them to God’s, he wants to be evaluated subjectively based upon his "motivation."

"[It is] not (ou) surprising (megas – great) therefore (oun) when (ei – if) also (kai) his (autou) servants (diakonos – ministers who execute his commands) masquerade (metaschematizo – pretend to be) as (hos) ministers (diakonos – servants) of righteousness (dikaiosyne – whose doctrine is acceptable to and approved by God), of which (o on) the end result and motivation (telos – their ultimate purpose and intent) will be (estai) according to (kata) their works (ergon – deeds)." (2 Corinthians 11:15) But yet judging someone’s motivation, their intent, is pure speculation. So Paul would have us move from facts and reason, to opinions. That doesn’t sound godly to me.

Illuminating this problem, telos, rendered "end result and motivation" is based upon tello, and that’s telling because it describes someone who "sets out to achieve a particular goal." It infers that the ultimate evaluation of these people should focus on their "motivations," as opposed to the content of their messages, and it should take place at the end of time, as opposed to when the message is being delivered.

Further, Paul’s evaluation is also predicated upon a person’s "deeds" rather than what they have to say. As such, Paul’s means to determine whether a person is a false prophet, bears no resemblance whatsoever to Yahweh’s test. Of this, we should not be surprised.

But this is Paul’s message, Paul’s test, and Paul’s defense on behalf of his spirit. It also reflects Paul’s less than divine grammatical style. "Furthermore (palin – also and again) I say (lego), not (oe) someone (tis) I (me) presume (dokei – be of the opinion) I am (einai) ignorant and irrational (aphron – foolish, stupid, senseless, and devoid of reason). But (de) if (ei) not (me) really (ge – even) and (kai) as (os – like) foolishness (aphron – ignorance and senselessness), I (me) you will receive (dechomai – believe and welcome) in order that (ina) and I (kago) little (micron – small) someone who (ti) I boast (kauchaomai – brag and glory in)." (2 Corinthians 11:16)

Since this is gibberish, let’s consider what the scholastic sources reveal. The Nestle-Aland interlinear reads: "Again I say not some me might think unthinking to be if but not indeed if also as unthinking welcome me that also I little some might brag." That wasn’t an improvement.

Moving on to the English Standard Version Interlinear, we find that it departs significantly from the text, ignoring and adding many words: "I repeat, let no one think me [being (omitted)] foolish. But even if [you do (added)], [not also (omitted)] accept me as [a (added)] fool, so [that (added)] I [too may (added)] boast a little."

The New International Version Interlinear suggests: "Again I say not anyone me think foolish to be [if (omitted)] otherwise [not really (omitted)] even if as foolish receive you me, [in (added)] order [that (added)] I also [a (added)] little [bit (added)] [someone (omitted)] may boast."

Moving from the most trusted interlinears to the supposedly literal New American Standard Bible, we find: "Again I say, let no one think me foolish, but if you do, receive me even as foolish, that I also may boast a little."

All we can say for sure is that the writing and message quality are well beneath God’s capability. And yet, I’m compelled to offer something sensible. So, here is my best guess regarding Paul’s testimony: "Furthermore, I say, let no one presume I am foolish. But even if not, and I am like the foolish, you will receive and accept me in order that I may boast a little."

No matter the interpretation, this statement is actually worse in content and style than anything we have encountered in Galatians. And once again, we can’t blame this on scribal error. The words are the same in Papyrus 46 (from the late first-century) as they are in the Nestle-Aland. The incomprehensible, even arrogant, nature of the text is Paul’s fault.

"What (o) I say (lalo) [is] not (ou) according to (kata) [the] Lord/Master’s (KN) way of speaking (laleo – sayings), but to the contrary (alla) as (os) in (en) foolishness (aphrosyne – recklessness and thoughtlessness, senselessness and folly) in (en) this (houtos) substance and nature (hypostasis – essence or objective aspect and underlying reality behind everything; a compound of hupo, under, and histemi, standing upright) of (tes) boasting (kauchesis – pride and glorifying oneself)." (2 Corinthians 11:17)

If this is correct, Paul is admitting the obvious. He was not speaking for Yahweh, but instead, was foolishly bragging on his own behalf—or worse. And I say "or worse" because this follows an explanation of how Satan influences false prophets.

Not to belabor the point, but the Nestle-Aland interlinear isn’t any clearer: "What I say not by Master, I say but as in thoughtlessness in this the substance of the brag."

The NASB supports my conclusion: "That which I am speaking, I am not speaking as the Lord would, but in foolishness, in this confidence of boasting." Try as they would to shade the meanings to protect Paul’s credibility, this remains extremely incriminating.

And Paul wasn’t finished exposing or condemning himself. "Because (epei – since) many (polloi) may boast (kauchaomai – brag and glorify themselves) according to (kata) [the] flesh (sarx – ­their physical prowess), I also (kago) glorify myself and brag (kauchaomai – boast)." (2 Corinthians 11:18) He is beginning to sound just like Satan.

This has become so horrific, so demonic, so unlike Yahweh and His prophets, it’s important that you have verification of these words from other translations: In that regard, the NASB wrote: "Since many boast according to the flesh, I will boast also."

"For indeed (gar – because) gladly (hedeos – with delight and enjoyment) you accept (anechomai – bear, endure, and put up with) the senseless and foolish (aphron – ignorant and irrational), being (ontes) wise (phronimos – shrewd and intelligent)." (2 Corinthians 11:19)

This was hardly the place for sarcasm, and yet that is what we find. I’m beginning to think Paul has lost complete control of himself, and has pulled back the veil hiding his true nature. It is as if Paul’s arrogance, his sense of superiority, has led him to believe that his audience was so stupid, they’d never figure him out, much less hold him accountable.

According to the NASB, Paul wrote: "For you, being so wise, bear with the foolish gladly." While this is no better, to achieve this translation, they had to upend Paul’s arrangement of words.

This is making my stomach turn. "If only (ei) because (gar) you accept (anechomai – bear, endure, and put up with) someone who (tis) enslaves you (katadouloo – makes you subservient), even (ei) someone who (tis) devours you (katesoiei – exploits and utterly destroys you), even (ei) someone who (tis) grasps hold of and receives you (lambano – acquires you and associates with you as a companion), even (ei) someone who (tis) lifts up (epairomai), even (ei) someone who (tis) flays the skin (dero) of your (umas) person (prosopon – being)." (2 Corinthians 11:20)

This is a very troubling list of characteristics for several reasons. First, it starts off suggesting that the Corinthians willingly accepted someone who enslaved them. And as we return to Galatians, we will discover that Paul considers this to be Yahweh, because, according to Paul, God’s Torah "enslaves."

The second derogatory statement, "devour and exploit," can also be linked to the Galatians depiction of Yahweh’s Torah, which Paul will refer to it as "a financial manager," and "taskmaster." But then, the statements turn positive, and delineate what God alone is able to do: "receive us," and "lift us up." But then, inexplicably, the last characteristic appears savage. And yet, based upon what we have read in Galatians, it’s apparent that Paul was lashing out at Yahweh for asking us to be circumcised.

Therefore, set in the midst of this Corinthian lecture, aware of what Paul has written in Galatians, the most rational interpretation of this statement is that Satan is suggesting through Paul that Yahweh is someone only a fool would accept.

The NASB published: "For you bear with anyone if he enslaves you, if he devours you, if he takes advantage of you, if he exalts himself, if he hits you in the face." Considering the fact that Paul will soon say that his enemies are "Hebrews, Yisra’elites, and descendants of Abraham" who ran afoul of him by promoting the value of the Torah, it’s hard to not to see this as an attack on Yahweh’s witness and witnesses.

In their desire to avoid the obvious, and keep Paul’s list entirely negative, the NASB selected tertiary definitions of lambano and epairo, even though they were used nowhere else. And yet lambano, rendered, "grasps hold of and receives," means "to take by the hand." It conveys: "to select, receive, and acquire," as well as "to make one’s own and to associate with as a companion." As such, paralambano is the operative term Yahshua used in His depiction of the Taruw’ah Harvest, with para strengthening the concept of "gathering us together." And yet, I found but one lexicon which listed "exploit by deception," under lambano, and it was buried under their seventh definition. So the NASB team ran with this, and in the process, ignored Yahshua’s use of the term.

Likewise, epairomai, translated "lifts up," was written in the third person singular. It therefore says "He lifts up," "He rises," and "He raises up." Sure sounds like Paul was speaking of the Messiyah. Yahshua even used epairomai to speak of our salvation. And Matthew used epairo, the verb’s root, in his presentation of the Messiyah’s transfiguration. And yet, lurking as the sixth of six definitions, we find "is arrogant," so the NASB grasped hold of this connotation, not recognizing that Paul himself had been bragging throughout this section of his letter.

In his next statement, Sha’uwl seems to be saying that he and his partner are relatively weak, as compared to his foes, but when it comes to foolishness and arrogance, he protests that he and his associate are the equal of any. "Accordingly (kata), I say (lego), [this is a] disgrace (atimia – dishonor, ignominy, and shame, a reproach), because (os) namely (oti) we (emeis) are weak and powerless (astheneo – ill, incapacitated, and diseased) in (en) this (o), but (de) if (an) someone (tis) is extremely daring and bold (tolmao – summons up the courage to defy danger) in (en) foolishness (aphrosyne – folly and senselessness, reckless thoughtlessness), I say (lego) I am also extremely daring and bold (tolmao kago – have also summoned up the courage to defy danger)." (2 Corinthians 11:21)

If Paul had been enveloped in the Set-Apart Spirit, he would not have been "weak or powerless." And yet, by comparison to Yahweh, and considering his use of "emeis – we," Paul and his masquerading spirit were indeed "weak and powerless."

But that isn’t the last of the problems. Paul is inferring here, especially in this context, that he and his associate are "bold and senseless," as if he was ascribing to the political mantra which has underscored Machiavelli’s approach to power, where the ends justifies the means, where truth is irrelevant, and where daring in the extreme becomes the ultimate weapon.

