Chapter 5

Kataginosko

Convicted and Condemned

Judging Paul by Judging Peter...

What follows isn’t pleasant. But we find it written nonetheless. It shows Sha’uwl attacking Shim’own unmercifully. This diatribe is the reason that I provided you with an alternative perspective on Sha’uwl’s perceptions of Shim’own, Ya’aqob, and Yahuchanan, and why we considered whether they were supposed or actual pillars.

Having spent much of my life in business, I recognize that this all smacks of a turf war—of one man trying to expand his territory, his area of responsibility if you will, vying for the jurisdiction of others. Worse, the arrogant statements which preceded this upcoming bout of character assassination, the repeated attempts to seek the approval of others and then putting them down, as well as the name-calling that ensues at the opening of the third chapter, suggests to me that Paul may have suffered from insecurity. I have personally witnessed its divisive power up close—which is why I am so aware of its telltale signs.

And while I am over-sensitized when it comes to any manifestation of insecurity, there can be, at least in rare instances, a silver lining. If mild insecurity, or more accurately, inadequacy, is mediated by reliance upon Yahweh, where He fills the void, then human insufficiency becomes an opportunity for God to demonstrate His power through a flawed implement. Moses stuttered. David was a traitor. Solomon was gluttonous. Shim’own was impulsive. They are all testament to the fact that Yahweh does His best work through people who recognize that they are useless without Him.

At this point some of you may be confused, thinking that insecurity would make someone shy, which flies in the face of Paul being an egomaniac (by his own admission). But those who suffer from deep seated insecurity compensate with conceit, because it masks their infirmity. They are aggressive, even conniving, tearing others down to lift themselves up. And knowing that they are vulnerable, they constantly tout their own "truthfulness," while at the same time proactively and dishonestly besmirching the reputations of all those they perceive may be a threat. But more than anything, an insecure person comes to view themselves as being immanently important, even indispensible, so much so they will accept no rivals. Paul was a textbook case, as was Muhammad. The malady of insecurity makes an individual particularly vulnerable to the wiles of Satan.

In that an entire chapter has passed before us since we last contemplated a Galatians passage, before we continue, here are the first ten verses of the second chapter: "Later, through the passage of another fourteen years, I went up to Yaruwshalaym along with Barnabas, and also bringing along Titus. (2:1) But then I went up with regard to a revelation, and explained to them the healing and beneficial message which I was preaching among the nations with reference to certain individuals, then they were of the opinion that I was not running for nothing. (2:2) To the contrary, Titus, a Greek, was not even compelled to be circumcised (2:3) now because on account of the false brothers brought in surreptitiously under false pretenses, who slipped into the group to secretly observe the freedom and liberation we possess in the Messiyah, Yahushua in order to enslave us. (2:4) With regard to whom, we did not yield in order that the truth of God would continue to exist among you. (2:5) Moreover, from those who were of the opinion that they were someone important based upon some sort of former existence, I am indifferent. In the presence of God, men cannot claim authority or rank. To be sure, the opinionated added nothing advisable to the conversation. (2:6) Rather, on the contrary, see, trusting/believing that the healing and beneficial message to the uncircumcised, inasmuch as Petros to the circumcised. (2:7) For indeed, the functionality inside the Apostle Rock to the circumcised, also facilitated me to the nations. (2:8) And knowing the Charis/Grace given to me, Ya’aqob, Petros, and Yahuchanan, the presumed existing pillars, gave the right hand of fellowship to me and Barnabas to the nations, but they to the circumcised. (2:9) They said only to remember the cause of the poor, who also myself eagerly did my best to do this." (2:10)

Even though "the Rock" had treated Paulos like a lost brother in Yaruwshalaym, when Shim’own went to Syria, the love was not reciprocated. "But (de) when (hote) Kephas (Kephas – the Rock) came (erchomai) to (eis) Antioch (Antiocheia – then the capital of Syria, but now in the southern tip of Turkey; derived from a transliteration of Antiochus, which was the name of a Syrian king, meaning to drive against), I was opposed and against (kata) his (autos) presence (prosopon – face, person, and appearance), taking a firm stand in hostile opposition (anthistemi – resisting and setting myself up against him; from anti, against and opposed to, and histemi his stand, his presence, and him becoming established), because (hoti) he was (eimi – he is and will be) convicted and condemned (kataginosko – judged to be guilty, to lack accurate information and to be devoid of understanding; from kata, opposed to and against, and ginosko, knowing, and thus ignorant)." (Galatians 2:11)

Shim’own was seen as a threat to Sha’uwl’s authority and dominion. It is as simple as that. This has nothing to do with what Peter was doing, but instead with what Paul was like.

If we were to consider the entirety of the Greek lexicon, it would be difficult to find words more condemning than anthistemi and kataginosko. Histemi speaks of Yahshua standing up for us so that we could stand with Him, established upright at His side. To be anti-histemi is to be opposed to Yahshua and His purpose. Since Shim’own Kephas was not anti-histemi, it was not appropriate for Sha’uwl to treat him this way.

Ginosko is the Greek equivalent of yada’, the operative name of the book Yada Yahweh, meaning "to know Yahweh." Therefore to be kata/against ginosko/knowing, is to be opposed to knowing God.

One of the most telling traits of chronically insecure individuals is that they are cunning enough to plaster their perceived foes with their own flaws. So by causing Peter to respond and defend himself, proving that he isn’t "against knowing God," Paul has effectively deflected attention away from himself in this regard and blurred the issue. This strategy makes it more difficult for Peter to demonstrate that Paul is actually the one who is opposed to knowing God, because the audience is at the very least confused by the name calling, labels, and smoke. If you pay close attention to political campaigns, you notice that this tactic is ubiquitous.

For Sha’uwl, this was personal. Paul was against the very presence of "the Rock" in Antioch. He went out of his way to demonstrate his hostility. He openly and publicly declared his opposition to one of Yahshua’s closest and most beloved Disciples. And then he judged him, saying that Shim’own was "convicted and condemned," even "ignorant and irrational." Save renouncing Yahweh, denouncing the Torah, and denying Yahshua, there was nothing Peter, of all people, could say or do which would justify this level of attack.

Shim’own may have been wrong about something, and if he was, it wouldn’t have been the first time. But, as passionate as Kephas was, he never bothered to defend himself personally. He turned the other cheek, and left Syria. Sha’uwl, however, would press his case against this amazingly important individual. And in the process, he would incriminate Ya’aqob, Yahshua’s brother, as well.

In the King James, this passage reads: "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." Their rendering, which is inadequate, was derived from the Latin Vulgate: "But when Cephas had arrived at Antiochiam, I stood against him to his face, because he was blameworthy." Uncomfortable conveying the inflammatory nature of kataginosko and anthistemi, the New Living Translation followed in the footsteps of their predecessors. "But when Peter came to Antioch, I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong."

To put this in perspective from a geographic perspective, Antioch is less than one-hundred miles from Sha’uwl’s hometown, Tarsus, and that may have been part of the problem. It is nearly 400 miles, due north, along the coast road, from Jerusalem. Peter was a long way from home.

As we turn to the next verse, we find another conflict between the late first-century manuscript of this passage, and modern renderings, whereby "multiple individuals" instead of one "certain individual" arrived while Shim’own was eating. Therefore, following Shim’own Kephas’ long journey, we find Sha’uwl saying: "Because (gar), before (pro) a certain individual (tina – someone) came (erchomai) from (apo) Ya’aqob (Iakobos), [Shim’own] was eating together (synesthio – consuming a meal in association) with (meta) the (tov) people of different races and places (ethnos – a group of individuals from many nations), but (de) when (hote) he came (erchomai), he withdrew (hupostello – timidly hesitated and cowered, kept silent while trying to avoid contact) and (kai) separated (aphorize) himself (heautou), out of (ek) fear of (phobeomai – frightened by) the circumcised (peritome – read Jew)." (Galatians 2:12)

By saying that Peter "hupostelo – withdrew," Paul was announcing to anyone familiar with Greek, that Peter was no longer an "apostello – Apostle (one who is sent off)." And as such, we can be assured the Paul meant for us to understand "dokei – presumed and supposed" in the most negative light.

Shim’own Kephas was doing what Yahshua had asked of him. He had left home to bring God’s redemptive message to the world. He was breaking bread in fellowship with brothers whom we can only assume were part of the called-out assembly. Then, a Jew arrived. While Sha’uwl would have had no way of knowing if he had been sent out by Ya’aqob, it’s certain that Shim’own wouldn’t have been afraid of him if he had been. And if the crime of which "the Rock" was guilty was timidity, if it was withdrawing rather than engaging, and if that was what constituted Shim’own’s "conviction and condemnation," no one would ever be saved.

While I understand that Peter wasn’t perfect, it’s perfectly clear that this onerous rant against him wasn’t godly. The problem is no longer just the grammar, it’s the attitude. And it’s also Paul’s style. Given his previous propensity for spin, it’s likely that Peter had a valid reason to leave (like being allergic to Paul), but Paul left this reason out in order to make Peter look bad.

In the context of Paul’s offensive assault on Peter, we are compelled to consider Sha’uwl’s behavior in light of what he called "the deeds of the flesh" and "the fruit of the spirit," delineated in Galatians 5. While I won’t repeat those attributes here, juxtaposed against these past few verses, we must conclude that either Paul wasn’t imbued with the Spirit or he was a complete hypocrite.

Of this unfortunate incident, the KJV wrote: "For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision." Jerome’s Latin Vulgate reported: "For before certain ones arrived from Iakob, he ate with the Gentibus. But when they had arrived, he drew apart and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision."

Feeling at liberty to adlib, the liberated NLT scribed: "When he first arrived, he ate with the Gentile Christians, who were not circumcised. But afterward, when some friends of James came, Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentiles anymore. He was afraid of criticism from these people who insisted on the necessity of circumcision." Sha’uwl never wrote the word "Christian." The name cannot be found in any Greek manuscript attributed to him. Not one, not once. Further, there was absolutely no indication in the text that the issue was an "insistence on the necessity of circumcision." To the contrary, this point had already been vetted.

Sha’uwl continued his assault: "He (autos) acted hypocritically (synypokrinomai), and also (kai) the remaining (loipos) Yahuwdym (Ioudaios – transliteration of the Hebrew, meaning Related to Yah). As a result (hoste – therefore) also (kai) Barnabas was led away (apago), himself (autos) a hypocrite (hypokrisis – an insincere pretender)." (Galatians 2:13)

This tells us that Galatians was written after the Yaruwshalaym Summit in 50CE, but before Barnabas and Sha’uwl split up the following year. And based upon what we read in Acts, this may well have been the disagreement which led to their less-than-amicable parting.

Scripture encourages us to be critical of false teaching, telling us to expose and condemn lies and liars, but "the Rock" was neither a false teacher nor a liar. If he were either of these things, his acknowledgement that "Yahshua is the Messiyah, the Son of the Living God," would have to be stricken from the record. And the books of First and Second Peter would have to be expunged from the Renewed Covenant.

If this were the case, it would have dire consequences for Christian theology. The lone, thin, hope of considering Paul’s letters "Scripture," is allegedly found in 2 Peter 3:12-17. But if Shim’own is as Sha’uwl calls him, a man who "was convicted and condemned, judged to be guilty, devoid of understanding and accurate information, and thus ignorant," then Peter’s letter would be worthless, as it wouldn’t be trustworthy. Moreover, considering what Sha’uwl just wrote, it isn’t even remotely plausible that Shim’own wrote a ringing endorsement of Paul.

