Chapter 9

Douleia

Bondage

Christianity: Bound to Paul...

Sha’uwl’s next statement restores the "Law" to the status of public enemy number one. And while there would normally be four equally valid alternatives, Natural Law, Roman Law, Rabbinic Law, or the Torah, known as Mosaic Law, any hope of relegating this assault to the first three candidates will soon evaporate. Sha’uwl is within four verses of his crescendo—the ultimate objective of Pauline Doctrine. We are on the cusp of witnessing the most vulgar words ever spoken in the name of God.

"Speak to (lego) me (ego) [those who] desire (thelo – choose, enjoy, and want) to be (eimi) under the auspices of (hupo – subject and submissive to) [the] Law (nomon – natural law, Roman law, Rabbinic Law, or the Torah). The (ton) Law (nomon – the Torah) cannot hear (ouk akouo – does not listen)." (Galatians 4:21)

The verb akouo, translated "hear," was rendered in the second person plural (you all or all of you), present (the action is current and ongoing) active (the subject, or Law, is performing the action) indicative (the author is indicating this situation is real). So in conjunction with ouk, the last sentence is a combination of: "The Law you all really cannot hear," and "The Law cannot actually hear you."

If Paul were writing for God, he would not have said "speak to me." Nor would he have begun by saying: "the Law cannot hear." He would have written "Listen to Yahweh." More importantly, he would have told his audience that they can hear God’s voice by reading the Torah. The purpose of Yahweh’s Word isn’t to "hear us," but instead, the Torah exists so that we can listen to God. Paul has this all wrong.

Even if Paul were writing about Rabbinical Law, his approach would still be wrong. The problem with the Oral Law is that it differs from the Torah. But thus far, there hasn’t been any instruction from Paul in this regard. The former Pharisee has not yet once delineated the differences between Yahweh’s Torah and man’s traditions.

So, the problem is much deeper than the deplorable writing quality. Affirming this, the Nestle-Aland reads: "Say to me the under law wanting to be the law not you hear." Jerome obviously recognized that it was childish to say "the Law cannot hear," so he ignored what Paul wrote, hoping not to destroy the wannabe apostle’s credibility. The Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate therefore says: "Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, have you not read the law?"

The Authorized, and thus official Protestant version of the "New Testament" proposed this unique spin in the King James: "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?"

Unable to improve on the KJV’s corruption, the English Standard Version copied it : "Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law?" The "literal" New American Standard Bible could do no better, also claiming Paul wrote: " Tell me, you who want to be under law, do you not listen to the law?"

So when all hope of understanding is lost, we can always turn to the New Living Translation for a novel accounting: "Tell me, you who want to live under the law, do you know what the law actually says?" And therein lies the problem. Most Christians don’t know what the Torah says. Therefore, they don’t understand God’s Word, they don’t understand the Messiyah’s sacrifice, and they don’t understand that Paul was contradicting it and Him.

While this next verse isn’t totally inaccurate, by explaining his point using a corruption of the Torah, Paul has identified the "Law" which he claims "cannot hear," and to which the Galatians were "enslaved." Listen to one of the most successful schemers of all time twist the truth: "For indeed (gar) [it] has been written (grapho – inscribed in Scripture) that (hoti) Abraham (Abraam – transliteration of the Hebrew ‘Abraham, meaning Merciful Father) had (echo – possessed) two (duo) sons (huios), one (heis) from (ek) the slave girl (paidiske) and (kai) one (eis) from (ek) the freeborn (eleutheros)." (Galatians 4:22)

In actuality it is not "written that Abraham had two sons," because from Yahweh’s perspective Abraham only had one son. That is why God asked Abraham in Genesis 22:2 to "take your son, your only son, whom you love, Yitschaq, and go to the land of Mowriyah..." Ishmael was expressly excluded from the Covenant and demonstrably banished from the Promised Land. Therefore, the "son of the slave girl" should only have been mentioned if Sha’uwl had been illustrating these facts—which we shall soon discover is the opposite of his intended purpose.

Paul has reprised his "for indeed it has been written," introductory line to deceive his audience into believing that God had an ongoing relationship with both sons. He is doing this so that he can deceive them into believing that there were two covenants. But there aren’t, which is why Paul did not cite any portion of the story which begins in Genesis 17:16, the story which begins with Genesis 18:10, nor the account which begins with Genesis 21:1. He created his own imagined passage and tried to pass it off as if it were Scripture, because Yahweh’s testimony is incompatible with Pauline Doctrine.