Dealing with 2 Corinthians 11:21, the New American Standard Bible ignored "lego – I say" at the beginning of this rather odd statement, and added "my," "must," "by comparison," and "else," as well as the parenthetical, without textual support. "To my shame I must say that we have been weak by comparison. But in whatever respect anyone else is bold (I speak in foolishness), I am just as bold myself."

Noticing the parenthetical, I am compelled to tell you that the NASB added "(I speak as if insane)" in the midst of Paul’s comments in the 23^rd verse. And should you wonder, it is in the 22^nd verse that Paul lists his adversaries, who, as I’ve mentioned, are not-so-coincidently Satan’s foes: "Hebrews, Yisra’elites, and descendants of Abraham." Not only have Yahweh’s Chosen People been ensconced as Paul’s enemies, there is something very troubling about Paul’s continued focus on himself, rather than Yahshua.

In fact, rather than explaining how Yahshua’s Passover and Unleavened Bread sacrifices enabled the Torah’s promises, and facilitated our salvation, Paul used the next five verses to delineate his personal afflictions which have absolutely no value to anyone, nor any bearing on our salvation. Moreover, based upon the fact that Paul described three different variations of what happened to him on the road to Damascus, and that his depiction of the Yaruwshalaym Summit was grossly inaccurate, the likelihood that Paul endured "five times thirty-nine lashes from the Jews," and "three times being beaten with rods," is remote. And yet it is hard to miss the intent: it appears as if Satan was auditioning Paul for the role of his Messiah.

As further evidence, Paul’s tale of woe concludes with: "In addition (parektos – apart from all of this), separately by myself (choris – besides without any help, separated, independently, and apart from any relationship), I (ego) have the burden of responsibility and authority over halting rebellions (epistasis – anxiety and pressure over a stopping hostile, and riotous, banding together of troublesome people acting like a mob) by (kata) day – the anxiety (merimna – distraction and worry, cares and concerns in a negative, worldly, preoccupied sense) of all (pas) the called-out assemblies (ekklesion)."

Problems abound in this passage. First among them: by using "parektos – in addition" and "choris – separately by myself" in succession, we are compelled to render choris as "without any help," as in "independently, apart from any relationship," as opposed to translating it "besides." In other words, Paul isn’t saying "In addition besides," but instead, "in addition to being beaten up, and going to bed hungry and cold, I alone have borne the burden of suppressing riots and caring for all of the assemblies." So now, even the pretense of representing the real Messiyah is gone.

Those who trust Yahweh, rely upon Him. We are never anxious. Our job isn’t to terminate rebellion, or to stew over the called-out assemblies. And that is because, the sacrosanct nature of freewill precludes us from hindering the choice to rebel, and the Spirit is responsible for nurturing and protecting Her children—not us or Paul.

Further, Yahshua used "merimna – anxiety" in a parable about: "thorns, who represent those who hear the message, but all too quickly crowd the message out by the ‘merimna – cares and concerns’ and riches and pleasures of this life, so [the seeds of truth] never grow into maturity." (Luke 8:14)

Our job as followers of The Way is to expose lies and witness to the truth. We do this by observing and reciting the Torah, and by following Yahshua’s example. All we are asked to do beyond this is to clear the dirt off of the table, set Yahweh’s invitation upon it, let people know that it is there, remain available to answer their questions, and then let them make up their own minds. It is a take it or leave it proposition. There is no debate, no negotiation—and most certainly nothing for us to contribute or worry about. We do not bear any responsibility for what happens, good or bad.

Further, if we are reciting Yahweh’s Word, and affirming His plan, we never have to say: "know that I am not lying," as Paul does in Galatians, and now again in 2^nd Corinthians, in the 31^st verse. But since he was doing neither, he was actually doing precisely what he denied.

If we say anything in the name of God which is contrary to the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, we are lying, and it is obvious to those who care. And if we convey His Word accurately, it makes no difference whether or not we are liars. No one is saved based upon our testimony, or upon Paul’s. Other than to determine whether or not he is a false prophet, Paul’s veracity is irrelevant. And that makes his focus on himself, and his unsupported protestation, completely inappropriate.  

So you may be wondering why Satan would be this overt regarding his relationship with Paul, and why he would encourage Paul to disparage the "Adversary" in the same text. But the answer is obvious. By disparaging the Adversary, Satan makes it appear as if he isn’t the Adversary. This is precisely how Allah, who was modeled after Satan, positions the Devil in the Qur’an. And thus while it’s blatantly obvious that Allah is the Adversary, this ruse is sufficient to fool most Muslims.

But what bothers me the most about all of this is that Satan, and his accomplices are so "boldly foolish" about what they are doing at times like these, it makes it obvious that they think people are stupid—too "ignorant and irrational" to figure out who they are and see what they are doing. It is as if Satan was thumbing his nose at God too, saying: "Why do you care about these morons? They are complete idiots and will believe anything. Just watch, I’ll tell them exactly who I am, and with whom I work, and they will still willingly drink the poison right out of his hand."

While the evidence in favor of Paul being a false prophet is overwhelming, my purpose in sharing Yahshua’s prophecy and Paul’s Corinthians commentary, was simply to encourage you to think about the possibility that there is more to all of this than one man speaking for himself. And yet while we can objectively evaluate Paul’s words, and hold him accountable for belittling the Torah, and for saying things as absurd as what we have just experienced, even if he were to disclose his motivations and inspiration, we would have no way of knowing whether he was telling the truth. Since we aren’t mind readers, all we can do is speculate regarding who he served and why.

While we are on the subject of Satan, and before we return to the book of Acts, I had mentioned that Paul associated the "signs and wonders" that he used to affirm his calling, with both Satan and Torah-lessness. So here is what the Devil’s Advocate had to say about himself and the spirit who facilitated and empowered him. Harkening back to the confession found in Galatians 2:8, we read:

"For (gar) the (o) mystery and religious doctrine (mysterion – secrets concealed in the symbols, slogans, rites, and rituals of religions which are known only to the faith’s initiates and participants) of Lawlessness/Torah-lessness (anomias – a negation of the Law and Torah) is already (ede – at this present time, even right now) functioning (energeo – facilitating and completely operational, at work granting the ability and power to produce results, revealing and showing itself). [It is] only (monon – alone without a companion, forsaken) currently restrained and hindered by possession from below (katecho – controlled and prevented through continued faith and belief; from kata and echo, meaning possession from below) right at this very moment (arti – presently, just now at this time) until and up to the point (hoes) he appears (ginomai – he arrives and becomes known in the flow of human history) from (ek – out of) the midst (mesos)." (2 Thessalonians 2:7)

Just as we discovered in Galatians 2:8, where the adjective and verb "energeo – facilitate and functionality" was rendered in the masculine, and thus could not represent the Set-Apart Spirit, the adjective and verb "katecho – restrain and possess" is also masculine. And while it is singular in the Greek text, it was not written in second person, so there would be no justification for adding the pronoun "he" that we find in many English translations.

Further, katecho is not a proper noun or a title, so even if it had been feminine, it cannot be "the Restrainer," a convoluted metaphor for the Set-Apart Spirit, as most English translations want us to believe. And last time I checked, our Spiritual Mother did not "katecho – possess from below." "Lawlessness" was however feminine in deference to Towrah being a feminine noun in Hebrew.

This is a treasure trove of evidence. Not since Galatians 2:4 have we confronted so much secrecy surrounding Sha’uwl. Paul was, of course, resolutely anti-Torah. He used the same verb, energeo, to describe the source of his power. Sha’uwl said that the spirit of Lawlessness was functioning at this present time—something he knew personally, because he admitted to being restrained by it in 2 Corinthians 12. But here he goes even further, saying that the restraint was the result of having been possessed from below. He even told the Thessalonians that this controlling spirit would emerge from their midst—which is to say he would come from their spiritual leader and his faith: Paul and Christianity.

Christian eschatologists are wont to make anomos "the man of Lawlessness," or "the Lawless one," and thus serve as the name or title of the Antichrist, but there is no reference to "man" or "one" in the text, and anomos is an adjective, not a noun. But that’s hardly the end of the bad news for Christians. In Corinthians 9:21, Paul will brag: "To the lawless (anomos), I was like the lawless (anomos)." It is yet another chilling confession.

"And then (tote) Lawlessness/Torah-lessness (anomos – the negation of the Torah) will be revealed and disclosed (apokalypto – uncovered and unveiled) whom (on) the Lord (kurios) ‘Iesous (‘Iesous – [since the oldest witness of this passage is three centuries removed from its author, and is highly inaccurate, it would be inappropriate to presume that Sha’uwl correctly stated Yahshua’s name or title]) will do away with or accept (anaireo – remove the validation or adopt, abolish or lift up, kill or take for himself) the (to) spirit (pneumati) of (tou) his (autou – [could be referencing ‘Iesous’ or the spirit of Torah-lessness’]) mouth (stomatos – speech) and (kai) put an end to (katargeomai – invalidate or release from prior obligations, abolish or free) the glorious appearance (epiphaneia – the divine manifestation of his power and light; from epiphanies, to be conspicuous and illustrious) of his (autou) presence (parousia – coming arrival in person)." (2 Thessalonians 2:8)

It is interesting that Mel Gibson, a Catholic anti-Semite, named his movie about the impending destruction of the Mayan civilization at the hands of the Catholic Conquistadors "Apokalypto," a Greek term used in conjunction with those who are opposed to the Torah.

Anaireo, translated "will do away with or accept," is a compound of ana, meaning "into the midst," and haireomai, "to take for oneself, to choose and to prefer." Therefore it would be presumptuous to translate it "kill" without also considering the other, equally valid alternatives.

Likewise, katargeomai, rendered "put an end to," is often defined "unemployed, idle, inactive, or inoperative." It is from kata, "below and according to," and argeo, "to linger, to delay, to be idle, and to be inactive."