Constructively criticizing the way Shim’own had left a meal might well have been appropriate if it engendered a conversation on how Paul’s and Peter’s interpretations of the Torah might have differed in this regard. But all we have here is personal condemnation and name-calling—devoid of enlightenment. And while my feelings are irrelevant in this matter, this makes me nauseous.

But once again, the problem isn’t with the fidelity of the Greek manuscripts, but with the words Sha’uwl dictated. So it’s hard to be critical of the KJV: "And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation." The LV is reasonably accurate as well: "And the other Iudæi consented to his pretense, so that even Barnabas was led by them into that falseness." The NLT, however, created a conversation to suit their constituency. "As a result, other Jewish Christians followed Peter’s hypocrisy, and even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy."

While it pains me to ponder the consequence of these words, we must. Collectively, Paul has said:

"But when Kephas came to Antioch, I was opposed and against his presence, taking a firm stand in hostile opposition, because he was convicted and condemned. (2:11) Because, before a certain individual came from Ya’aqob, [Shim’own] was eating together with the people of different races and places, but when he came, he withdrew and separated himself, out of fear of the circumcised [read Jew]. (2:12) He acted hypocritically, and also the remaining Yahuwdym [read Jews]. As a result also Barnabas was led away, himself a hypocrite." (2:13)

 * * *

In that it is especially germane to our discussion, let’s pause here in the midst of Paul’s vicious attack on Peter to consider what the victim had to say about his accuser. For that, we must turn to Second Peter 3:12-17. There we find Shim’own: "eagerly expecting the coming presence of the day of Yahweh...and accordingly looking forward to His promise of new heavens and a new earth in which those who are acceptable, correct, and approved (dikaiosune) will live." (2 Peter 3:12-13)

The operative word in this passage is dikaiosune, which was rendered "acceptable, correct, and approved." It is the opposite of "anthistemi – hostile opposition" and "kataginosko – convicted and condemned," the terms Paul used against Peter.  Dikaiosune is "focused upon the manner in which souls are approved by God." It speaks of "thinking correctly so as to become acceptable." It is based upon dikaios, which is defined as "becoming upright by observing God’s law."

Dikaiosune is therefore the fulcrum upon which Peter’s evaluation of Paul will pivot in this circumstance, especially since Paul is seen opposing the Torah. In this regard, it is also instructional to know that dikaios is based upon dike and deiknuo which convey the idea of "exposing the evidence to determine if something is consistent with the law."

Continuing to speak of becoming acceptable so as to live in heaven, Shim’own says: "Therefore (dio – for this reason) loved ones (agapetos – dear friends), eagerly expect (prosdokao – confidently look forward to) this, earnestly making every effort (spoudazo – diligently endeavoring to do your best to become ready) to experience Him (heuriskomai autos – to discover and learn what is necessary to be found by Him) pure and spotless, without blemish or defect (aspilos – undefiled without fault) also avoiding judgment (amometos – being blameless) with regard to (en) reconciliation (eirene – being joined in a harmonious relationship)." (2 Peter 3:14)

Those who earnestly make every effort to observe the Torah can expect to experience Yahweh in a purified state. They will avoid judgment, because they have been reconciled with regard to the Covenant relationship.

As an interesting aside, in two verses we have already learned more from Peter than we have learned in two Pauline chapters. Peter wrote about how we can be made right with God while Paul has written about how he is right.

Expecting not to be judged, expecting entrance into heaven, and expecting to personally experience Yahweh’s presence as a result of being correct with regard to the Torah, constitutes the breadth of Shim’own’s message. And to this he adds: "Consider (hegeomai – think about and regard, be directed and guided by, be counseled and led by) the degree which (kathos – accordingly) the Upright One (KY – Yahuweh) steadfastly forebears (makrothumai – showing restraint which consistently and patiently endures) the process of our salvation (soteria – the means to our deliverance)." (2 Peter 3:15) This affirms that salvation is a steadfast and unwavering process, neither instant nor capricious.

Makrothumia, which was translated "steadfastly forebears," is a compound of thuo, meaning "to be slain and sacrificed," and macros, "for all time." It therefore provides a telling word-picture of Yahshua’s Passover and Unleavened Bread sacrifices. Thumos speaks of "being exasperated," and of "waging a war with great passion, even showing animosity and anger." This suggests that while God is exceptionally displeased with mankind’s choices, and angry about our corruptions of His message, these things have not caused Him to abandon the battle to save us from ourselves. It also says that His solution to what we have done is eternal, lasting throughout time.

So far, Peter’s words have been practically perfect. The path to heaven has been delineated, step by step without distraction—that is until now. In the midst of the second half of the 15^th verse, Peter suddenly turns his attention from our salvation to Paul—and I suppose that is because they are related (albeit not in a good way). "And (kai) accordingly (kathos – inasmuch as), our (ego) dear (ho agapetos – esteemed) brother (adelphos) Paulos (Paulos – Latin for little and small), through (kata – in accord with) the (ho) human wisdom (sophia – insights gleaned and capacity to understand derived from man’s knowledge, intelligence, experience, science, and philosophy) that had been given to (didomai – granted and assigned to and experienced by) him (autos) wrote to (grapho) you (su)." (2 Peter 3:15)

Based upon how Sha’uwl treated Shim’own, and based upon the fact that he vociferously condemned him in the very letter Peter was now referencing, it strains credulity to believe that that Yahshua’s Disciple penned the word "agapetos – dear and esteemed"—unless it was in reference to Paul’s notorious ego. It is to my mind, much more likely that second- and third-century scribes operating under Marcion’s influence augmented the text to serve their religious interests. It is the most reasonable explanation. But, more on this in a moment.

Whether or not Peter actually wrote "our dear/esteemed brother Paulos," I cannot say, but considering what Paul had written about Peter in his Galatians’ epistle, it is unlikely in the extreme that he felt this way. So we would be wise to see Shim’own’s tongue planted firmly in his cheek, and his eyebrows raised mockingly.

And speaking of mocking, while sophia can describe any form of wisdom, every lexicon identifies it first and foremost as "the wisdom of men—the synthesis of education and experience, of philosophy and science." In this light, consider the difference between Peter and his adversary Paul. While the Disciple had no formal education, and had learned everything he knew walking in the footsteps of the Messiyah, Sha’uwl had been born to a Roman citizen, a Pharisee. He was educated in Tarsus of Cilicia, the home of what was then a most prestigious university. And Sha’uwl studied Judaism at the feet of the world’s leading religious authority. From Peter’s perspective, Paul was steeped in human understanding.

Since it implies human philosophy, the statement "through the wisdom given to him" should not be construed as a compliment or an endorsement of Paul’s understanding of Yahweh’s plan—especially as presented in the Galatians epistle. The source of these insights is only tangentially identified, and Peter isn’t saying that he is agreeing with what Paul has written.

You may have noticed that the final clause of 2 Peter 3:15 speaks of a specific letter which had been written by Paul to a particular audience. So to understand which letter Peter was referring to we have to conduct a little investigation. In 2 Peter 3:1, Shim’own says that this is "the second letter I am writing to you." And in 1 Peter 1:1 we learn that Shim’own’s first epistle was addressed to "those who reside as foreigners scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappodocia, Asia, and Bithynia." The lone point of intersection between Paul’s letters and Peter’s recipients is "Galatia." And not so coincidently, this is the letter in which Peter was openly condemned by Paul.

Before we press on, remember that Paul continually insisted that Peter’s ministry was limited to Jews, while his realm was comprised of the rest of the world. Obviously Peter didn’t agree. Last time I checked, "foreigners scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappodocia, Asia, and Bithynia," are not Jews in Judea. Therefore, when Paul implied that Shim’own, Ya’aqob, and Yahuchanan had agreed with him that their ministries were limited to "the circumcised," he was either misinformed or lying.

This known, Peter’s next line reads: "And (kai) even as (hos – like and in a similar way (denoting a weak relationship between things)) in (en – with regard to) all (pas) letters (epistole – epistles), inside (en) they speak (laleo – talk) around (peri – and remotely about; from peran, meaning to the extremity and beyond, and heteros, that which is different and opposed to) this (houtos)." (2 Peter 3:16)

Considering the context, "this," the subject in this case, remains God’s unwavering and unchanging nature with regard to salvation. Therefore, the phrase suggests that the letters Paul penned speak "around" this subject. That is to say that circular reasoning is being used to convey a view which is "opposed to and different than" God’s position.

To fully appreciate Shim’own’s next line, it behooves us to contemplate the meaning of duysnoetos, which will be translated "difficult to understand," below. As a compound of dus, meaning "opposed to, difficult, and injurious to," and noeo "thinking," the word may actually mean: "opposed to understanding and injurious to thinking." And that would considerably change the tone of what follows.

"Within (en) them (autos), that is to say, there are (hos eimi – there is the existence of) some things (tis) difficult to understand (duysnoetos ­– hard to comprehend or detrimental to understanding), which (ho) the (ho) uneducated (amathes – unlearned and ignorant) and (kai) malleable (asteriktos – those with flexible and changeable views, perspectives, and attitudes) will misinterpret and distort (strebloo – will pervert, twist, change, and turn),..." (2 Peter 3:16)

I unequivocally agree with "the Rock’s" assessment. As a result of the writing quality and ambiguity, as a result of his affinity for self-promotion and his tendency to contradict himself, Paul’s letters are difficult to understand, especially in light of his propensity to twist the truth and misquote Scripture. And because of their deficiencies, they are remarkably easy to misinterpret and distort, especially among those who are ignorant of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, as well as those who ignore the teachings of Yahshua. And that is why they have become a stumbling block for so many, and a hindrance to understanding.

But, even more telling, Paul’s letters are "detrimental to our understanding." And that is why they are so lethal. Someone who isn’t properly informed about the enduring value of the Torah would be easily swayed by this charlatan and his onslaught of circular reasoning.

One of the reasons that Sha’uwl’s letters are so prone to misinterpretation is the window dressing that accompanies them. He claims to be an Apostle, although he was not appointed as such. He claims to speak for God, and yet he consistently misquotes Him. He claims to represent the Messiyah and yet by separating Yahushua from the Torah, Sha’uwl, not the Rabbis nor Romans, wielded the most deadly and devastating blow. He claims that he cannot lie, and yet that is all he has done. These things combined with the placement of his letters in the "Bible" as if they were "Scripture," work to enhance the credibility of one of the world’s most egregious deceivers. Add to this the fact that over a billion people believe this man’s rhetoric, and you have the recipe for religious perversions of monstrous proportions.

Even here, steeped in Pauline Doctrine, Christian apologists will claim that I am misinterpreting Paul. And yet all I’m actually doing is presenting his words as accurately as is possible, exposing his strategy, and holding him accountable for contradicting God.

Before we move on to Shim’own’s next thought, you should know that the conjunction kai is typically used as punctuation, designating the end of one sentence and the beginning of another. If that is the case here, it would isolate the difficult concepts contained in the letters from the Scriptural reference at the end of the verse. Along these lines, of the 9,280 times kai appears in the Renewed Covenant, it is either not translated (serving as punctuation), or it is conveyed as an "And" at the beginning of a sentence. The "also" rendering found below, which was used to connect these thoughts, is appropriate a scant five percent of the times we see kai in the text. Therefore, in spite of the fact that there is no verb in the sentence fragment which follows, the odds are that the introductory and concluding clauses in the 16^th verse are actually separate thoughts.