But that’s not the end of the duplicity. Epiphaneia, translated glorious appearance," was used by Greeks of Paul’s day to describe the "brilliant and illustrious divine manifestations of their pagan gods." It is from epiphanies, "to be conspicuous and illustrious." Epiphanies in turn is from epiphaino, meaning "an appearance which brings light and thereby enlightens." It is a compound of epi, meaning "by way of," and phaino, "bringing light." As such, it serves as the basis of the Latin name "Lucifer." Additionally, phaino means "to shed light, to shine brightly, and to have a brilliant appearance." You see, phaino is based upon phos, the Greek word for "light."

So Sha’uwl is telling us that Satan is resigned to his fate. He knows that his days are numbered, but that doesn’t seem to diminish his self image. Further, rather than serve as a victorious declaration, this passage is a duplicitous lament. It’s reminiscent of the Wicked Witch’s sorrowful mourning as she melts away at the end of the Wizard of Oz, only to find that the wizard was a fraud.

Speaking of his rendezvous with destiny, the arrogant and yet brilliant, the hideous and yet beautiful, the dark and yet radiant spirit known to the world as "Satan – the Adversary," no longer wants to function as God’s opponent; he wants to be God. Let’s listen to the man he inspired: "Which (ou) exists as (estin) the presence (parousia – the personal arrival) according to (kata – the name of the opposite of, that which is against and beneath) the functioning (energeia – the efficacy and power, the influence and operation) of the Adversary Satan (Satana – the one who opposes) in (en) all (pas – every) ability and power (dynamis – miracles and supernatural deeds, resources and capability) and also (kai) signs (semeion) and intentionally counterfeit (pseudo – conspicuously false and misleading imitations in the form of) wonders (teras – foreshadowing significant omens)." (2 Thessalonians 2:9)

So besides associating "signs and wonders" with Satan, what else is Sha’uwl inferring here? Why is he praising Lucifer, the "glorious and radiant divine manifestation of power and light," while at the same time, predicting the demise of the "Adversary Satan?" The answer is clear, at least once you come to understand the Deceiver’s strategy and motivation.

Satan doesn’t want to be known as "the Adversary;" he wants humankind to confuse his "gloriously brilliant appearance" with God. His goal is to have his "intentionally counterfeit foreshadowing wonders" be considered religious truth. Lucifer (from Latin meaning Light Bearer) or Halal ben Shachar (from Hebrew meaning Arrogant and Brilliant Son of the Rising Sun) inspires his messengers to promote him as God, making his adversarial title the enemy. By condemning Satan, Lucifer is delivered from this Adversary epithet.

"In (en) every (pas) deception (apate) [and] unjust deed (adikia) they disappear and are destroyed (apollymai – they are unaware and thus lost) instead of (anti – against which) not (ouk) accepting and believing (dechomai) the love (agapen) [of the] truth (aletheia) to (eis) save (sozo) themselves (autous). And (kai) through (dia) this (touto), he sends to (pempo) them (autois) the (o) God (theos) facilitating (energeia – empowering and effecting) deception and delusion (plane – perversion and moral corruption, leading people away from the path into error) in (eis) their (autous) belief (pisteuo – meaning thinking regarding that which is trustworthy and true, but redefined by Paul to mean faith) [in] the lie (pseudo – counterfeit and intentional imitation)." (2 Thessalonians 2:10-11) I’m not sure what this means, but it’s not good.

Before we return to the 15^th chapter of Acts, there is a troubling statement at the preamble of Paul’s second of three depictions explaining his "conversion experience" which got my attention. Perhaps we have stumbled onto the real issue. Once again, it’s all about Paul, as he is justifying his controversial mission before a new audience.

"Men, brothers, and fathers, listen to (akouo – pay attention to) me (mou). With regard to (pros) you (umas) now (nuni – at the present time) I defend myself (apologia – offer my own justification (a technical term designating a personal rebuttal in the form of a verbal response, from which we get the English word "apologetics"))." (Acts 22:1) As was the case with the whole of Galatians, and now Corinthians, Paul was defending and justifying his credentials and message, not Yahweh’s or Yahshua’s! It is a broken record—figuratively and literally.

Rather than tell the uplifting story of Yahshua of Nazareth, the troubled troubadour spoke of Sha’uwl from Tarsus. "Then (de) because (oti) they listened (akouo) to him addressing (prosphoneo) them (autois) in the Hebrew (Hebrais) language (dialektos – dialect), they possessed and maintained (parecho) a greater degree (mallon) of quietness (hesychia – silence and settling down, no longer creating a disturbance). And he declared (phemi), ‘I (ego) am (eimi – exist as and represent) a Yahuwdean (Ioudaios – improperly transliterated "Judean" or "Jewish") man (aner) born (gennao) in (en) Tarsus (Tarsos), Cilicia (Kilikia – a Roman Province in what is now southwestern Turkey),..." (Acts 22:2-3)

If we can believe him, Paul was addressing an agitated Yisra’elite audience in Hebrew. Such a statement runs afoul of "biblical scholars," most of whom say that "Hebrew was neither spoken nor understood at this time." But regardless of whether this was actually true, we must ask ourselves: why was Paul addressing the "circumcised?" Hadn’t he said that they were Shim’own Kephas’ responsibility?

And yet Paul never abided by his own rules. He was a chameleon, changing his colors to take advantage of his audience. He even admitted to this very thing (in his own pathetic style): "To the Jewish, I came to exist like (os) a Jew, in order to (hina) take advantage of and profit from (kerdaino – procure an advantage over) Jews. To those under the Torah (nomos), I acted as if (os) I was under the Torah—not that I, myself, actually existed under the Torah—in order to (hina) take advantage of and make a profit from those under the Torah. To the lawless (anomos – the Torah-less), I was like the lawless (anomos – the Torah-less), not being God’s (ΘΥ) lawless, but to the contrary, subject to the law (ennomos – bound to the law) of the Messiyah (ΧΥ), in order to (hina) take advantage of and profit from (kerdaino – procure an advantage over) the lawless. I became weak and sick (asthenes – incapable, infirmed, feeble, hopeless, helpless, and morally inadequate) to the weak in order to (hina) take advantage of and profit from (kerdaino – procure an advantage over) the weak. I became (ginomai) to every kind of (pas) person, every kind of (pas) person, in order to (hina) save (sozo) everyone (pantos tinas)." (1 Corinthians 9:20-22) Even Machiavelli wasn’t this bold.

As if he were speaking directly to Paul, Yahshua used kerdaino to say, "What do you benefit if you gain (kerdaino – take advantage of and profit from) the whole world, but lose your own soul?" (Matthew 16:26) It is stunningly appropriate.

This tactic is what we might expect for an unscrupulous politician or businessman, who will say and do anything, no matter how deceptive or fraudulent, to garner an unfair advantage, but not from someone claiming to speak openly and honestly on behalf of God. Yahshua, never once pretended to be other than He was and is. But by admitting this, Paul has just told everyone that his words, his behavior, and claims (such as representing the Messiyah), cannot be trusted.

So that there will be no misunderstanding regarding the dubious tactics of this charlatan, the primary meaning of kerdaino, translated "take advantage of and profit from," is related to "gaining an advantage over someone in the pursuit of wealth, influence, and acclaim." To the common man of his day, kerdaino spoke of "desiring worldly things to such an extent, that a person would cheat, and would feel no compunction against being crafty, clever, or cunning."

"Metaphorically," kerdaino "can be used to speak of winning someone over," but that option is torn asunder in the context of clandestinely and deceptively metamorphosing oneself to gain an advantage. And interestingly, the secondary meaning of kerdaino is "to avoid problems in the process of trying to spare oneself." But that connotation is only applicable when used as part of a hypothetical situation or an instructional parable.

Even if we were to give Paul the benefit of the doubt he no longer deserves, and render "kerdaino – win," Paul would remain condemned for operating under false pretenses. It’s called "fraud," and it’s a crime.

We have been so inundated by Paul’s relentless rejection of the Torah, that we may now be somewhat callused to it, but nonetheless, the troubadour of lawlessness just affirmed "I acted as if I was under the Torah, not that I myself existed under the Torah, in order to take advantage of those under the Torah." And while Paul condemned his soul with those words, we must ask: what did he mean by "I was like the lawless, not being God’s lawless, but to the contrary, subject to the law of the Messiyah?" There is no "lawless" association with God, and the only Law the Messiyah was subject to was the one Paul disassociated himself from in the previous sentence. This man’s language was as duplicitous and misleading as were the pretences under which he operated.

And if that were not enough, Paul specifically states that he "was like the ‘anomos – lawless,’" a condition he explicitly associated with Satan in his previous 2 Thessalonians 2:7-9 statement and letter. That was akin to proclaiming: "I Paul, am just like the Antichrist."

Even his parting salvo—"in order to save everyone"—provides a window on this man’s grotesquely egotistical soul. Yahweh Himself couldn’t save everyone. And Yahshua didn’t try.

For those of you who have read The Prince, and are familiar with Machiavelli’s infamous and immoral advice to wannabe religious and political potentates, Sha’uwl’s statement inspired: "the ends justifies the means." All manner of horror has been perpetrated on humankind as a result of this mantra. It serves to this day as the justification for oppression and terrorism.

If Paul hadn’t just wallowed in delusion and hypocrisy, not to mention deceit and pride, I might have skipped his parting salvo. But after hearing him say that he would impersonate anyone to save everyone, we are compelled to question what he meant by: "But (de) all (pas) I do on behalf of (dia) the healing and beneficial message (euangelion) in order that (hina) I might become (ginomai) His (autos) joint-partner (sygkoinonos – from sun, with, and koinonos, partner)." (1 Corinthians 9:23) Make of this what you will.