"...and/also (kai) like (hos – as in a somewhat similar way denoting a weak relationship between) the (ho) remaining (loipos – inferior) writings (graphe), to the consequence of (pros – with regard to) their (autos) own individual (idios – one’s distinct and unique) destruction and annihilation (apoleia – complete and utter ruin and obliteration)." (2 Peter 3:16)

There are many obstacles to understanding here. First, hos conveys a weak association, not a strong one, as is required for Paul’s letters to be considered as anything more than written correspondence. In this light, while the word graphe is usually used to designate Scripture in the Renewed Covenant, all it actually means is "writing." As such, Peter used the verb form of this same word, grapho, to convey the idea of "writing" a letter in the prior verse. Also, in the context of one letter written to the Galatians, followed by the comment "as is the case with all letters," Peter may well be, and probably is, expanding his critical evaluation to include everything Paul has written, as opposed to just the Galatians epistle. In that way, he wouldn’t be disparaging God’s Word, indicating that it was somehow deficient.

But in the unlikelihood that Peter was referring to Scripture, at least his final thought would be accurate. Those who are ignorant of the Torah, those who misinterpret and distort Scripture, are destined to have their souls annihilated. They don’t know God, and God doesn’t know them. The same fate awaits malleable individuals. Because they are easily swayed by religious rhetoric, most will find their souls destroyed at the end of their mortal existence.

And if, as reason dictates, Peter was addressing the rest of Paul’s letters, then once again he would be accurate. Those who approach them out of an ignorance of the Torah and Yahshua’s statements regarding it, will find their souls annihilated in accord with the Torah’s presentation of the path to salvation found in the Miqra’ey. Paul’s message was wrong which means that those who believe him will be wrong. Peter is warning Christians about the consequence of Pauline Doctrine—calling it deadly and destructive.

While Peter stubbed his toe from time to time, he never wavered from the path. When it came time to stand up and boldly declare the truth, Peter led the way. And that is why it would be ridiculous in the extreme to suggest, as Christians do, that Peter meant the "remaining writings" to be a reference to Scripture, as opposed to Paul’s remaining letters. Because if he were referring "‘other’ ‘Scripture’", then Peter would be inferring that Yahweh and Yahshua were poor communicators, and that their message of salvation was misleading and difficult to understand. There is no chance Shim’own Kephas would ever say such a thing. Especially in light of the fact Scripture says: "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 the soul. Yahuweh’s testimony is trustworthy and reliable, making understanding and obtaining wisdom (hakam – educating and enlightening oneself to the point of comprehension) simple for the open-minded." (Psalm 19:7)

The Torah is only difficult to understand if it is viewed from the errant perspective of Pauline Doctrine, disassociated with Yahshua, taken out of context, poorly translated, not considered as a cohesive whole, or read by someone whose thinking and attitude have been corrupted by Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. Moreover, what little may have been somewhat obscure, was subsequently explained by Yahshua. I’ll grant you that while some prophetic passages were a challenge to unravel, at least initially, Yahshua’s dictation to Yahuchanan in Revelation has unlocked most every mystery.

It is the Renewed Covenant which has been distorted by the inclusion of Paul’s letters to infer that God’s Word has been annulled. It’s not the other way around.

But in the end, the question remains: what exactly is meant by the Greek loipos? Most every English translation says that it means "other." They do this to infer that Paul’s letters are Scripture. But there are many problems associated with this conclusion.

First among them is that the primary Greek word for "other" is allos, not loipos. Allos is translated "other" or "another" 143 of the 160 times it appears in the Renewed Covenant. Allos, not loipos is defined as "another person or thing of the same kind." Therefore, allos, not loipos, would have been the perfect word to use here if such an association were actually intended. The very fact that it wasn’t, tells us most of what we need to know.

Second, while loipos can be translated "others" when speaking of people and things, loipos is a "plural feminine adjective." In this context it appears to be modifying the feminine plural noun graphe, so it would have to be written "others Scriptures," not "other Scripture." But there is only one Divine revelation, referred to by Yahshua as the "Torah, Prophets, and Psalms," not multiple sets of "scriptures." However, if Peter was referring to Paul’s "remaining writings," then everything fits.

Third, along these lines, the primary definition of loipos is "remaining," not "others," which is why it was rendered as such above. Loipos is derived form leipo, meaning "that which is left." By way of confirmation, in Matthew 25:11, loipos was used for the first time in the Renewed Covenant. There it was used to describe the "remaining" bridesmaids who were denied entry to the wedding for lack of oil, a metaphor for the Spirit. Loipos was used in Acts 2:37 as a reference to the "remaining" eleven Disciples who witnessed Shim’own’s speech on the Called-Out Assembly of Seven Sabbaths.

Fourth, leipo also carries the derogatory connotations of "forsaken and inferior," which in this context becomes a serious problem. In this case, Peter would be referring to Paul’s writings as being "inferior and damned," in essence turning the tables on his tormentor.

And fifth, it’s worth noting that in Greek, adjectives usually follow the nouns they are modifying. But in this case, loipos precedes graphe, which is unusual.

Therefore, the "other Scripture" connotation required to infer that Paul’s letters were inspired, isn’t remotely accurate. Moreover, there is no textual basis for the continuous adding of "he" and "his" in English bibles, which is also required to make the connection between Paul, his letters, and the Writings. The ESV, for example, adds "he does," "his letters," and "he speaks," all without justification.

Although the Rock’s point has been made, I would be remiss if I didn’t share the last two lines of Shim’own’s epistle. In the context of Paul’s remaining letters being easily twisted, misunderstood, and even inferior, what he said is especially relevant. "You, therefore (oun), beloved (agapetos – dear one), knowing this in advance (proginosko – possessing this foreknowledge), be on your guard (phylassomai – keep away from this and be especially observant) in order that (hima) [you] are not (me) led astray, associating with (synapagomai – are not carried off to judgment and separation because of) the deception and delusion of (plane) lawlessness (athesmos – being without the Torah, avoiding the Law’s established order of things), forsaking and falling away from (ekpipto – becoming inadequate and ceasing to exist, perishing by foregoing) one’s individual (idios) guarantee of safety and being preserved (sterigmos – receiving affirmation of confirmation, becoming established, upright and stable)." (2 Peter 3:17) If Peter had meant to say that Paul’s letters were "Scripture," he would not have warned the Galatians to be "on their guard so as not to be led astray into deception, delusion, and lawlessness."

It is also worth noting that many people consider Galatians to be Paul’s worst letter—thus invalidating the notion that other epistles were "inferior." And as it relates to the quality of the writing, his first letter was his worst. But when it comes to content and message, three of the next four are inferior—First and Second Thessalonians and Second Corinthians. And in due time, we will explore the justifications for this conclusion.

It’s little wonder that Christians disassociate this verse from the preceding one. This one line undermines most of what Paul will say in the remainder of his Galatians epistle, as Peter is establishing the Torah as the source of our salvation. Peter was actually saying that the Galatians epistle, like all of Paul’s letters, would lead countless people astray, into the "deception and delusion of being without the Torah," which would in turn cause them "to forego their salvation." Those who are not grounded in the Torah, do not understand Yahweh’s plan of salvation, and thus they are easy prey for the likes of Sha’uwl and his misguided and misleading religious rhetoric.

In this regard, Peter’s fulcrum term, dikaiosune, remains extraordinarily pertinent. As you recall, it speaks of "thinking correctly so as to become acceptable." Based upon dikaios, it conveys "becoming upright by observing God’s law," and of "exposing the evidence required to teach and prove that which is consistent with the law."

Therefore, my friends, if you twist each of Peter’s words to reflect their most advantageous connotations relative to Paul’s epistles, and thus manipulate Peter’s highly critical review of Pauline Doctrine, convoluting it into a glowing endorsement, then you’d still have to remove the second half of 2Peter 3:16 and all of 2 Peter 3:17 from the context of this discussion. Otherwise, why would he tell those he loves to be wary of Paul’s epistles, to be on their guard lest they be led astray into the delusion of lawlessness and thus lose their hope of salvation? After all, if he isn’t advising us to be wary of Paul’s letters, then Peter would be saying that the Torah itself is a hindrance to understanding. And since that’s ridiculous in the context of Peter’s life and writings, this conclusion affirms that Shim’own Kephas was condemning Sha’uwl’s epistles, not commending them.

Bringing it all together, here is what Peter wrote to the Galatians about Paul and his epistles: "Paulos, through the human wisdom that had been given to him, wrote to you. And even as in all epistles, inside they speak around this, using circular reasoning. Within them, that is to say, there are some things difficult to understand, and detrimental to understanding, which the uneducated and ignorant, as well as those who are malleable will misinterpret and distort, also like the remaining inferior writings, to the consequence of their own individual destruction and annihilation. You, therefore, beloved, knowing this in advance, be on your guard and keep away from this in order that you are not led astray, associating with the deception and delusion of lawlessness (being without the Torah), forsaking and falling away from one’s individual guarantee of safety and of becoming established upright." (2 Peter 3:15-17) To suggest, as Christian apologists do, that Peter said "‘other’ ‘Scripture’" was "detrimental to understanding" as opposed to Paul’s letters, is to demean Peter and Yahshua.

Not wanting anyone to miss his point, and therefore miss the opportunity to benefit from God’s gift of salvation, Peter completes his message with these words. "But grow in the mercy and knowledge and understanding of our Upright One and Savior, the Messiyah, Yahushua. He is great and glorious, now and into a day eternal in space and time. This is trustworthy and true." (2 Peter 3:18) Knowledge and understanding leads to trust and reliance upon the eternal Light of the universe.

Notwithstanding the last two verses, if 2 Peter 3:16 represents the one and only hope Christians have for their assertion that Paul’s letters were Scripture—word for word inspired by God—then they are out on a limb of their own making. The Rock gave no such assurances.

Before we move on, a word about Marcion is in order, especially because Papyrus 72, the oldest extant manuscript containing Peter’s epistles, was influenced by him. Suffice it to say for now, that Marcion played a pivotal role in the formation of the Renewed Covenant canon, especially with regard to textual liberty, and the inclusion of Paul’s contradictory epistles. Born to a bishop in Sinope around 85CE, Marcion, a wealthy ship owner, fled to Rome during the Rabbi Akiba inspired Bar Kokhba revolt in 133 CE. There, he studied under Cerdo, an influential Gnostic.

In the process, Marcion became a raging anti-Semite who rejected Yahweh and the entirety of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. He saw Paulos of Tarsus as God’s only true Apostle, and he sought to elevate his ten epistles (as well as a significantly edited version of Luke and Acts which were written under Paul’s influence) to Scriptural status while at the same time, rejecting all other books. In his view, one which shaped Christendom in the second and third centuries (and on to this day), Yahweh was a lesser and evil demiurge when compared to the "all-forgiving, loving, and gracious" god found in Paul’s epistles.

Had it not been for Marcion, in all likelihood, Paul’s epistles would have been rejected as apocrypha and ultimately disassociated with the Renewed Covenant witness over time. They would not have been canonized, and they would never have been considered Scripture. And had this occurred, the Christian religion would not exist.

Christians are universally ignorant of the influence Marcion had on their faith because Marcionism was ultimately denounced as heresy in 144 CE, not so much because he was wrong, or even because some of his opinions were inconsistent with the emerging Church in Rome, but because his message was divisive, and thus bad for business. But that didn’t stop Marcion from preaching to large crowds and forever altering the mindset of the religious community.

Foremost among his influences, Marcion was the first to refer to the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms as the "Old Testament," in the sense of being the will of a now deceased deity. In its place, he promoted his "New Testament," a canon comprised of his heavily edited versions of Paul’s epistles, Luke, and Acts—where all things "Jewish" were removed or demeaned. In the process, Marcion established a division which had not previously existed, and he created the notion that the Torah was now obsolete, having been replaced by the "Gospel of Grace." Anything which didn’t support this view was either erased or ignored. It was a transition in perspective from which Christianity would never recover.

And while these teachings and titles continue to permeate Christian doctrine, Marcion’s most haunting legacy was his propensity to edit the text so that it could be interpreted to support his religious views. Over time, Marcion became the father of what’s called the "Western," "Popular," or "Free" text of the Renewed Covenant. Under his influence, scribes were free to harmonize the accounts, improve their readability, and add their own traditions and beliefs as they saw fit. Marcion not only made copious copies of his "Gospel" and "Bible," his followers were prolific copyists, and using Marcion’s considerable wealth, they flooded the empire with their versions of Luke and Paul. And as a result of the sheer quantity, immense popularity, and appealing anti-Semitic tone of their manuscripts, much of what now appears in today’s Majority Texts of Luke, Acts, and Paul’s epistles, is suspect, not necessarily because these books were inaccurately written, although the letters were, but because they have been heavily edited.

Papyrus 72, the late third-century manuscript we were unfortunately required to use in our rendering of Second Peter (in that it is the oldest surviving witness to Shim’own’s letters), is the most "Free," and thus least literal, of the seventy manuscripts which predate Constantine. It was written by someone who was neither a professional scribe, nor interested in accurately conveying what had previously been written. And as such, Marcion’s fingerprints were all over it. Therefore, we need to be sensitized to anything and everything which artificially elevates Paul—especially when derived from the hand of Sha’uwl’s most outspoken critic.

Yahshua made yet another prediction regarding Paul. It was the last He would make before returning to heaven. But as was His custom, His preamble provided the information we would need to understand it, so let’s begin there.

"This was already the third appearance by Yahushua (ΙΣ) with the Disciples, after rising from lifelessness. Therefore, while they ate breakfast, Yahushua (ΙΣ) said to Shim’own Kephas, ‘Shim’own, of Yahuchanan, do you love Me more than this?’ He said, ‘Yes, You are aware (oieda) that I love You.’ He said to him, ‘Feed (boskomai – tend to and nourish) My sheep.’

He said to him again, a second time, ‘Shim’own, of Yahuchanan, do you love Me?’ He said, ‘Yes, You recognize (oieda) that I love You.’ He said, ‘Shepherd (poimaino – guide, care for, feed, protect, tend to, and assist) My sheep.’

He said to him a third time, ‘Shim’own, of Yahuchanan, do you love Me?’ Grieved, the Rock said to Him, ‘You are aware of (oieda) everything. You know (ginosko) that I love You.’ Yahushua said to him, ‘Tend to (boskomai – feed and nourish) My sheep.’" (Yahuchanan / John 21:14-17)

Yahshua wasn’t talking to Shim’own about grazing, about sheep, or about animal husbandry. The "sheep" are Yahweh’s "children." Their "food" is "God’s Word: the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms." As a "shepherd" Yahshua was asking Shim’own Kephas "to guide and protect," His flock, keeping His sheep out of harm’s way, while keeping the wolves at bay. And never forget, they were and remain "His" sheep, not Peter’s, and especially not Paul’s, a pope’s, nor a pastor’s.

"Tending" to God’s children, requires a shepherd to be "properly prepared," which means Shim’own would have to diligently study God’s Owner’s Manual, so that he would be able to teach the Heavenly Father’s children what they need to know to survive and grow, and to quickly recognize problems and resolve them appropriately. To properly tend sheep, "the Rock" would have to remain "vigilant," which is to say that he must never let his guard down, lest a diseased animal, unfit food, unhealthy behavior, or predator harm God’s flock. And the best way to do that would be to nurture God’s children on the merit of the Torah, so that they would be equipped to care for their children for generations to come.

Cognizant that Yahshua was telling Shim’own Kephas to fend off false prophets by properly feeding, directing, and protecting His children, regardless of place or race, Yahshua provided this final prophecy before returning home...

"‘Truly (amane), truly (amane), I say (lego) to you, when you were young (neos – newly born), you gird yourself (ezonnues – second person singular indicative of zonnymi – tied the belt of your own garments), and walked (peripateo – traveled and directed your life) whenever and wherever (hotan) you desired (thelo – decided, intended, and determined). But (de) when you grow old (gerasko – when you age), you will extend (ekteneis – stretch forth) your hands and another (allos – a different kind of person), he will gird (zosei – third person singular future of zonnymi, he will fasten a strap around the midst of) you (se), and he will move you (oisei – third person singular future of pheromai – he will bring, carry, guide, or drive you) where (hopou) you do not (ou) intend (thelo – want, decide, desire, or propose).’ ...He said (lego) to him, ‘You should follow My path (akoloutheo moi – follow and accompany Me, and be My disciple; from a, be unified and one with, keleuthos, the Way).’" (Yahuchanan / John 21:17-19)

As was the case with much of what Yahshua told His disciples, Yahuchanan may not have understood this prophecy. If he actually wrote the commentary which was added much later, then he incorrectly assumed, with Yahshua’s crucifixion vivid in his mind, that the reference to "you will extend your hands," was a prophetic portrayal of the nature of Shim’own’s death. But the verb "ekteneis – you will extend" was written in the second person singular tense, "you will extend your hands," not in the third person plural—as in "they will extend your hands," which would be required for crucifixion. (Moreover, since we don’t actually know how Shim’own died, it’s likely that the commentary was added much later by a scribe.)

What Yahshua was saying to Shim’own is that in the act of reaching out to feed His flock, someone would tie him up and take him to a place he did not intend to go. The keys to unraveling how this would occur, and to identifying the perpetrator, are zonnymi, pheromai, and akoloutheo. On the surface they mean "gird," "move," and "follow," respectively. But to understand the prophecy, we will have to dig a little deeper.

Zonnymi, translated "gird," is from zygos, which means "to tie together and to yoke, to apply a burden, or to enslave." It was used by Paul to speak of the "yoke of the Torah being an unbearable burden." And he will soon be so bold to declare that the Torah "enslaves." Remember Acts 15:10: "Now therefore, who submits a test and attempts to trap God, placing (epitithemai) a yoke (zygos) upon the neck of the Disciples which neither we nor our fathers had the ability to endure (bastazo – accept, bear, and carry)?" (Acts 15:10) The fact that Yahshua’s statement was delivered in the third person singular, it is describing one particular individual who would place a yoke upon Peter. Only one person did this: Paul.

Similarly, pheromai, "he will move you," was transcribed in the third person singular, as oisei. One individual in Peter’s future was able to drag "the Rock" to a place Peter had not intended. After pushing Shim’own out of Antioch, and driving him back to Yaruwshalaym, Sha’uwl’s rhetoric and force of personality caused Shim’own to cower as he had before, and even retreat, leaving Yahshua’s flock to be devoured by a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Even Peter’s comments regarding Paul’s epistles were used in a way "the Rock" never intended. Rather than being used to warn God’s sheep to be on their guard lest Paul’s epistles lead them to their own demise, Christendom twisted what Peter wrote to infer that Paul’s letters were Scripture. Peter had been taken to a place he did not intend to go.

As a compound of a, "signifying unity and being part of," and keleuthos, "the Way," Yahshua used akoloutheo to tell Peter to "Following The Way"—the narrow path to God described by Yahshua as being delineated within the Torah. Written as akolouoei, it was rendered in the second person singular present active imperative tense. Second person singular indicates "you," and thus Yahshua was addressing Shim’own to the exclusion of others. The use of the present active tense indicates that He wanted Peter specifically to follow The Way right now, at this very instant, and never stop. The imperative mood was deployed to express that this was a command, an earnest desire, and supportive advice issued within the context of freewill, and thus in full recognition that Shim’own’s volition was in play.

Yahshua wanted "the Rock" to "Follow His Way" to the Father—not Paul’s way of faith which was different (by his own admission) and led in the opposite direction.

Should you wonder why I referred to Paul as "a wolf in sheep’s clothing," let’s turn our attention to Genesis 49:27, where Yahweh spoke about Sha’uwl, the man who has become the most infamous member of Benjamin’s tribe.

But first, let’s affirm that Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin. The wolf in sheep’s clothing wrote: "I say therefore, that God (ΘΣ) has not (ue) pushed away, rejected, or repudiated (apotheomai) His people (laos – nation or common individuals). May it never be (ue genoito). For indeed (gar), I am an Israelite (Israelites – transliteration of Hebrew Yisra’el), from (ek – out of) the seed (sperma – semen singular) of Abraham (‘Abraam – a transliteration of the Hebrew ‘Abraham), from the tribe (phyle) of Benjamin (Beniamin – a transliteration of the Hebrew Benyamyn)." (Romans 11:1)

While the connection to Benjamin was all we were looking for, I’d be remiss if I didn’t correct Paul’s erroneous statements. God rejected Yisra’el in Hosea, divorcing them for infidelity. And He has repudiated them countless times in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms for their false teachings and observances of pagan rites. While Yahweh and Yahuwdym will be reconciled, Paul’s "may it never be" is in conflict with the Scriptural testimony. Further, Yahuwdym were supposed to be a people set-apart unto Yahweh, making them the antithesis of "laos – common."

So since we know that Paul has once again twisted God’s word, it is incumbent upon us to determine why. And in this case, the reason is obvious. Paul’s theory is: since God has not rejected or repudiated His people (at least according to Paul), it serves to reason that He has not rejected or repudiated "me," "for indeed I am an Israelite." Moreover, there is even a twinge of a messianic complex being revealed here with Paul saying that that he is "from the seed (singular) of Abraham," a distinction that would otherwise be redundant to "Israelite." The Messianic nature of the seed of Abraham will be twisted in the third and fourth chapters of Galatians as Satan’s Messiah strives to separate Yahshua from the Torah.

Now for Yahweh’s prediction: "Benjamin (benyamyn) viciously tears apart, mangles, kills, and devours (tarap – creates his food by tearing and plucking the life out of his victim) like a wolf (za’eb – a yellow predatory animal), in (ba) the morning (boqer – early part of the day) devouring (‘akal – feeding upon) his prey (‘ad), and in the evening (‘ereb – during the dark of night and end of the day) he divides and destroys (halaq – apportions, assigns, distributes that which they have harmed and ruined) that which has been spoiled (salal – possessions of value, plunder, and prey)." (Genesis 49:27)

The experts say that Benyamyn is a compound of ben, meaning son, and yamyn, conveying either "right, right hand, or south." As such, we might see this connotation reflected in Sha’uwl’s attempt to position himself as "God’s right hand man." Or perhaps, this could be a reference to Paul leading his flock—Christians—south, and back into the wilderness. And it has become obvious that Sha’uwl, a man named after She’owl, served as Satan’s right-hand.

But I also see yam in the name’s root. Yam is the Hebrew word for "sea," and it is symbolic of Gowym, as opposed to Yahuwdym, who are associated with the "’erets – land." After all, it is hard to miss Paul’s repetitive and braggadocios claim of dominion over Gentiles.