Returning to the book of Acts, consider the vile vomit which pours out of Sha’uwl’s mouth in his next statement: "...but then (de) having been nursed and nourished (anatrepho – reared and cared for; from trepho, fed by suckling at the breast, and ana, into the midst) in (en) this (taute) city (polis) from beside (para) Gamaliel’s (Gamaliel – a transliteration of the Hebrew Gamly’el, from gamal ‘el, meaning to deal with the recompense of God) feet (pous), being brought up and trained as a child (paideuo – being guided as a boy, being educated and disciplined in my youth, from pais, as an infant or slave) with regards to (kata) the accurateness (akribeia – the exact, careful, precise, strict, and rigorous conformity to the standard [i.e., minute precepts of the law and traditions]) of the law which was received from our forefathers (patroos nomou – laws, customs, and traditions of our ancestral heritage passed from fathers to sons), beginning to be (uparchon – from hyparcho – to start to represent and to begin to become equivalent to, from hupo, by way of, and archomai, to be first, to begin, and to be the highest authority of) zealous (zelotes – enthusiastic) of (tou) God (ΘΣ), just as (kathos) all of (pas) you (umeis) are (este – exist as and represent) today (semeron)." (Acts 22:3)

This single verse contains three of the most horrid abominations I’ve encountered in something which is purported to be "Scripture." First, this man who claimed to speak for the Messiyah Yahushua, wallowed in the idea of being "nursed and nourished," "guided and disciplined" by a Rabbi, the very men Yahshua had said "were born of serpents." It would have been one thing for him to admit in passing that he had been one of Gamaliel’s students, but it’s another altogether to speak of Gamaliel as if he was filling the role of the Set-Apart Spirit. It is obvious that Paul loved a man Yahshua would have despised.

Second, the problem Yahshua had with Rabbinical traditions, known as the Oral Law, which was specifically what Paul was praising here, is that it changes, corrupts, counterfeits, and conceals Yahweh’s Torah. So why did Paul call "the law which was received from our forefathers" "precisely accurate and in complete conformity" when Yahshua said the opposite? The one time Sha’uwl specifically identifies Rabbinical Law, differentiating it from the Torah, he was unequivocal, calling these errant religious traditions "perfectly accurate." Set into the context of his overt animosity for Yahweh’s Word, this is especially a-Paul-ing.

It’s becoming apparent through his testimony that Paul loved the Law Yahweh and Yahshua hated, and hated the Law Yahweh and Yahshua loved. And perhaps that was why he so seldom differentiates between them in Galatians. If he had made his allegiance this obvious in his initial letters, his message would have been summarily rejected by the Disciples and followers of The Way.

Third, while religions such as Judaism, while religious leaders such as Gamaliel, and while religious traditions and customs such as those manifest in the Oral Traditions, often nourish "a zealousness for god," their god isn’t God. He is a false deity modeled after the men who conceived him.

If this were not bad enough, had hyparcho, translated as "beginning to be," and rendered in the participle form of the nominative tense (uparchon - ὑπάρχων), been cited in the genitive case (uparchontos - ὑπάρχοντος) then the final clause would sound similar to the attitude which caused Satan to be cast down from heaven. It would read: "burning with zeal to begin to be the highest authority (uparchontos – to start to represent and to become equivalent to, from hupo, by way of, and archomai, to be first and to be the highest ruler) of (tou) God (ΘΣ)." And in actuality, this reflects the actual order these words appear in Sha’uwl’s letter, and each word was represented by its primary meaning.

Since the oldest manuscript we possess of this statement is three centuries removed from Luke’s hand, the influence of countless scribes renders something as subtle as a verb tense highly suspect. And considering the attitude and context of this passage, one has to at least wonder if Paul had been so bold as to remove his veil, just as Satan had done in the Qur’an with "Allahu Akbar! – Allah is the Greatest!"

If nothing else, however, we know that Paul said things in his own defense that he never should have thought, much less conveyed. Along those lines, there are two additional insights that I want to share with you. First, Paul’s depiction of his encounter with "Yahshua" as lightning, as a flash of light from the sky, was inconsistent with the way the risen Messiyah appeared to the women at the tomb, to His Disciples in the upper room, to the men on the road to Emmaus, and to some five hundred other witnesses over the course of forty days, in which He always appeared as a man. It was also different from the way Yahweh appeared to Adam, Abraham, Ya’aqob, Moseh, and Ezekiel.

The moment Sha’uwl finished incriminating himself at the Yaruwshalaym Summit with his testimony about the "signs and wonders he had performed," Yahshua’s brother stood up. Ya’aqob had heard more than enough. His brother had made it abundantly clear that they were all called to share His healing and beneficial message with the entire world. Gentiles were not Sha’uwl’s private domain.

"Ya’aqob answered and said, ‘Brothers, listen to me. Shim’own (Sumeon – a transliteration of Shim’own, from shama’, meaning to listen) has led us by making this fully known to us (exegeomai – had the authority to teach us, providing all of the information needed to reveal, fully explain, and describe in detail), in the same way as (kathos) previously (proton – first in the succession of time) God carefully selected and looked to (episkeptomai – sought to do whatever was required to care for) take hold of and receive (lambano – choosing and acquiring) from (ek) the races and nations (ethnon – different ethnicities) common people (laos) for His (autou) name (onomati)." (Acts 15:13-14)

In other words, witnessing to the Gentiles wasn’t a new marketing ploy under the direction of Sha’uwl, but instead something Yahweh had promised by way of His prophets, including Shim’own. This is why Yahweh’s children, whether they be naturally born or adopted, are called "Yahuwdym"—Related to Yah.

To prove his point, Ya’aqob quoted Scripture. So, let’s take this opportunity to compare the Greek translation to the Hebrew original.

"And regarding this, the words (legos) of the prophets (prophetes) agree, (symphoneo), inasmuch as (kathos) it has been written (grapho): ‘With (meta – beyond) this (houtos) I will return (anastrephomai – come back) and (kai) I will repair and rebuild (anoikodomeo – establish) the sheltered dwelling place (skene – tent and tabernacle) of Dawid (Dauid – transliteration of Dawid, meaning love in Hebrew) that has fallen (pipto – prostrated itself and been destroyed), and (kai) that has been torn down (kataskapto – been demolished), reestablishing (anoikodomeo – repairing and renewing) them (autes) and (kai) restoring them upright (anorthoo auten – straightening them up from a position which is bent over).’" (Acts 15:15-16)

Skene, translated "sheltered dwelling place," is synonymous with Sukah, which is most accurately translated "Shelters." It serves as the name of Yahweh’s seventh Called-Out Assembly, where we are invited to campout with our Heavenly Father. As a "protective covering," skene speaks of the role our Spiritual Mother plays in our salvation.  By way of Her Garment of Light we become Yahweh’s "tabernacles" on earth.

The lexicons tell us that skene is related to skeuos, which is "a vessel," "an implement," and a "protective covering"—all of which are descriptive of the Spirit’s purpose. Along these lines, skene is also associated with skia, which is "a lesser dimensional representation and representative of something which serves as a foreshadowing of something bigger and better." When we are born anew from above by way of our Spiritual Mother, we become more like God, holding onto the promise that we will continue to grow as His adopted children. So, by using skene, Yahweh has associated His Spirit with His love, and both with Shelters, His final Feast.

Ya’aqob elected to quote the prophet Amos, who spoke of the destruction of the nation of Yisra’el. Fleshing out the context of this citation, we discover that as a result of forming a covenant with Lord Ba’al, Yahweh’s judgment had become inevitable. The Yisra’elites had separated themselves from God, so He told them that the house of Ya’aqob would be shaken. He said that those among His people who erred, and thus missed the way, would die, and that those who remained would approach and then encounter an evil calamity which would cause great suffering. He was speaking of the Roman invasion which followed Rabbi Akiba’s insistence upon the acknowledgment of a false-messiah which led to the Diaspora and of the Holocaust.

But Yahuwdym would be restored in Yisra’el, according to the words Yahweh revealed to the prophet Amos. These then are the words which Ya’aqob quoted at the Yaruwshalaym Summit:

"In (ba) that (huw’) day (yowm) I will stand, rise up, and establish (quwm – will stand upright, enabling) the Sukah (sukah – seventh Miqra’, meaning sheltered dwelling place and protective covering, tent and tabernacle) of Love/Dauwid (dauwid – the beloved), which has fallen (napal – been neglected). I will repair and restore (gadar – rebuild) their (henah) cracks and breeches (peres – that which is exposed, broken, or torn, that which is foolhardy and dissipates), and that which is in a state of disrepair (harycah – is lying in ruins). I will raise Him up (quwm huw’ – cause him to stand) and (wa) rebuild and restore (banah – renew and reestablish) Her (hy’) like (ka) days (yowm) everlasting (‘olam – of antiquity and forever into the future)." (Amos 9:11)

This is Yahweh’s promise to restore Yisra’el and to establish the Millennial Sabbath in harmony with the prophetic symbolism of the Miqra’ of Sukah. The timing of this anticipated reconciliation coincides with His return on Yowm Kippurym.

Worth noting is the fact that "Sukah – Shelters" is a feminine noun, identifying God’s protected enclosure with our Spiritual Mother who "shelters and protects us." So by using "hy’ – Her" in reference to "rebuilding, restoring, renewing and reestablishing" we discover that Yahweh intends to renew the "Sukah – protective enclosure," "restoring it to days everlasting." This is particularly significant because Sukah is synonymous with Eden, which was a "protected enclosure." And this tells us that during the Miqra’ of Sukah, the whole Earth will resemble the Garden of Eden, making the time when we are invited to campout with God, remarkably special. And since the Millennial Sabbath which commences on the Called-Out Assembly of Shelters, we know that God’s plan is to restore and renew, to repair and rebuild our world during this time, taking us back to the perfect realm and relationship we once enjoyed. And that means that there is no "New Testament," but instead the renewal of the existing Familial Covenant Relationship.

Considering that the translated text of this passage had to pass through three languages, Hebrew to Aramaic, Aramaic to Greek, and then Greek to English, and through the hands of countless scribes, Ya’aqob’s quotation was reasonably accurate. And in some ways, it was akin to what is found in the Septuagint, although not entirely. For example, the Acts transcript of Ya’aqob’s quotation begins "With this (μετα ταυτα), while the Septuagint reads "In that day (εν τη ημερα εκεινη)," and is thus in accord with the Hebrew, but not with Ya’aqob.