Tarap is a precisely prophetic portrayal of what Sha’uwl would do to the Torah, and to his victims. He "tore it apart," "mangling" what God actually said, "ripping the life out of" the Torah which ultimately lead to the "death" of countless Christian souls. Paul’s "food" which Christians "devoured," came from the "rotting and neglected carcass" of the Word of God which he had "viciously attacked and torn apart."

And like a za’eb, Paul was cunning as a wolf. He was a "predator" masquerading as the Shepherd’s "right hand," while dressed as one of His sheep, to "pluck" souls away from the flock.

"Boqer – in the morning," meaning "the first part of the day," provides two interesting insights. First, Paul was the first to mangle Yahshua’s message. As Thomas Jefferson wrote: "Paul was the great Coryphaeus (voice and leader of the chorus), and the first corrupter of the doctrines of ‘Jesus.’" (From Jefferson’s letter to W. Short (Published in The Great Thoughts by George Seldes (Ballantine Books, 1985, page 208)))

Second, Paul’s treachery occurred at the very beginning of the fifth day of human history, as measured from the fall of Adam. So this timing is indicative of his timing. And third, the "morning" reference adroitly connects Yahshua’s "breakfast" conversation in which the prophecy warning about Paul’s predatory practices was revealed.

‘Akal, rendered "devouring," and meaning "to eat and feed upon," in addition to "to consume, ruin, and destroy something valuable," is an even more exacting fit for Yahshua’s prediction. It was in the act of feeding God’s sheep that Paul viciously savaged and devoured Peter. Likewise, Yahweh is not speaking of "wolves and their prey" in a literal sense, but instead of "predators" and their "victims," His "sheep."

‘Ereb, translated "evening," is indistinguishable in the text from ‘arab, which means "desolate and lifeless" in addition to "making a pledge which exchanges one thing for another." Paul’s lifeless pledge was that "belief in his Gospel of Grace" replaced "trusting the Torah." And lest we forget, Sha’uwl’s credibility is derived from his mythical journey to Arabia.

Halaq doesn’t just mean "divides and destroys." It also speaks of someone who is a "smooth talker," and a "slick operator," as well as of the "slippery slope" they lead their victims down to their "ruin." Halaq is "flattery, words that reflect illegitimate praise." And it describes the "use of seductive words which are deployed to persuade people in a suggestive manner." Paul was the poster child for halaq.

Additionally, halaq is a "smooth stone used as an impromptu religious altar, and as a stand-in for an imaginary god." Grace, Gratia, and Charis fit this bogus bill.

And that leaves us with "salal – the spoils," the victims and their possessions. At the end of the day, under the cover of darkness, Paul’s legacy, the Christian Church, divvies up what they have been able to confiscate from the lives of those they have destroyed.

So it is hard to miss the connections between Paul and Benjamin, and between Paul and the destructive wolf, as well as between Yahweh’s predictive description and Yahshua’s prophetic warning. Benjamin was not only the last name on Yahweh’s list, and the last prophecy in Genesis, the reference to Sha’uwl was the last prediction Yahshua would make before He returned to heaven.

There is but one man in all of human history who fits Yahweh’s and Yahshua’s prophecies: Sha’uwl.

The reason I said that Yahshua’s prophetic warning was the last He would make before returning home, is that from heaven, Yahshua warned Yahuchanan about the wannabe Apostle. Writing to the Called-Out Assembly in Ephesus, the place where Yahuchanan’s and Sha’uwl’s footsteps and writings crossed paths, the risen Messiyah said:

"I know that you cannot possibly accept, tolerate, or endure (ou dynamai bastazo – haven’t the will, ability, or state of mind to take up with, walk along side of, lift up or carry forward (i.e., advance or promote)) those who think errantly, those who are wrong, injurious, pernicious, destructive, or baneful (kakos – are incorrect, wicked, evil, harmful, noisome, morally corrupt, diseased, culpable, mischievous, demonic, or hurtful). And you have observed and objectively tested (peirazo – scrutinized, examined through enquiry) those who claim and maintain (phasko – say, affirm, profess, declare, promise, or preach) of themselves (eautous) that they are (eimi) Apostles (apostolos – someone who is prepared and sent forth) but are not. And you have found them (heurisko – examined, scrutinized, come to understand them, and discovered through closely observing them that they are) false, deceitful liars (pseudes – are pretending to be something they are not, they are erroneous deceivers)." (Revelation 2:2)

While Revelation is a prophetic book, Yahshua’s commendation was written in the present and past tense. And that is significant because Yahuchanan scribed Revelation in 69CE, seven years after Sha’uwl wrote his letter to the Ephesians, and two years after the wannabe Apostle’s death. And considering the fact that Paul and his traveling companions were the only men who claimed to be Apostles in Ephesus during this short span of time, Yahshua was calling Sha’uwl an "errant, demonic, deceitful, charlatan."

Even Yahshua’s parting comments paralleled things we have read pertaining to Paul. "And you have loyal steadfastness and enduring consistency (hupomone) and have endured (bastazo) through My name. You have worked hard (kopiao) and have not grown tired." (Revelation 2:3)

 * * *

Since we have not yet dealt with the fourth chapter of Galatians, and Paul’s "Two Covenant Theory," you may be wondering what it was about this man that caused Yahweh and Yahshua to be so concerned about him. After all, he was just one guy sharing his opinion. Or was there more to Paul than this?

Returning to the book of Acts, we discover that Paul deliberately put a pagan proverb into Yahshua’s mouth in the third of his three depictions of his "lightning" conversion experience. In Acts 26:14, with Sha’uwl defending himself before King Agrippa, we read:

"And we all fell down to the ground. I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, Saoul, Saoul, for what reason are you pursuing me (dioko – making me run and flee in hostile pursuit)? It is difficult (skleros – hard, harsh, and demanding) for you (soi) to kick (laktizo) against (pros) a goad (kentron – a sharp pointed stick used to prod animals and control them, and the poisonous stinger of a scorpion)." (Acts 26:14)

While "it is hard to kick against a goad" makes absolutely no sense whatsoever on this occasion, in this context, or coming from Yahshua, a modicum of research reveals that Paul’s citation came from a common Greek proverb which had been derived from pagan literature. The phrase was first cited on line 790 of Euripides’ The Bacchae. There, "kicking and rebelling against the sharp prod" was used to describe the consequence of resisting Dionysus’s will, and thereby having to endure the havoc that would be wrought by the Greek god on a kingdom which refused to worship him. This mythological citation from Euripides’ became a common Greek idiom.

The Bacchae was named after Bacchus’ maenads—the female followers of Dionysus. Bacchus was simply the Roman incarnation of Dionysus. Euripides’ story pictures the pagan god intoxicating those who believe him. They are shown striking rocks in Mosaic fashion with their thyrsus, Dionysus’ staff, such that water and wine gush from the earth. Honey trickles down from the thyrsus, just as manna came down from heaven. In fact much of what Euripides wrote, such as rivers flowing with honey, milk, and wine, and of god’s children surviving in the midst of fire, all made their way into the Qur’an. In Euripides’ play, the maenads had King Pehtheus cousin betray him, luring the king into the woods so that could murder him, literally tearing him apart, after he banned the worship of Dionysus. It was all reminiscent of the Babylonian Tammuz, for whom Christmas, Lent, Easter and the cross originated.

So, we are left with the following choices. 1) Yahshua revealed Himself to Paul in the exact same way as He witnessed Satan falling from heaven and then cited a pagan proverb because He couldn’t think of anything better to say. 2) Satan revealed himself to Paul in his natural form and quoted a pagan proverb from Dionysius because there was no better counterfeit upon which to base Pauline Doctrine or the religion of Christianity. 3) Paul was struck by lightning and made up the rest of the story, citing the line from The Bacchae because he thought that the highly educated King Agrippa would be impressed by his grasp of pagan literature. And that by using the line Paul may have hoped that King Agrippa would equate his god with Dionysius, with whom he would have been familiar.

Should you be wondering why Dionysius (known as Bacchus in Roman mythology, Osiris in Egypt, and Tammuz in Babylon) would be chosen by Paul (or Satan), it is because he is the closest Greek counterfeit to Yahshua. As the most recent of the twelve Olympian gods, Dionysius represented change: a new and different relationship with the gods. And unlike the vengeful gods of old, Dionysius was fun, even forgiving—foreshadowing the Christian distinction between Yahweh and Yahshua.

Dionysius was an "epiphany – the manifestation of god who suddenly arrived on the scene." His appearance was said to illuminate his followers and change the meaning and essential nature of what had come before—in perfect harmony with Pauline Doctrine. Even today, January 6^th is observed as the Epiphany, commemorating the Magi, or Gentile recognition of the arrival and appearance of God in keeping with the Dionysian Mysteries. And considering Paul’s affinity for being both the Messiyah’s messenger, and being a divine example to be emulated, Dionysus’s constant companion was Hermes—the messenger of the gods.

Just as Yahshua’s blood is represented by wine, Dionysius was the god of wine. Just as Yahshua had a divine father (Yahweh) and a mortal virgin mother (Mary), Dionysius had a divine father (Zeus (the father of the gods)) and mortal virgin mother (Semele). Just as Yahshua’s Heavenly Father told Joseph to carry the newborn child to Egypt, as soon as Dionysus was born, Zeus carried him away to Egypt to protect him from the envy of rival gods. Just as with Yahshua, by his death and resurrection, Dionysius was responsible for liberating his believers and thereby providing the faithful with eternal salvation, in complete harmony with being saved by way of faith in Paul’s Gospel.

Dionysius was not only killed and then resurrected each spring; his holy week mirrors the week-long Christian observance of Easter. The annual resurrection of Dionysius on the Sunday closest to the Vernal Equinox, celebrated the promise of resurrection from the dead. As such, Dionysius, and thus Bacchus, was known as the "Eleutherios – Liberator," mirroring the central thrust of Pauline Doctrine where "believers are freed from being slaves to the Law." In fact the mission of Dionysus was to bring an end to burdens and worries. According to Greek mythology, Dionysus was the first to open up communication between the living and the dead, paving the way for prayers to Mary and the Christian saints. Even the Roman Catholic Eucharist myth of transubstantiation, where priests turn wine into blood, was first practiced in the Dionysian religion.

Dionysus was a hermaphrodite, blurring the lines between male and female, and thus contributed to the corruption of Yahweh’s symbols of father and mother, husband and wife. And he was sexually confused, as was Sha’uwl.

Known as the god who inspired religious rituals, Dionysius’ holy week was celebrated over the course of five days each Spring. And it was the Dionysia which set the stage for the Christian replacement of Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits, with Palm Sunday ("Passion Sunday"), Maundy Thursday ("institution of Communion"), Good Friday ("death and burial of Jesus Christ"), Holy Saturday (where "Jesus rested in the grave"), and Easter Sunday occurring during the last week of the Babylonian festival of Lent.

Just as the Christian "Jesus Christ" is bereft of his Jewish heritage, Dionysus was an alien among the gods—distanced from his Olympian birth. And consistent with the Lord Ba’al manifestation of Satan, the bull, satyrs, and the serpent became the enduring symbols of the Dionysian religion. He is often shown as a mighty hunter, wearing leopard skin, and standing in a chariot drawn by black panthers—all of which is symbolic of Nimrod, the father of the Babylonian religion. The thyrsus staff he is often depicted holding, is distinguished by the adornment of a large pinecone—a phallic symbol representing "coming forth from the seed," and thereby foreshadowing Paul’s animosity to circumcision and his devotion to the seed of Abraham. By way of this "seed" the uninitiated were miraculously purified and enabled to dwell with the gods so long as they believed the words of his messengers.