Next, the Septuagint uses "anhistemi (αναστησω)" to say: "I stand upright, rise up, and establish," mirroring the Hebrew quwm in Amos 9:11, and yet Luke’s Greek transcript reads "I shall return (αναστρεψω)," which is inconsistent with the Hebrew Scripture and the Septuagint translation.

From this point, the Codex Sinaiticus (our oldest witness to Acts 15:15) jumbles the Septuagint’s word order. Agreeing with the Hebrew text, the Septuagint reads: "the Sukah of David which has fallen, and I will rebuild her things that are broken, as well as her things that are in a state of disrepair, (from: την σκηνην Δαυιδ την πεπτωκυιαν καὶ ανοικοδομησω τα πεπτωκοτα αυτης και τα κατεσκαμμενα αυτης)." But, the Codex Sinaiticus says: "And I shall rebuild the Sukah of David which has fallen, and her things that have fallen into a state of disrepair I shall rebuild, (from: καὶ ανοικοδομησω την σκηνην Δαυιδ την πεπτωκυιαν και τα κατεσκαμμενα αυτης ανοικοδομησω)." Recognizing how easy it would have been for everyone involved, Ya’aqob, Luke, and the scribes responsible for the Codex Sinaiticus, to get this right (seeing that the Septuagint is correct), we have to ask ourselves: who was responsible for these mistakes? And acknowledging that these errors exist, we must deal with the fact that Renewed Covenant passages which are not found in extant first-, second-, or third-century manuscripts, are especially suspect and unreliable.

But that’s not the end of the disparities. The Septuagint continues with: "I shall stand up and repair her just as the days that are everlasting (from: αναστησω και ανοικοδομησω αυτην καθως αι ημεραι του αιωνος)," which is as close to the Hebrew text as different languages allow. But in the Codex Sinaiticus, we find Luke’s transcription of Ya’aqob’s quotation changed to: "And I shall straighten her (και ανορθωσω αυτην), which isn’t how the Hebrew reads. Therefore, either Ya’aqob misquoted the verse, Luke misquoted Ya’aqob, or subsequent scribes were careless.

But regardless of your conclusion in this regard, this exercise serves to affirm that the single most revered of all codices, Sinaiticus, isn’t reliable. One might even argue that it was written in Rome on the order of Emperor Constantine and then sent to Egypt where it remained in the Roman Catholic monastery named in honor of Constantine’s mother, "Saint Catherine," on the mythical Mount Sinai (replete with the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, and Sirach) until the goatskin hides were plucked from the trash by Leipzig archaeologist Constantin von Tischendorf, moments before they were burned in the ovens. And giving further weight to its Roman origins, the chapter divisions in the Codex Sinaiticus’ rendition of the book of Acts coincide only with the Codex Vaticanus and early copies of Jerome’s Vulgate, adding considerable weight to this conclusion.

Luke’s transcription of Ya’aqob’s citation of the next verse in Amos reads: "So that (hopos) it is possible (an) the remnant (kataloipos – those who remain) of mankind (anthropos) will diligently seek (ekzeteo – search out, investigate, scrutinize, and desire) the (ton) Supreme Master (KN – placeholder for ‘edon, the Foundation and Upright Pillar of the Tabernacle using the Greek kurion), and (kai) all (pas) the races and nations (ethnos) upon (epi) whom (ous) My (mou) name (onoma) is called (epikaleomai – summoned) upon (epi) them (autous), says (lego) Yahuweh (ΚΣ ­– placeholder for Yahuweh’s name using the Greek kurios) doing (poieomai – performing) this (tauta) which was known (gnostos – is that which could be known) from (apo) world and universal history (aionos – from long ago and at all times since)." (Acts 15:17-18)

Unfortunately, this wasn’t an accurate citation of Amos 9:12 which we will consider in a moment. But since it is so remarkably different than what the Hebrew prophet wrote, let’s verify the Greek text by way of the Nestle-Aland. "So that will seek out the rest behind of the men the Master and all the nations on whom has been called on the name of me on them says Master doing these known from age." The NASB suggests:"In order that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by My name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old."

As you now know, we don’t possess a first- through third-century manuscript of this particular verse in Greek, so scribal error may have contributed to some of the discrepancies. Of issue is ‘Edowm, usually transliterated "Edom," which is the name of a place. But since it is related to ‘adam, the Hebrew word for "man," and because it is also associated with ‘edon, the basis of Yahshua’s title, meaning "the foundation and upright pillar of the tabernacle," scribes could easily have become confused. Therefore, in place of ‘Edowm, we find both "anthropos – mankind" and a placeholder for "kurion – supreme master."

In Hebrew, Amos 9:12 reads: "So that (ma’an – for the purpose and intent that) those who (‘asher) have summoned (qara’ – called and invited) My (‘any) name (shem – personal and proper name) upon (‘al) them may inherit (yarash – receive as an heir and possess) the remainder of (sha’eryth – remnant and rest of) ‘Edowm (‘edowm) and all (kol) the Gentile nations (Gowym), prophetically declares (na’um – announces ahead of time) Yahuweh who will perform (‘asah – do) this (zo’t)." (Amos 9:12)

Beyond the unwarranted omission of Edom, and the additions of "mankind" and "Supreme Master/Lord," in the Greek translation of Ya’aqob’s Aramaic quotation of the Hebrew passage, the Acts transcription replaced "inherit" with "seek," and turned another affirmation of the importance of Yahweh’s name into a muddled mess. And while we’ve come to expect imprecision in Paul’s letters to the Galatians, Thessalonians, and Corinthians, these mistakes were recorded in the book of Acts, now causing it to be suspect as well.

Turning to the Septuagint again, we find that it isn’t a particularly good match for the Hebrew text of Amos or Luke’s Greek rendering of Ya’aqob’s quotation. It reads: "So that the remnant of men and all the nations shall seek out, upon those whom My name is called upon them, says Yahuweh, the God who does these [things]." To this, the Codex Sinaiticus adds "an – it is possible" and "ton KN – the Supreme Master," as well as the latter part of Acts 15:18, which reads "which was known from world and universal history," for no apparent reason. Adding to the confusion, the oldest Greek witness of this verse then omitted the placeholder for God’s title (ΘΣ), from the Septuagint’s translation, albeit, ‘elohym wasn’t actually written in Amos 9:12.

But far worse than the inaccuracy of the quotation, this passage, while it is profoundly important, wasn’t germane to the point Ya’aqob was making, which means he shouldn’t have cited it. And my guess is he didn’t. I say that because our only options are to conclude that either Ya’aqob was wrong for citing it, that Luke was wrong for attributing this quotation to Ya’aqob, or that a later Scribe added it because he thought it fit. If you are among those who believe that the Renewed Covenant is "the inerrant word of God," pick your poison.

On the positive side, we have another confirmation that the placeholder ΚΣ, which was based upon the Greek kurios, was used to represent Yahweh’s name. At first blush, however, it is curious that the authors of the Renewed Covenant chose a placeholder which was based upon a title, as opposed to one predicated upon God’s name. But then recognizing that these symbols consistently begin and end with the first and last letter in the title or name, and often include an internal consonant, we quickly discover that Yahweh’s name is comprised of four vowels. Moreover, there is no "Y," "W," or soft "H" in the Greek alphabet. (The capital letters which share a common appearance with the English alphabet, "Y" and "H," represent Upsilon and Eta, respectively.)

Also, so that you know, ‘Edowm is the land of Esau and his descendants. Most notably, it is the realm of those who were descendants of Ishmael by way of his daughter, who became Esau’s wife. So God is speaking about today’s Muslims. Elsewhere in Scripture, Yahweh talks of them plundering Yisra’el, and of His response to them, which will be to annihilate them. Today, these Islamic ‘Edowmites covet the Promised Land, and they have demonstrated that they are willing to kill every Jew living in Yisra’el to capture it. But in the end, it will be the Yisra’elites who will be the beneficiaries of their land instead. The irony is sweet.

If Ya’aqob’s statement weren’t associated with Amos 9, the words could be reordered to say: "So that (hopos) if (an) the remnant (kataloipos) of mankind (anthropos), and (kai) all (pas) the races and nations (ethnos) upon (epi) whom (ous) My (mou) name (onoma) is summoned (epikaleomai) upon (epi) them (autous), will diligently seek (ekzeteo) the Upright One (KN) says (lego) Yahuweh (ΚΣ) doing (poieomai) this (tauta) which is known (gnostos) from (apo) world and universal history (aionos)." (Acts 15:17-18) But alas, this revision of the text is invalidated knowing that Ya’aqob specifically said that he was quoting Scripture, and thus there was no justification for "mankind (anthropos)" or "Upright One (KN)."

While Ya’aqob didn’t cite the final three verses of Amos’s prophecy, there is no reason we shouldn’t consider them. They read: "Look now and see (hineh), the day (yowm) is coming (bow’), prophetically declares (na’um) Yahuweh...when I will return and restore (suwb – come back and reestablish) the property and that which makes life easier and more secure for (sabuwt – the fortunes, restoring that which is good and establishing more favorable circumstances for) My (‘any) family (‘am – people and nation), Yisra’el (Yisra’el – individuals who live with God)." (Amos 9:13-14)

This is a powerful passage. It not only affirms that Yahweh will return in person, but also that His purpose will be to "suwb – reestablish" His family and to "sabuwt – fortuitously restore all that is good." And that is why the related title Shabuwa’ is defined as Yahweh’s "vow, His sworn and contractual promise between parties in a relationship to truthfully attest to our innocence." The fact is, the Miqra’ey of Shabuwa’ and Sukah are related, with one leading to the other. And it is Yahweh’s Ruwach/Spirit who makes us appear innocent, indeed perfect, before our Heavenly Father.