Especially troubling, considering Sha’uwl’s affinity of the Greek Charis and Roman Gratia, Dionysus was their father. They were the "love children" of his affair with Aphrodite—the goddess of love.

Two-hundred and fifty years before Sha’uwl associated Dionysus’ testimony with his conversion experience, Greeks living in what is now southern Italy, as born-again maenads, began celebrating the Bacchanalia, a drunken festival replete with grotesque debaucheries in which the faithful rebelled against the law, foreshadowing the Catholic celebration of Mardi Gras.

Unfortunately, as horrible as this has been, our mission to uncover Sha’uwl’s dark side has just begun. There is more to the Dionysus line than first meets the eye. Turns out, Satan used it to tell Sha’uwl that he would not be able to rebel against him—and that the Adversary had a way of controlling him. Paul’s ego would be his vulnerability, and demon possession would be the implement.

But before I document the connection between the "sharp pointed prod" that Paul’s messenger of light said was hard to rebel against, and the "sharp pointed prod" that Paul said "a messenger of Satan tormented him with, in order to control him, I want you to contemplate the context of the second confession. It begins in the twelfth chapter of Second Corinthians. It is almost as troubling as the admission of being demon possessed.

Only Satan and egomaniacs would say: "Bragging (kauchaomai – boasting, pronounced pride, and glorifying oneself) is necessary (dei – beneficial and proper, compulsory and required), not (ou) burdensome (sumphero – from sun, meaning with and together, and phero, to carry, bear, uphold, and bring a burden)." (2 Corinthians 12:1) This attitude is what got Satan thrown out of heaven. And it is the attitude he hopes the rest of us will adopt so that we share his fate.

Based upon its component parts, the verb sumphero, rendered "burdensome," could also be translated "bring together." It should not be rendered positively in the sense of "good, beneficial, or advantageous" apart from its use in a clause including ina, which denotes a "purpose, goal, or reason" for "bringing together" or "bearing a burden." And in the sense of "bringing together," the negation of "ou – not" is akin to saying that "Glorifying oneself is necessary, but not reconciling."

Everything we have learned about Sha’uwl suggests that he used kuriou as a title for his "lord, ruler, owner, and master," so I have rendered it that way: "But (de) indeed (men) I will go there (erchomai – will exist that way and move in that direction), to (eis) the Lord’s (kuriou – the supreme authority, the ruler, owner, and master’s) supernatural visions (optasia – the acts of exhibiting himself and being seen) and (kai) revelations (apokalypsis – disclosures in which he is unveiled)." (2 Corinthians 12:1) And indeed, he did. In the seventh and eighth verses, Sha’uwl reveals that he was controlled by one of Satan’s demons—one which his Lord would not remove.

In that this passage is condemning in the extreme, we will also consider the Christian spin of Sha’uwl’s stunning confessions. Here is what was scribed in the King James Authorized Version: "It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord." Francis Bacon, the egotistical occultist and humanist who guided the publication of the King James Bible on behalf of his pontiff, purposefully deceived Christians with this rendering. Turns out it was an inaccurate paraphrase of the Latin Vulgate: "If I must glory (it is not expedient indeed) but I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord."

Always ready to put lipstick on their favorite swine, the authors of the New Living Translation published: "This boasting will do no good, but I must go on. I will reluctantly tell about visions and revelations from the Lord."

The ego required to write about one’s self in this way is unfathomable. "I am aware of (oida) a man (anthropos) in (en) Christo (Christo – to apply a drug), fourteen years earlier (dekatessares eton apo), if (eite) in (en) body or reality (soma – physically) I can’t be sure (ouk oida – don’t really know what I saw or what happened), if (eite) outside (ektos – out of and beyond) the body (soma – physical reality) I don’t really know (ouk oida – do not remember or understand), God (theos) is aware (oida – remembers), [I] was violently seized and forcibly snatched away (harpazo – attacked, possessed, spoiled, and secretly controlled) in this manner (toiouton) until (hoes) the third (tritou) heaven (ouranos)." (2 Corinthians 12:2)

This all reminds me of Muhammad’s "I cannot say for sure. Allah knows best." And along those lines, the Islamic Hadith and Qur’an also speak of multiple heavens. According to the Islamic scriptures, Adam, men with camel lips and rocks emerging from their mouths and behinds, and tortured women hanging from their breasts, lived adjoining the first heaven—along with a damsel with red lips who pleased Muhammad much. Issa (the Qur’anic  "Jesus") and Yahya (the Qur’anic "John") were relegated to the second heaven. Rising above Yahshua and Yahuchanan in Allah’s third heaven, Sha’uwl would have met "Joseph." Climbing the prophetic ladder, Sha’uwl would have encountered Enoch and then Aaron in the fourth and fifth heavens. According to Muhammad, the sixth heaven was occupied by the man whose Torah Sha’uwl will renounce: Moses. Then in the seventh heaven, we find the Pen, Allah’s House, angels performing prostration prayers, a tree whose fruit resembled clay jugs, and the headwaters of the Euphrates and Nile Rivers. Muhammad’s myths were more imaginative than Paul’s.

So that you know, the required definite article for "the Messiyah" was not extant in the Greek, and the evidence suggests that Sha’uwl would not have used a title which identified Yahshua with Yahweh as "Messiyah – the Implement of Yah" does. After all, severing this association was the purpose of Paul’s epistles. It is also why I have rendered kuriou "Lord" because Satan is obviously the spirit behind this mythical journey.

Having invested six years of my life to studying everything which is known about Muhammad and his formation of Islam, I realize that he made the same pronouncement, albeit, his claim to have flown upon a winged ass was more colorful. Even Muhammad’s initial confrontation with Satan’s envoy in the cave was described identically to harpazo. Muhammad said that he was "forcibly and violently seized by the spirit," that it "attacked and controlled him," and that it "possessed" him. The only difference is that Muhammad went from the "third heaven" to the "seventh heaven," where he met Allah, who told him that he wanted to be "mooned," 50 times a day, with repeated religious prostrations. (These parallel stories are revealed in the "With Whom Am I Speaking" and "Delusions of Grandeur" chapters of Prophet of Doom.)

Also interesting, by dating this celestial excursion to fourteen years earlier, while his math is wrong, Sha’uwl was trying to associate this mythical journey to the third heaven with his pretend trip to Arabia. It is yet another comparison between Sha’uwl and Muhammad. Allah’s messenger flew from Arabia to Jerusalem to visit with "Issa/Jesus" in the nonexistent temple, prior to heading off to heaven.

It is interesting here that Yahweh’s description of the Taruw’ah Harvest of souls known to Christians as "the rapture" (from Matthew 24:40), is transcribed using the Greek word paralambano, which means "to receive at an appointed time, to welcome and accept, to gather individuals, bringing them together, and joining with them." It is from para, meaning "with, beside, and near, speaking of proximity and association," and lambano, "to take someone by the hand, to remove them, and to carry them away." But speaking of this same event, Sha’uwl used harpazo (in 1 Thessalonians 4:17), which speaks of being "seized and violently snatched away." Harpazo means "to attack, to gain control over, to possess, to physically harass and injure, to carry away by force, to spoil, and to secretly steal, plunder, and loot." The verbs paralambano and harpazo describe the difference between how the Spirit of Light and the spirit of darkness operate.

Once again, the KJV: "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven" copied the LV: "I know a man in Christ: above fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I know not, or out of the body, I know not: God knoweth), such a one caught up to the third heaven." NLT: "I was caught up to the third heaven fourteen years ago. Whether I was in my body or out of my body, I don’t know—only God knows." Even the "I don’t know—only God knows" is reminiscent of the Islamic Hadith, where the line is repeated countless times. It is also telling that none of these translations were willing to properly translate harpazo, for fear of exposing their prophet’s inspiration.

The repeated "if in reality or not" and "I don’t really know" tells us that in reality, none of this happened. "And (kai) I am aware of (oida – was familiar with) such kind of (toioutos) man (anthropos) if (eite) in (en) body or reality (soma – actuality or physically), or if (eite) without and apart from (choris – separate from) the body (soma) or not (ouk), I don’t really know (oida – do not recall), God (theos) is aware (oida – remembers), because (hoti) he was violently attacked, seized control of, possessed, and forcibly snatched away (harpazo) to (eis) paradise (paradeisos). And (kai) he heard (akouo) the antithesis of the word (arrhetos – that which cannot be spoken and must not be expressed; from a, meaning negation, not, and naught, and rhema, word) words (rhema) which (hos) cannot (ouk) possibly (exesti – it is not permissible or lawful) to be spoken (laleo) [by] man (anthropos)." (2 Corinthians 12:3-4) If we are to believe him, Satan, who is the antithesis of the Word, possessed Sha’uwl and forcibly took him to his favorite place—where the Word is not known and cannot be spoken.

Not recognizing that an "unspeakable word" is an oxymoron, and not realizing that Yahshua is the Word, and thus the place Paul went is the opposite of paradise, the KJV wrote: "And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter." LV: "And I know such a man (whether in the body, or out of the body, I know not: God knoweth): That he was caught up into paradise and heard secret words which it is not granted to man to utter." There is nothing "secret" about arrhetos. It is simply "the negation of rhetoric," which speaks of "the nullification of effective communication." It is the antithesis of "studying persuasive written texts" such as the Torah." NLT: "Yes, only God knows whether I was in my body or outside my body. But I do know that I was caught up to paradise and heard things so astounding that they cannot be expressed in words, things no human is allowed to tell." They all missed the point: Satan took Sha’uwl to the place where the Word does not exist, and where its benefit has been nullified. It is the same place Paul has taken Christians.

This has been a gut-wrenching journey to a place more horrible than I could have imagined. All I can hope for at this point is to keep as many souls as possible from following Sha’uwl to Satan’s Abyss.

"For the sake of (hyper) such a thing as this (toioutos – this sort of thing), I will brag (kauchaomai – boast, glorifying myself), but (de) not (ou) boasting (kauchaomai) for the sake of (hyper) myself (emautou), if (ei) not (me) in (en) illness, impotence, and incapacity (astheneia – weakness, sickness, disease, and timidity)." (2 Corinthians 12:5) We are on the cusp of discovering what incapacitated Paul’s ability to glorify himself, and learn what made him ill.

KJV: "Of such an one will I glory: yet of myself I will not glory, but in mine infirmities."  LV: "For though I should have a mind to glory, I shall not be foolish: for I will say the truth. But I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth in me, or any thing he heareth from me." NLT: "That experience is worth boasting about, but I‘m not going to do it. I will boast only about my weaknesses."

"For (gar) if (ean) I wanted (thelo – and decided) to brag (dauchaomai – boast and glorify myself) based upon what has happened (aletheia – truthfully), it would not be (ouk esomai) inappropriate or unjustified (aphron – without reason). So then (gar) I will say (ero) I will abstain (pheidomai – avoid this). But (de) someone (tis) [who is] not (un) me (eme) might logically think (logizomai – use their mind and reason to calculated and conclude) beyond (hyper – over and above and because of) this (o). He will see and understand (blepo – he will look at, consider, discern the nature of, actually face, and beware of) me (me), or (e) he will listen to (akouo – pay attention, receive the news) something (ti) from (ek) me (emou), continuing (kai) the extraordinary (hyperbole – extreme, abundant, exceedingly excellent, and excessive) exposure and disclosure (apokalypsis – revelation of the truth, unveiling and baring of the true nature). Therefore (dio) in order that (hina) I not become overly conceited (me hyperairomai – not lift myself up, exalting myself, becoming excessively arrogant), I (moi) was given (didomi – offered, granted, assigned, bestowed, and furnished) a sharp pointed prod (skolops – a troublesome, injurious, irritating, and painful sharp stick, a stake, splinter, thorn, or scorpion’s stinger) [in] the flesh (sarx – physical body and human nature), [by] Satan’s (Satanas – the Adversary’s) spiritual representative (aggelos – supernatural envoy and messenger), in order that (hina) he would strike and torment (kolaphizo – beat and violently punish, correct, chastise, restrain, afflict, and prune) me (ego) in order that (ina) I not become overly conceited (me hyperairomai – not lift myself up, exalting myself, becoming excessively arrogant)." (2 Corinthians 12:6-7)

"Skolops – a sharp pointed stick used as a prod, a stinger, and a scorpion" is clearly associated with Paul’s use of "kentron – a sharp pointed stick used to prod animals and control them, the poisonous stinger of a scorpion" in Acts 26:14, where Paul says that he was told by Dionysus, in the guise of "Jesus," that it would be hard to rebel against him. And that means that Acts 26:14, which describes Paul’s meeting with the flashing light on the road to Damascus where he was told that he could not repel, and Second Corinthians 12:7, which describes the way Satan possessed and controlled Paul, are related. The common denominator is a false god and a wannabe god—Satan.

Since this passage is so incredibly incriminating, you might be interested to know that Greek words which are related to "skolops – a sharp pointed prod," include skopeo: "something dangerous to be on the lookout out for, to notice by being carefully observant, and to be very concerned about." Skopos: "a goal toward witch someone is being directed, striving for a specific purpose." Skorpizo: "to scatter, disperse, and separate." Skorpois: "a supernatural demonic power and stinging scorpion." Skotia: "a dark and evil realm." Skotos: "the abode of evil and demonic spirits." And skolios: "to be unscrupulous and morally corrupt, to be perverse and deceitful, and to warp a path making what was once straight crooked."

Here are the Christian interpretations of 2 Corinthians 12:6-7 for your consideration. KJV: "For though I would desire to glory, I shall not be a fool; for I will say the truth: but now I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth me to be, or that he heareth of me. And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure." LV: "For though I should have a mind to glory, I shall not be foolish: for I will say the truth. But I forbear, lest any man should think of me above that which he seeth in me, or any thing he heareth from me. And lest the greatness of the revelations should exalt me, there was given me a sting of my flesh, an angel of Satanae/Satan, to buffet me." NLT: "If I wanted to boast, I would be no fool in doing so, because I would be telling the truth. But I won‘t do it, because I don‘t want anyone to give me credit beyond what they can see in my life or hear in my message, even though I have received such wonderful revelations from God. So to keep me from becoming proud, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger from Satan to torment me and keep me from becoming proud." The most influential Catholic translation, the "Authorized" Protestant translation, and the most recent Evangelical translation, all say that "a messenger from Satan" was used to control Paul. And yet not one Christian in a million associates Paul’s "thorn in the flesh" with Satan, or with demon possession. Their religion has blinded them.

Demon possession is yet another thing Paul and Muhammad had in common. Describing the vicious bout with Satan in a cave outside Mecca, Muhammad’s Hadith report: "The commencement of divine inspiration to Allah’s Messenger was in the form of dreams that came true like a bright light. The prophet loved the seclusion of a cave near Hira. The angel came to him and asked him to read. The Prophet replied, ‘I do not know how to read.’ Then the angel caught me forcefully and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any more....Then the Apostle returned from that experience; the muscles between his neck and shoulders were trembling, and his heart was beating severely. He went to Khadija and cried: "Cover me! Cover me!’ She did until his fear subsided. He said, "What’s wrong with me? I am afraid that something terrible has happened to me." (Bukhari’s Hadith: Volume 1, Book 1, Number 3 & Volume 6, Book 60, Number 478)

"The truth came upon him while he was in a cave. The first form of revelation was a true vision in sleep. He did not see any vision but it came like the break of dawn." "The Prophet said, I had been standing, but fell to my knees and crawled away, my shoulders trembling. When the terror had left me, he came to me and said, ‘You are the Messenger of Allah." Muhammad said, ‘I had been thinking of hurling myself off a mountain cliff... I feared for my life.’" (Tabari’s History: Volume 1, page 67) 

"Aisha said that when Allah desired to honor Muhammad, the first sign of prophethood was a vision of brightness of day shown to him." "He stayed seeing and hearing things as long as it pleased Allah. Then Gabriel came to him with the gift of Allah’s Grace." (Ishaq’s Sira: page 105)

"He pressed me so tightly that I was near death. When I thought that I was nearly dead, he said: ‘Read in the name of your Lord who created man of coagulated blood. Read! Your Gracious Lord taught by the pen.’" "I remained gazing at him and that distracted me from committing suicide. I could not move. Khadija sent her messengers in search of me and they gained the high ground above Mecca so I came to her and sat by her thigh. I said, ‘Woe is me. I am possessed.’ ‘I’m afraid I’m going out of my mind and being possessed by an evil spirit.’" (Ishaq’s Sira: page 106)

"In the beginning of the Messenger’s prophetic mission he used to spend a month every year in religious retreat on Hira. This was part of the practice of Tahannuth in which the Quraysh used to engage during the Jahiliyyah [period of ignorance before Muhammad’s recitals]. Tahannuth means self-justification." (Tabari’s History: Volume 1, page 70)

Then, at the end of his life we find: "Aisha, the wife of Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him), reported: ‘Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) left my apartment during the night. Then he came and he saw me in an agitated state. He said: "Aisha, what has happened to you? Do you feel jealous?" I said: "How can it be that a girl like me would not feel jealous in regard to a husband like you?" Thereupon Allah’s Messenger said: "It is your devil who has come to you." I said: "Allah’s Messenger, is there a devil with me?" He said: "Yes." I said: "Is there a devil attached to everyone?" He said: "Yes." I said: "Allah’s Messenger, is there a devil attached to you also?" He said: "Yes. But my Lord has helped me against my devil and as such I am absolutely safe from his mischief."’" (Muslim’s Hadith Chapter 14, Book 39, Number 6759)

And by way of confirmation: "Allah’s Messenger said: ‘There is none amongst you with whom is not an attaché from amongst the jinn, a devil.’ The Companions said: ‘Allah’s Messenger, is there a devil with you too.’ Thereupon he said: ‘Yes, but Allah helps me against him so I am safe from his hand and he does not command me but for good.’" (Muslim’s Hadith Chapter 14, Book 39, Number 6757)

Returning to Satan’s prototype for Muhammad, Sha’uwl said: "Because of (hyper) this (toutou), three time (tris) I begged (parakaleo – pleaded with and urged) the (ton) Lord (kurion – Master and Owner) in order that (hina) it be removed (aphistemi – be withdrawn and separated, exorcised and alienated, go away and keep away; from apo, meaning separated from, and histemi, being able to stand upright) from (apo) me (emou)." (2 Corinthians 12:8)

Just as arrhetos was the "negation of the Word," aphistemi is the antithesis of Yahshua’s purpose: "to stand up for us so that we might stand with Him." Therefore, to be aphistemi is to be separated from God’s purpose.

Speaking of his most attractive pagan goddesses, Paul’s Lord said: "And (kai) he has said (rheo), ‘My (moi) Charis-Charity/Gratia-Grace (charis) is sufficient and satisfies (arkeo – possesses and guards) you (soi). For (gar) my (mou) supernatural power (dunamis) is fulfilled and obeyed (teleo – and brought to fruition and corresponds) in (en) weakness, disease, impotence, and incapacity (astheneia – illness, sickness, and timidity).’" (2 Corinthians 12:9) Satan’s will and power is fulfilled and obeyed in our weakness. He probes for a flaw, and then he capitalizes. Paul’s mortal stigma was ego; his weakness was insecurity. Satan simply harnessed his hatred for Yahweh, the Torah, and God’s Chosen People.

Translating Jerome’s Latin, the King James Bible wrote: "For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness." LV: "For which thing, thrice I besought the Lord that it might depart from me. And he said to me: My gratia/grace is sufficient for thee: for power is made perfect in infirmity." NLT: "Three different times I begged the Lord to take it away. Each time he said, ‘My grace is all you need. My power works best in weakness.’"

Considering what Sha’uwl has just written regarding his vision in his letter to the Corinthians, and his demonic associations, Yahweh’s perspective is in order. He said: "If a prophet arises among you and stands in your midst, or a dreamer of dreams (halam halowm – a visionary who sees revelations), and gives a sign or a wonder, and if that sign or wonder comes to be, if he speaks to you saying follow after other gods whom you have not known (yada’), saying let’s serve them, do not listen to the prophet’s words (dabar – and message), or to those of the dreamer of dreams. Indeed this is a test, a means to measure and prove (nasah) whether or not it can be affirmed that you know (yada’) and love (‘ahab – enjoy an affectionate, familial relationship with) Yahuweh, your God with all your heart, and with all your soul." (Deuteronomy 13:1-3)

"Without hesitation, you all should walk (halak) with (‘eth) Yahuweh your God, respecting and revering (yare’) Him. Keep and be secure in (samar – carefully observe and highly regard) His authoritative directions (miswah – His prescriptions for living). Listen to (sama’) His voice (qowl). Serve (‘abad) with (‘eth) Him. And to (ba – by, alongside, and in) Him be associated and cling (dabaq – stay close and be joined, be united and cleave)." (Deuteronomy 13:4)

"But that prophet who dreams that dream (halam halowm – the visionary who reveals that revelation), he shall be put to death (muwt) because (ky) he has spoken words of (dabar – communicating and urging) rebellion (sarah – revolt and hostility which is a crime, withdrawal and turning aside) against (‘al / ‘el – and before the Most High), Yahuweh, your God, who led you out (yasa’ – freed you) from (min) the realm (‘erets – land) of the crucible of Egypt (misraym), your Redeemer who ransomed, rescued, and delivered you (padah – paid for your freedom from ownership and captivity) from the house (bayith) of bondage (‘ebed – slavery and work), for (la) seducing and scattering (nadah – for enticing and causing you to stray) from (min) the (ha) Way (derek – the path) which relationally (‘asher) Yahuweh your God instructed and directed (sawah – appointed and ordained) for you to walk (halak) in (ba). Purge (ba’ar – remove and rid, destroying by burning) this evil (ra’ – disagreeable and malignant, displeasing and unpleasant, adversarial and injurious, miserable person and message) from (min) your midst (qereb)." (Deuteronomy 13:5-6)

That was pertinent to Paul. It was sage advice.

While I’m normally opposed to using English translations for any purpose other than to incriminate them, the New Living Translation does such a wonderful job of incriminating Paul, that I thought I’d share it with you.

"You have made me act like a fool—boasting like this. You ought to be writing commendations for me, for I am not at all inferior to these ‘super apostles,’ even though I am nothing at all. When I was with you, I certainly gave you proof that I am an apostle. For I patiently did many signs and wonders and miracles among you. The only thing I failed to do, which I do in the other churches, was to become a financial burden to you. Please forgive me for this wrong!" (2 Corinthians 12:11-13)

"Some of you admit I was not a burden to you. But others still think I was sneaky and took advantage of you by trickery. But how? Did any of the men I sent to you take advantage of you? When I urged Titus to visit you and sent our other brother with him, did Titus take advantage of you? No! For we have the same spirit and walk in each other’s steps, doing things the same way. Perhaps you think we’re saying these things just to defend ourselves." (2 Corinthians 12:16-19)

Since we have been comparing Sha’uwl and Muhammad, detailing the similar nature of their conversion experiences and challenges with demon possession, I thought I’d share a few more interesting comparisons.