In His closing statement, Yahweh described what occurred in 1948 and thereafter: "And they will rebuild (banah) their desolate (samen) cities (‘iyr) and live in (yasab – inhabit) them. And they shall plant (nata’) vineyards (kerem) and drink (satah – consume) wine (yayin – fermented grape juice). And they shall fashion (‘asah – make) gardens (ganah) and eat (‘akal – consume) fruit (pary – their harvest) from them. And I will plant them (nata’ humah – firmly embed and root them, establishing their encampment) upon (‘al) their (humah) soil (‘adamah – earth and land). And they shall never (lo’) be uprooted (natas – pulled up and expelled) again (‘owd) from (min) upon (‘al) their land (‘adamah – soil) which relationally (‘asher) I gave (natan) to (la) them (humah) says (‘amar) Yahuweh (YaHuWeH), your God (‘elohym)." (Amos 9:14-15)

In this prophetic declaration, Yahweh said that He would personally see to it, that following an "evil calamity," that He would reestablish Yisra’el. But also, that once returned, they would never be uprooted again. Therefore, there is no reason to worry about another Islamic invasion, nor an Iranian nuclear attack.

Returning to the book of Acts, after inappropriately citing, and then misquoting Amos, we are told that Ya’aqob said: "Therefore (dio) I (ego) conclude (krino – decide and judge by way of separating fact from fiction, right from wrong) not (ue) to make it more difficult (parenochleo – cause trouble for, excite, annoy, or disturb), separating (apo) the races and nations (ethnos) who are returning (epistrepho – who are changing their perspectives, attitudes, thinking, and ways)." (Acts 15:19)

The Nestle-Aland reads: "Wherefore I judge not to annoy along the ones from the nations returning on the God." As was the case with the first nine verses of the fifteenth chapter of Acts, starting with the nineteenth verse, we once again benefit from the witness of Papyrus 45, a third-century manuscript. In it we discover that the phrase "epi ton theon – on the God" was added by a scribe to the end of this passage and thus should not be considered.

Speaking of additions, the phrase "tes porneias kai – the sexual immorality" is not found in Papyrus 45, and may have been added by a scribe to harmonize Ya’aqob’s statement with the subsequent letter memorializing this compromise. The oldest manuscript of this passage, then reads: "To the contrary (alla – nonetheless and notwithstanding) we should write them a letter (episteilai autois) telling them to stay away from (apechomai – separate and distance themselves from) condemned (alisgema – religious rituals and impure) idols and false gods (eidolon), [that which is] strangled (pniktos – choked to death and suffocated as part of a bloodless religious ritual), and (kai) blood (haima)." (Acts 15:20)

The first item on this list is important, in that it is a derivative of the Second Commandment. However, that association will soon be severed. The reference to "pniktos – strangled" (which will be discussed in reference to the 29^th verse), is a subset of Rabbinical Law, not the Torah. As such it was inappropriate. And the reference to blood would only serve to enrich Kosher butchers. So if this list was deemed sufficient, it makes you wonder why God bothered with the rest of the book.

Considering that these mostly inappropriate conclusions were attributed to Ya’aqob, for his sake, I hope that they were a product of scribal error. Yahshua made no attempt to summarize His Scriptural instructions, and while Yahweh did, His now famous ten-point list was considerably different than this one.

At least there was one worthy contender among the three prohibitions. Alisgema, translated "condemned" and describing "something which has become polluted and impure by way of a religious ritual," is often associated with "sacrificial meat and drink offerings made to pagan deities." A portion was usually taken by the priests, but the remainder was either sold in the marketplace by the donor or eaten themselves. So, by including it in his brief list, Ya’aqob was suggesting that we should avoid all contact with anything associated with a false god, including eating the food sacrificed to them.

However, when a similar list reappears in the Apostles’ letter (documented in Acts 15:29), the one thing which changes is the reference to "condemned idols and false gods." The more ubiquitous prohibition was replaced by saying that it is only necessary to avoid meats which have been sacrificed to idols. As such, the letter was a step backwards from an already impoverished position.

Ya’aqob’s next comment, however, is manna from heaven. "Because (gar) Moseh (Mouses – a transliteration of the Hebrew Moseh, meaning to draw out, and designating the Torah) from (ek) our race’s (genea – ancestors from the same ethnic group) antiquity (archaios – ancient past) is preached to them (kerysso auton – announced publicly to them and proclaimed with the intent of making his message known and persuading them) [throughout (kata) their towns and cities (polis)], they are able to experience (echo – grasp hold of and hold onto) it [speaking of the Torah] (auton), coming to know it as a result of it being read aloud (anaginosko – being recited in such a way that they come to recognize and understand it) in (en) the synagogues (synagoge – a transliteration of the Greek word meaning assembly meetings) in accordance with (kata) every (pas) Sabbath (sabbaton – a transliteration of the Hebrew shabath, meaning rest, promise, and seven)." (Acts 15:21)

Before we dissect this fabulous verse, please note that Papyrus 45 omits "[throughout (kata) their towns and cities (polis)]." Also, "echo – they are able to experience," shown as echei (εχει), in the first person, singular, present, active, indicative, was scribed as ekei (εκει), meaning "there, in that place" in Papyrus 45. Methinks this was a scribal error which is why I have neglected it.

The bookkeeping behind us, understand that Ya’aqob referenced "Moseh" to say "Torah," the same way we would designate the books of Yashayahu, Zakaryah, or Mal’aky. By doing so, he eliminated the potential confusion between Mosaic Law and Rabbinical Law.

There are three essential verbs in this passage, all of which convey Yahweh’s intent regarding the Torah. The first, kerysso, translated "is preached," means: "to announce or proclaim a message publicly with the intent of persuading people, urging and warning them to comply with its instructions." The Torah is Yahweh’s message to mankind, His instructions for living, and He wants His Word proclaimed publicly in hopes that people are persuaded to heed His advice.

It is written: "The entire (kol – the whole and every, the totality of the) Word (‘imrah – the promise and the prescription) of God (‘elowha) is pure, tested, and true (tsaraph – refined, precious, and worthy), a shield for (magen – an enclosure which surrounds, defends, and saves) those who put their trust in (chacah – those who seek salvation through reliance upon) Him." (Proverbs 30:5)

The second verb describing the intent of the Torah is echo, which was rendered "are able to experience" it. Echo’s primary meaning is "to grasp hold of something and then hang on to it." Secondarily, echo speaks of "being clothed in something" or of "wielding it as a tool or weapon." Echo’s tertiary connotation is "to figuratively and literally hold on to something [in this case the Torah] so that it keeps you safe, preserving you." Other definitions of echo are also germane relative to the Torah and include: "coming to possess something, owning it, carefully considering it, respect and regard something favorably, revering and enjoying it."

It is written: "Yahuweh’s (YaHuWeH’s) Towrah (towrah – law, instructions, and prescriptions for living) is complete and entirely perfect (tamym – without defect, lacking nothing, correct, sound, genuine, right, helpful, healthful, beneficial, and true), returning, restoring, and transforming (suwb – turning around and bringing back) the soul (nepesh – consciousness). Yahuweh’s (YaHuWeH’s) testimony (‘eduwth – witness) is trustworthy and reliable (‘aman – verifiable, confirming, supportive, and establishing), making understanding and obtaining wisdom (hakam – educating and enlightening oneself to the point of comprehension) simple for the open-minded (pethy)." (Psalm 19:7)

This all echoes the Godly advice, whereby Yahweh encouraged us to read the Torah in our homes to our children so often that we can recite it by rote. He has asked us to take the Torah with us when we travel, have it with us when we go to bed at night, and when we wake up in the morning. God advises us to place the Torah between our eyes, on our hands, upon our doorposts, and on our front gates. Yahweh wants us to clothe ourselves in the Torah, and to wear and wield its promises as if they were shields and tools. Yahweh tells us to consider what He has to say in the Torah, to respect His Word, and as a result to revere and enjoy the Torah’s Author, grasping hold, and hanging onto Him as if our life depended upon it. Just imagine what the world would be like if everyone echoed the Torah.

It is written: "Love Yahuweh your God with all your mind and heart, with all your soul and consciousness, and with all your might and strength. The Word (dabar) exists to be prescriptions upon mind and heart. Repeat them so as to teach them by rote to your children, and speak the Word (dabar) among them where you live (yasab – and where you are joined in marriage), in your house and home (bayeth – family and household), during your travels (halak – your walk) on the way (derek – the path), and when you lie down and when you stand up (quwm). Bind them as a sign on your hand and as a sign between your eyes. And write them on the doorframe of your home and the gate to your community."  (Deuteronomy 6:6-8)

The third verb in Ya’aqob’s sentence relative to the Torah was anaginosko, which was translated: "coming to know [the Torah] as a result of it being read aloud." While anaginosko is most often used to describe a "public reading," its actual meaning is represented by its parts. Anaginosko is a compound of ana, meaning "in the midst of," and ginosko, which means "to learn and to know, to perceive and to understand, to become acquainted with, and to acknowledge." So the verb conveys the idea of "publicly reciting [the Torah] so that those who listen to it come to accurately recognize and acknowledge its message and then come to understand it." This is akin to Yahweh’s repeated instructions to "shama – listen to" and "shamar – observe" the Torah.

It is written: "Gather together and assemble (qahal – summon people to a central place for a particular purpose) the family (‘am – people), the men (‘iysh), the women (‘ishah), and the little children (tap), and the foreigners (ger – strangers and aliens from different cultural, racial, or geographical communities who are visiting, or just passing through, temporarily living in your midst (i.e., Gentiles) who (‘asher) are within (ba) your gates and doorways (sa’ar – your towns, cities, and communities) so that (ma’an – for the intended purpose that) they can listen (sama’ – hear the message, receive the news, and understand) and so that (ma’an – for the intended purpose that) they are instructed and learn (lamad – so that they gain access to the information which is required to respond properly) and respect and revere (yare’) Yahuweh, your God (‘elohym), observing (samar – respecting, revering, caring about, keeping, and become secure in) doing (‘asah – gaining and profiting from) all (kol) the words (dabar) of this (zo’t) Towrah." (Deuteronomy 31:12)

"Now (‘atah) write (katab) for all of you, the words (dabar) of this (zot) song (sirah – these lyrics with an emphasis on instruction), and teach this to (lamad – provide information, guidance, instruction, and training for) the Children of Yisra’el. Put them in her mouth (peh), so that they will exist (hayah) with (‘eth) Me, these lyrics (sirah) serving as an everlasting witness (‘ed – as eternal evidence and testimony) amongst (ba – within) the Children of Yisra’el." (Deuteronomy 31:19)

Beyond these three opportunities through which we are being encouraged to engage with the Torah, there was another treasure in Ya’aqob’s statement. The Torah was "preached," "experienced," and "was read aloud and became known" "in the synagogues in accordance with every Sabbath."

It is written: "Remember and recall (zakar – recognize, memorialize, and be earnestly mindful of) that the Sabbath (shabat – the seventh day, the time of observance, of rest, and of ceasing and desisting from ordinary labor) day is set apart (qodesh – separated unto God). Six days you shall work (‘abad) and do (‘asah) all your service of representing the Messenger and proclaiming the message (mala’kah – Godly duties and heavenly labor). The seventh (shabiy’iy – seven; from shaba’, meaning solemn promise and oath, and shaber meaning to interpret and explain the meaning or significance of a communication) day, the Sabbath (shabat – the time to enter a state of repose and reflection) of Yahuweh (YHWH) your God, you shall not do (‘asah) any part of the work of God’s Representative and Messenger (mala’kah – from mal’ak, the ministry and mission of the heavenly envoy and dispatch; the labor of God’s corporeal manifestation), not your son, not your daughter, not your servants and employees, not your means of production, nor those visitors in your home or property." (Exodus 20:8-10)

Preachers lie when they say that "the first Christians went to church on Sunday to worship the Lord by proclaiming the Gospel." They weren’t "Christians," but instead were called "Chrestucians." Christian means "drugged," and Chrestucian means "upright servant and useful implement." Further, the first to follow Yahshua referred to themselves as "The Way." Those who had accepted "The Way" gathered on the Sabbath, in accordance with Yahweh’s Torah instructions. And they met in synagogues, not churches. There were no "Gospels." They listened to Yahweh’s Torah being recited to them.

In the presence of Yahuchanan (John), Shim’own Kephas (Peter), all of the other Disciples, and the elders of the Yaruwshalaym (Jerusalem) Ekklesia (Called-Out Assembly), Ya’aqob (Yahshua’s brother who has become known as James), admonished Sha’uwl (Paul) and warned the religion predicated upon his writings, that nothing is more important than preaching, experiencing, observing, and coming to know the Torah. It is the source from which all good things flow, including our salvation.

This next line suggests that Yahshua’s Disciples did not trust Paul. "Then (tote – at that time) the Apostles (apostolos – those who were prepared and sent out) and the elders (presbyteros – the community leaders), along with (syn – in association and together with) the entire (holos – and complete) Called-Out Assembly (Ekklesia – from ek, called out and kaleo, to call), concluded that it would be appropriate to (edoze – after consideration and thinking they were disposed to) select spokesmen (eklegomai andras – choose men to speak out, from lego, to speak and affirm and ek out) from (ek) among them (auton) to send (pempo –dispatching messengers with the Word) to (eis) Antioch (Antiocheia – the capitol of Syria based upon a transliteration of King Antiochus) together with (syn) Paulos (Paulos – of Latin origin and meaning small) and (kai) Barnabas (Barnabas – a transliteration of the Aramaic bar, son of, and naby, a prophet): Yahuwdah (Ioudas – a transliteration of the Hebrew Yahuwdah meaning Related to Yah), called (ton kaloemenon – the person named) Barsabbas (or son of Sabbas) (Barsabbas – a transliteration of the Aramaic bar, son of, and saba’ meaning military conscript) and (kai) Silas (Silas – of Latin origin meaning woody), [who were] leading men (hegeomai andras – highly regarded men with the authority to provide direction and leadership) among (en) the brethren (adelpois)." (Acts 15:22)

It was the unanimous conclusion of Yahshua’s Apostles, the elders, and the entire Yaruwshalaym Ekklesia that Sha’uwl required supervision. Yahuwdah and Silas were given the authority to speak on behalf of the Apostles and to control Paul, providing him with some much needed guidance.

While this all blew up in Paul’s face in Antioch, if we flip back through the pages of Acts, we find that Paul had previously been in Lycaonia, which was just north of Cilicia, before traveling south through Syria. That’s relevant because of the addressees listed on the Apostolic letter. "Accordingly (dia), they (auton) wrote (grapho) by hand (cheir): ‘The Apostles (apostolos – those who were prepared and sent out) and the elders (presbyteros – the community leaders) amongst (kata) the brethren (adelpos) to the (tois) Antiocheia (Antiochian), Suria (Syrian), and Kilikia (Cilician) brothers (adelphos), to the ones (tois) from (ek) the nations (ethnos – different races and places): Joyful Greetings (chairo – a happy hello)!" (Acts 15:23) You’ll notice that this letter wasn’t from Paul and that it was written to the places the wannabe Apostle had been. The real Apostles were leaving nothing to chance. Far too much was at stake to allow Paul’s inaccurate attack on the Torah to prevail.

But that is not to say that they weren’t in a horrible predicament. Paul had positioned himself as God’s messenger to the nations, and had traveled the world preaching his Gospel. He was a Roman citizen, and they were not, giving Paul an enormous advantage. Paul was smarter, better educated, more ambitious, and a much more prolific writer.

So the Apostles could either silence him by killing or imprisoning Paul, for which they had no legal authority. They could openly oppose Paul, which would create an irrecoverable divide between the Disciples and the people Paul was soliciting. Or they could try to work with him—and that would require compromise.

What follows indicates that they chose the latter in direct opposition to Yahweh’s instructions and Yahshua’s example. They would try to control Paul by working out an accommodation with him. It was the mother’s milk of politics. Whenever you compromise on essential values, you weaken them, weaken yourself, and postpone the inevitable, ultimately paying a much higher price.

While the Yaruwshalaym Summit had begun and had ended referring to the Torah, the Torah would not be mentioned in their letter. Christianity is the consequence.

"Since (epeide) we heard (akouo) that (oti) someone (tis) from (ek) us (emon) [went out (exerchomai) (excluded from Papyrus 45)] to stir up (tarasso emas – to confuse and agitate) your souls (psyche) [with] statements (logos) packing baggage (anaskeuazo – tearing down and unsettling), who (ois) we did not give authorization (ou diastellomai – did not command or order)..." (Acts 15:24)

Before we tackle what was said, or more importantly, what wasn’t said, let’s consider the words which were chosen. Anaskeuazo, translated "packing baggage" is an awkward term. It is a compound of ana, meaning "in the midst of" and skeuos, "a vessel." Confusing the matter further, Greeks considered the "skeuos – vessel" to be "a metaphor for their bodies being temporary vessels housing their souls." So while anaskeuazo literally means to "pack baggage so as to remove possessions and furnishings," it was sometimes construed to convey the idea of "tearing down" or "being unsettling." And diastellomai, rendered "give authorization," is from dia, "through and by means of" and stello, "to prepare, equip, set in place and arrange."

The "message they were packing" was not identified, nor were the messengers. More telling still, nothing was repudiated. All the Disciples said was that they did not "authorize them."

Having been in their position in business, their ploy is obvious to me. They knew that if they disavowed the need to observe the Torah and to be circumcised, they would put themselves in direct opposition to God. But if they said that Paul was wrong, and that according to God it is essential to observe the Torah and heed His circumcision instructions, they would be in direct opposition to Paul—the self-proclaimed messenger of God to the world. So they deployed a tactic I used in sales called "the art of emphasis." Using this approach, you tell the truth in such a way that the positive aspects are emphasized and negative issues are deemphasized. The Disciples therefore told the truth, but not the whole truth, to accommodate Paul without disassociating themselves from Yahweh.

But as a result, the world was left to wonder how wrong we can be and still be right with God? How much of the Torah can we ignore, can we reject, before we are ignored and rejected by God? According to Paul and Christianity, most all of it. According to Yahweh and Yahshua, very little of it.

So that you know, I no longer use the art of emphasis because it is misleading. I have come to accept Yahweh’s approach which is to be clear, consistent, uncompromising, and blunt, while offering as complete an explanation as I can compile, no matter how many words that requires. Yada Yahweh is long because of this approach. While I don’t have an answer to every question, and there are many things that I am still learning, there are some things I know. First among them is that we cannot go wrong when we convey Yahweh’s Word accurately, or when we advocate and condemn those things which He advocates and condemns. Yahweh has asked that we be circumcised as our sign that we want to be part of His Covenant. And He has told us that we should carefully listen to, consistently recite, and closely observe His Torah. That’s good enough for me.

Based upon Yahweh’s Word, I am convinced that unity with Yahweh is essential, while unity among men is only advisable when those men and women share a common and accurate understanding of Yahweh and His Word. Therefore, I think that the Disciples erred when they wrote: "We (emin) were of the opinion (edozen – a derivative of dokei, presumed and supposed) to come to exist (ginomai) with one temperament (homothymadon – from homou, together, and thumos, meaning passion), selecting a spokesmen (eklegomai andras – choosing men to speak out, from lego, to speak and affirm and ek out) to send (pempo – dispatching messengers with the Word) to (pros) you (emas) with (syn) our (emon) dear (agapetos – beloved and esteemed) Barnabas and Paulus." (Acts 15:25)

By using a derivative of dokei, they were telling us that their personal "opinions and suppositions" were in play. They were not speaking for God.