Just like Muhammad, Sha’uwl was a sexist. In his world, men would lord over women: "But (de), I want and propose to (thelo – desire, hold the opinion, take pleasure and delight in, and intend to impose upon) you (umas) to be aware (oida – to realize and remember) that (oti) every (pas) man (andros – adult male) is of preeminent and superior status as head (kephale – uppermost). The Messiyah exists as (estin) the head, and thus is superior to (kephale – hold preeminent status). But (de) [with] woman (gunaikos), man (aner) is of preeminent and superior status as the head (kephale – uppermost), and then (de) of the (tou) Messiyah God (theos)." (1 Corinthians 11:3)

Just like Muhammad, Sha’uwl wanted women veiled and out of sight: "In (en) you (umin – plural second person, dative (speaking of indirect objects for whom something is done) these things (autois – plural masculine dative) exist which are (estin) fitting, proper, and appropriate (prepei): Separate and judge (krino –evaluate) a woman (gunaika) who is uncovered (akatakalyptos – unveiled, literally not hidden by a veil) praying (proseuchomai) to God (theo)." (1 Corinthians 11:13)

Just as in Muhammad’s world, Sha’uwl demeaned women and wanted men to lord over them. So he wrote: "The (ai) woman (guvaikes) [to her] own individual (idios) man (andrasin – adult male) like (os – as) the Lord (kurio – master, owner, ruler, and supreme authority)." (Ephesians 5:22)

Just as Muhammad created a religion named "Islam – Submission," Sha’uwl served his Lord by demanding submission: "To the contrary (alla), just as (os) the called-out assembly (ekklesia) is submissive to and controlled by (hypotassomai – is subordinate, submits and obeys, is brought under firm control, is yoked and subdued, is subjugated and placed in submission under) the Messiyah in this way (houto). And the woman (gunaikes) to the (tois) man (andrasin) in (en) everything (pas)." (Ephesians 5:24)

Hypotassomai is a compound of hupo, meaning "under," and tasso, "an assigned and orderly arrangement." It is the antithesis of freewill. And it should be noted that the "malak/aggelos – spiritual messengers" known as "angels" or "demons" based upon their allegiance, are "saba’ – arranged as conscripts in a command and control regimen in which they are required to fall in line and submit." Sha’uwl, on behalf of Satan, wants to completely control mankind, raping humans of their freewill, so that they will suffer his fate. It is a destiny far worse than returning to bondage in the crucible of Egypt.

Beyond what Shim’own had to say about Sha’uwl’s letters, there are additional ways to ascertain the merits of his epistles. One such clue would be to examine the writing quality. For that, I present Exhibit A: Galatians 2:14. But before we ponder this incomprehensible verse, please note that Papyrus 46, dated to as early as 85CE, and no later than 125CE, omits "kai ouchi zao Ioudaikos," from the end of this passage. Translated, the nonexistent phrase means "and do not live Yahuwdym."

So, with the scribal additions in brackets, along with the omitted words, Sha’uwl evidently recited: "Nevertheless (alla), when (hote) I saw (horao – perceived as a result of seeing with my own eyes) that (hoti) [they] were not (ou) walking upright (orthopodeo – in the straight path) with (pros) the (o) truth (aletheia – that which is in accord with what really happened) of the healing and beneficial message (euangelion), I said (eipon) [to] Kephas in front of (emprosthen) all (pas): ‘If (ei) you (sy) Yahuwdym (Ioudaios – Jews) become (hyparcho – live and exist) like the nations (ethnikos – adapt to the customs of foreigners) [and (kai) do not (ouchi) live (zao) [like] Yahuwdym (Ioudaikos – according to Jewish customs)], how (pos – in what way) [do you] necessitate by compulsion (anagkazo – compel and force) the nations (ethnos – people from different places and races) to live as [a] Yahuwdym (Ioudaizo – to adopt and conform to Jewish customs)?’" (Galatians 2:14)

Literally, then the question Paul posed reads: "If you Yahuwdym become like the nations, how necessitate by compulsion the nations to live as Yahuwdym?"

While poorly written by any standard, the first half of this is reasonably clear. Sha’uwl, whose message was the antithesis of Yahweh’s Word, thought that Shim’own’s actions were inconsistent with the "truth of the beneficial message" he was professing. And I suppose that the reason he didn’t explain why he felt "the Rock" was wrong for leaving, is that it actually would have made Shim’own look good.

For the record, Shim’own would have been in violation of Rabbinical Law for sharing a meal with Gentiles, and in compliance with it when he left. Since nothing else was mentioned, any other conclusion would be speculation. The menu wasn’t described. All that we know is that the participants were mixed with regard to their ethnicity.

The second half of the verse makes no sense—with or without the omitted clause. Yahweh does not want Yahuwdym to adopt the cultures and traditions of the Gentile nations, ostensibly because they are pagan. But by the same token, Yahshua made it clear that the societal customs and traditions of the Jews were errant, hypocritical, and even Satanic. Further, freewill and choice are sacrosanct, and thus compulsion is abhorrent to Yahweh, as is any form of oppression or submission. Therefore, this is pointless, irrelevant at best, and likely errant.

While the Talmud, Oral Law, and Rabbinical traditions are Jewish customs, and unworthy of our attention, the Torah isn’t comprised of Jewish law, or Jewish traditions. The Torah is Yahweh’s instructions for living in this world and in the next. So since Jewish customs and traditions are inconsistent with the truth of the healing message, why would Sha’uwl want Shim’own to force people to submit to them?

In this regard, Yahshua, not Sha’uwl, provided a compelling example of how the Pharisees, the ultra-religious Jews who were devoted to their traditions and Oral Law, imposed their ill-conceived rules on Yahweh’s children. "He said to them, ‘You have a finely-crafted way (kalos) to reject and invalidate (atheteo – to nullify and dispute the validity of) the commandment (entole – and precept) of Yahuweh (ΘΥ) in order to (hina) establish (histamai – maintain and uphold) your (sy) tradition (paradosis – handed down teachings, or oral law). For Moseh (Mouses) said, "Recognize and respect (timao – highly value, honor, and revere) your Father (ΠΡΑ) and your Mother (MTA)," and, "He will be separated and die (thanatos – experience the separation of the mortal soul from the body), ceasing to exist (teleutao – being finished), who reviles and denounces (kakologeo – who insults, abuses, demeans, slanders, and speaks evil of) our Heavenly Father (ΠΡΑ) or Spiritual Mother (MTA)."’" (Mark 7:9-10)

While I shared this with you to demonstrate that Yahshua recognized that Rabbinical Law was inconsistent with the Torah, and thus destructive, I don’t want you to miss the fact that Father and Mother were represented by Divine Placeholders, affirming that they represent our Heavenly Father and our Spiritual Mother. After all, the one unforgivable sin in the Covenant Scriptures is to insult and demean Yahweh, our Heavenly Father, and the one unforgivable sin in the Renewed Covenant is to insult and demean the Set-Apart Spirit, our Spiritual Mother. That is what Yahshua is inferring here.

In this regard, kokologeo is especially telling. Comprised of kakos and logos, it speaks of "those whose words convey a bad attitude because they view things from the wrong perspective, as their mode of thinking is errant, and thus their speech is troublesome, injurious, pernicious, and destructive."

The Messiyah’s teaching with regard to the Rabbinical law continued with: "‘But you say (lego – attest and imply), "If a man tells his father or mother, ‘Whatever benefit and assistance (opheleo – advantageous help and assistance, even profit) you would have received (doron – from an offering, gift, present, or contribution) from me is Korban (korban – a Hebrew word designating a gift offering used to approach and come near God),"’ you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother, invalidating the authority of (akyroo – nullifying and voiding) the Word (Logos) of Yahuweh (ΘΥ) by your tradition (paradosis – teachings or oral law) which is handed down as if it were an authorized instruction (paradidomi – delivered verbally into your custody as something to be observed, and yet condemns). And you do (poieomai – perform and profit from) a great many very similar things such as this (toioutos – which closely resemble this example, and yet provoke and irritate).’" (Mark 7:11-13)

What’s happening here is that the Rabbis had devised a "wealth preservation" scheme that according to their oral law, allowed religious Jews to shirk their family responsibilities, in direct defiance of the spirit of the Torah. And that is why Yahweh said through the prophet Hosea: "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being priests for Me; because you have forgotten the Towrah of your God, I also will forget your children." (Hosea 4:6) Rather than nailing Martin Luther’s thesis against indulgences on the doors of a Catholic cathedral, affixing Yahweh’s testimony to the door of every Christian church might actually open some eyes.

So returning to Sha’uwl’s somewhat unintelligible diatribe about religious Jews acting like Gentiles and compelling Gentiles to act like religious Jews, the only possible sense I can make of this is to think that the presence of a Jew immersed in Rabbinical traditions made Shim’own feel uncomfortable, so he left the meal rather than confront him. Then, Sha’uwl, wanting everyone to know that Judaism, and its Rabbinical Laws were inconsistent with Yahshua’s healing message, was disappointed by the Rock’s failure to make this distinction. Albeit, the odds of any of that being Paul’s intent is extremely remote.

But if we were to let our imaginations run wild, we might assume then perhaps, that Sha’uwl was also trying to say that Jews, especially those who had become followers of The Way, shouldn’t emulate Gentile customs nor compel anyone to adhere to the Oral Law. Perhaps then the problem lies in the writing quality itself, where we are compelled to add words to make sense of the letter, but not with the thoughts Sha’uwl was trying to convey. Okay, so that was a stretch.

Either way, regarding Galatians 2:14, the KJV conveys: "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" And Jerome wrote in his Latin Vulgate: "But when I had seen that they were not walking correctly, by the truth of the evangelii, I said to Cephas in front of everyone: "If you, while you are a Jew, are living like the Gentiles and not the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to keep the customs of the Iudaizare?" While the NLT reads even more smoothly, it is a flight of fancy: "When I saw that they were not following the truth of the gospel message, I said to Peter in front of all the others, "Since you, a Jew by birth, have discarded the Jewish laws and are living like a Gentile, why are you now trying to make these Gentiles follow the Jewish traditions?"

At this point, we leave the chastisement and reenter the realm of Renewed Covenant affirmations. "We (emeis) are (ontes) natural (physis) Yahuwdym (Ioudaios – Jews) and (kai) not (ou) from (ek) the sinful (hamartolos – those who are disinherited and who wander away from the path in error, missing the way) nations (ethnos – races)." (Galatians 2:15) This not only makes sense, it’s consistent with the whole of Scripture—at least removed from the context of what preceded it.

Yahweh doesn’t want His children to emulate the sinful ways of the nations, so this verse in this context, by affirming this, seems to be suggesting that it is appropriate to follow Jewish traditions, and it’s not. The reason that I found it to be accurate, at least as a standalone statement, is that Yahuwdym are naturalized members of Yahweh’s family, whereas Gowym are adopted sons and daughters.

But while the Greek was sensible, the English in the KJV is not: "We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles," LV: "By nature, we are Iudæi, and not of the Gentibus, sinners." NLT: "‘You and I are Jews by birth, not "sinners" like the Gentiles.’"

While that was as clear as mud, it was better than Paul throwing mud.