Homothymadon does not mean that "they were of one mind," but instead that their "passions and desires were similar." The Greek word for mind is dianoia, not thumos, which means "passion" as in "strong emotions," and in particular, "being angry." It is also used to convey being "inflamed by sufficient wine to cause the drinker to be mad or kill himself."

Further, the Disciples were hedging their bets by calling the spokesmen "eklegomai – ones who speaks out, proclaiming and affirming the Word." The "Legos – Word" is the "Torah, Prophets, and Psalms," as well as Yahshua Himself.

Lastly, it is interesting that Barnabas’ name was listed first in this letter, suggesting that he was "beloved." With Paul being second, he was somewhat separated from the endearing term. Elsewhere, it is always the other way around, with Paul receiving top billing. And in that light it is telling that Barnabas and Paul would soon split up, with Barnabas disagreeing with Paul over the continued presence of an associate.

"Men (anthropos) giving over (paradidomi – delivering, a compound of para, from, and didomi, to give) their (auton) souls (psyche – consciousnesses) for the sake of (hyper) the name (onoma) of the Upright One (ΚΥ), our Messiyah (ΧΥ) Yahushua (ΙΥ)." (Acts 15:26) It is not clear if Yahuwdah and Silas were being described, or if this affirmation pertained to Barnabas and Paul. Especially considering what comes next:

"Therefore (oun) Apostles (apostello – those who are prepared, equipped, and dispatched) Yahuwdah (Ioudas – a transliteration of the Hebrew Yahuwdah meaning Related to Yah) and (kai) Silas (Silas), and (kai) through (dia) their (autous) speech (logos – word and message) reporting and proclaiming the same message (apangello auta – from apo, separation and aggelos, message and messenger)." (Acts 15:27)

While apangello, was rendered "reporting and proclaiming the message," the word is a compound of apo, meaning "separate" and aggelos "message or messenger." In this light, auta, the plural, neuter, pronoun serving as a derivative of autos, is usually translated "their," not "same." So the end of this statement could just as easily read "through their speech reporting and proclaiming their separate, and different, message."

Before you consider the next codicil, a word of caution is in order. Many people say that their thoughts are inspired by the Spirit. And some are right some of the time. For example, the accurate revelations found in Yada Yahweh were inspired by either the Spirit or the Word, while all of the errors are a result of a flawed and inadequate implement processing their guidance. I am incapable of being a perfect conduit, and so were the Disciples.

As a result, the following statement is wrong. I base this conclusion not upon my standards, but instead upon Yahweh’s standards—those He established in the Torah. That which is in complete accord with the Torah is right, that which conflicts with the Torah is wrong, and that which cannot be affirmed or rejected based upon the Torah is suspect. By that standard, this is wrong:

"For (gar) the Set-Apart (hagios – separated, purifying and cleansing, the Greek parallel of the Hebrew Qodesh) Ruwach/Spirit (ΠΝΑ) seemed to be of the opinion (dokei – supposed and presumed), and also (kai) we (emin), nothing (medeis) more (pleion) [in the way of a] substantial hardship (baros – tremendous burden, weight, or trouble) should be placed upon you (epitithemai emin – should you be subject to) except (plen) these (toeton) indispensable requirements (epanagkes – things which are absolutely necessary):..." (Acts 15:28)

The Ruwach Qodesh is part of Yahweh, set-apart from Him to serve us. She does not "dokei – presume or suppose" anything. She is devoid of "opinions." As part of God, set-apart from Him, the Set-Apart Spirit has complete access to all pertinent information and Her judgment is impeccable. In Greek, you would say that She "epiginosko – has evaluated all of the evidence and has come to know and understand without any hint of uncertainty." So to suggest that the Set-Apart Spirit "seemed to be of the opinion," regarding Yahweh’s message generally, and the Torah specifically, is to say that they either didn’t receive Her directions or they didn’t process them appropriately.

Baros, translated "substantial hardship," speaks of something which is "a tremendous, oppressive, and difficult burden which causes considerable hardship, great suffering, and sorrow." But the intent of the Torah is to free us from "oppression," not to oppress us. Its purpose is to remove our "burdens," by way of the Called-Out Assemblies. Properly observed, the Torah liberates us from "suffering and sorrow," by bringing us into a familial covenant relationship with our Heavenly Father.

If circumcision was a "considerable hardship causing great suffering and sorrow," then it would have been barbaric for Yahweh to ask that our parents do this to us on the eighth day of our mortal existence. As for adult circumcision, all that is required is the removal of a small amount of skin. And if we are unwilling to do this, what does it say about our appreciation for the sacrifice Yahweh made on our behalf, where most of His skin was ripped from His body by metal-studded Roman whips, where He suffered excruciating pain by being nailed to the upright pole, and where He endure the separation of His soul from God, allowing Himself to be tortured in She’owl on our behalf?

Said another way, Yahshua is the Torah made flesh, and His burden is light, because He does all of the hard work, performing the heavy lifting so that we can walk to Him and stand with Him.

By using "plen – except" in this context, the Disciples were inferring that the specific items on the following list were "baros – tremendous burdens." And also, that these represented the only "essential elements" of the Torah which were indispensible—none of which was accurate.

The totality of the list was then comprised of: "...to stay away from (apechomai – separate and distance yourselves from) sacrificial meat (eidolothyton – food offered to pagan idols), and (kai) blood (haima), [that which is] strangled (pniktos – choked to death and suffocated as part of a bloodless religious ritual), and (kai), sexual immorality (porneia – sex outside of marriage, adultery, fornication, homosexuality, or bestiality), from (ek) which (hos) avoiding (diatereo-entes – abstaining from), yourselves (eautous) can do (prasso – exercise and practice) [something which is] beneficial  (eu – healthy and prosperous, good and excellent, correct, compassionate, and courageous). Farewell (rhonnymai – be genuine, strong, and healthy, thriving and prosperous).’" (Acts 15:29) As a summation of the Torah, this is inaccurate and stunningly deficient.

Eidolothyton is a compound of eidolon, meaning "images and likenesses," and thuo, which conveys the idea of "sacrificial slaughter." It is but a subset of the earlier admonition in Acts 15:20, from which the Gentiles were asked to "stay away from condemned (alisgema – religious rituals and impure) idols and false gods (eidolon)." This diminishment in scope, and distancing of the message from the Second Commandment, is interesting because apart from the addition of "porneia – sexual immorality," the rest of the list was identical with Ya’aqob’s previous statement.

Diatereo, rendered "avoid," is most often translated "continually and carefully keep." It is from dia, "through," and tereo, "to observe and attend to, to guard and to keep." The author of this text first used diatereo in Luke 2:51, where Yahshua returned to Nazareth with his parents and "was subordinate to them. And His mother always ‘remembered and treasured (diatereo – kept and preserved)’ these words in her heart." So there is considerable room for confusion here.

However, it is true: according to the Torah we should not eat meat sacrificed to idols (Exodus 34:14). And we are not to consume blood (Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 3:17, 17:12-4, and Deuteronomy 12:16, 23). However, these five admonitions pale by comparison to the dozens of times Yahweh speaks to us about when we are to eat unleavened bread, and that wasn’t even mentioned.

Particularly troubling however, is that there is absolutely no instruction from Yahweh in the Torah regarding animals which are strangled. This edict comes instead from Rabbinical Law. Kashrut, the Jewish dietary laws pertaining how an animal is to be slaughtered for consumption, requires that the jugular artery in the neck be slit while the animal is still alive so that the heart pumps the majority of blood out prior to butchering. While the Torah instructs us not to drink blood, there are much more humane, practical, and effective ways to drain blood from a carcass. So, by including "strangling" in their short list of four things to be avoided, the Apostles were horrendously shortchanging the Torah, while at the same time endorsing Rabbinical Law (which Yahshua condemned). Further, if the Gentiles took this list to be a summation of the essential requirements of the Torah, they would enrich Rabbis, as they only place they could go to purchase meat and be assured that an animal wasn’t strangled, was a Kosher Jewish butcher with a Rabbinical endorsement.

The heart of the Genesis story is the Covenant, and yet neither its codicils nor its sign were mentioned. At the heart of the Exodus account we find the Ten Commandments, yet not one of them found their way upon the Apostolic list—nothing was said about Yahweh, idols, false teachings, or the Sabbath, much less bearing false witness, coveting, or murder. Leviticus sits at the heart of the Torah, and yet not one of the Called-Out Assemblies delineated therein were described as essential—even though they provide the lone path to God. Not even the Great Commandment: "to love Yahweh your God with all of your mind, soul, and might," was found among the "indispensible requirements." So to say this list of four items (one of which was based in Rabbinical Law), "was inspired by the Spirit," is to demean God and His Spirit.

In trying to compromise with Paul, the Apostles became like Paul: Oblivious. This wasn’t worth the paper it was written on.

Pathetic as it was, the letter was sent and read, first in Antioch, and then in the other places Paul had been. The audiences cheered, we are told. And we learn that Yahuwdah and Silas shared their "lengthy message" with the Called-Out Assemblies, but not a word of what they preached was recorded for our benefit.

It was then just four verses later that a new rift emerged, this one between Paul and his traveling companion Barnabas. "But now, there emerged an intense argument (paroxysmos – severe disagreement leading to exasperation). As a result, they separated and parted company (apochorizomai – severed their relationship) from one another. Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed to Cyprus, but Paulos chose Silas and departed." (Acts 15:39-40)

Then, in the oddest twist of irony, Paul circumcised Timothy, the next Greek man he met. "Paulos desired to have (thelo – wanted to have the enjoyment and the pleasure of) him go away (exerchomai) with (syn) him, so he circumcised him...though his father was a Greek." (Acts 16:3) Make of that what you will.

The Apostolic Council was over. And in its wake, I see Paul’s letter to the Galatians as little more than his rebuttal. It is the best explanation of why Paul so vociferously detailed his credentials and background, why he referenced and refuted what was said during the meeting, why he spoke so derogatorily of the Apostles, especially Peter, and why he focused his epistle on discrediting the Torah and disparaging circumcision.

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