And this was not the only time he would foist this fable. He parades it out again in Romans 9, where he boasted again that "I am not lying," that there are multiple "covenants," with one yielding "children of the flesh," while the other begat "children according to the promise." But in Romans, he would bury himself somewhat differently, writing: "for I could wish that I myself were accursed from the Messiyah for the sake of my brethren," and "but not as though the Word of God has failed for they are not all Yisra’elites who are from Yisra’el."

The reason for Paul’s duplicity in Galatians, as well as in Romans, is that Pauline Doctrine is built upon the following ungodly precepts:

1. God established two covenants, not one.
2. The covenant memorialized in the Torah on Mount Sinai was formed with Hagar and Ishmael rather than with Abraham and Yitschaq.
3. The covenant depicted in the Torah enslaves those who observe it.
4. The verbal promises made to Abraham bypasses the Torah.
5. There is no relationship between the Messiyah and the Torah.
6. Christians become God’s children by way of the verbal promise alone.
7. Believing the promise necessitates rejecting the Torah.

Sha’uwl’s entire argument is erroneous and preposterous, but yet it serves as the foundation of Christianity—a religion set apart from the Torah and its God.

Promoting this lifeless deception to Evangelical Christians, the New Living Translation lied and said: "The Scriptures say that Abraham had two sons, one from his slave wife and one from his freeborn wife." The authors of this sentence knew that there was no basis for "wife" in the Greek text once, much less twice, but that did not stop them from copyediting something they were passing off as Scripture, doing so in order to artificially elevate Abraham’s morality. The reason they are assisting in this way is because Pauline Doctrine is based upon Abraham, at the expense, and thus exclusion, of the Torah. It is like Islam in this way.

Sarah was Abraham’s wife and Hagar was not. (So that you know, the Hebrew word translated "wife" in most bibles at the end of Genesis 16:3 relative to Hagar is ‘isah, which means "woman.") This distinction, which Sha’uwl has blurred and the NLT has obliterated, is critical because it serves to underscore the importance of marriage and fidelity in Yahweh’s Familial Covenant Relationship. The problem obviously wasn’t with Hagar’s enslaved status, because she was freed, as was her son. At issue, and the reason her son was disqualified from the Covenant, is the simple fact she was not Abraham’s wife.

The moral standard Yahweh established with "You shall not commit adultery," (Exodus 20:14) is symbolic of His Covenant, and yet it is banished from Pauline Doctrine, and is thus lost on Christians. Also lost on Christians as a result of their affinity for Paul, is the meaning behind the Fifth Commandment, whereby we are encouraged to highly value our Heavenly Father and Spiritual Mother to live a prolonged life with God in the Promised Land.

Yahweh’s Covenant is about marriage, about family, about a husband and wife raising children in a loving home. Sarah was Abraham’s wife. Hagar was not. As such, Hagar was disassociated and her son was disqualified. But these insights are absent from Paul’s letter, allowing, even motivating the New Living Translation to corrupt Yahweh’s symbols.

As for the older Christian witnesses, the Protestants simply copied the Catholics. The Latin Vulgate reads: "For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman and the other by a free woman."  So the KJV wrote: "For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman."

Paul’s case against the Torah hinges upon the faulty notion that the conversation Yahweh enjoyed with Abraham at the initiation of the Covenant was completely different than the Torah’s commemoration of it, creating a contrived distinction between the promise God announced and God asking that it be written down so that His Covenant would be known to us. "But nevertheless (alla – to the contrary) [indeed then (men) omitted in P46] from (ek) the slave girl (paidiske) in accord with (kata) [the] flesh (sarkos – physical human body) was procreated (gennao – given birth) [but that (o de) omitted in P46] from (ek) the freeborn (eleutheros) by way of (dia) an announcement (epangelia – the declaration of an assured agreement)." (Galatians 4:23)

I recognize that this passage lacks fluidity, but it isn’t my fault. Paul was evidently just learning to write. Consider the Nestle-Aland’s interlinear: "But the indeed from the servant girl by flesh has been born the but from the free by promise."

Both boys were conceived and born the same way, only by way of different mothers. And they were both circumcised (albeit only Yitschaq experienced it in accordance with the Torah’s instructions). But the inference here is that if you are Torah observant, then you are a slave. Whereas Paul is attempting to associate his preaching to the promise of freedom, and thereby usurping Yahweh’s claim in the First Commandment.

It is instructive to know that while most lexicons include "promise" among epangelia’s definitions, the word’s etymology suggests that this rendering is more of a legacy of Paul’s argument than the word’s actual composition. In the general sense, the noun epangelia means "announcement." It was primarily used as a legal term in ancient Greece, and denoted a "summons." Not surprisingly, it is derived from the verb epagello, which means "to announce a summons."

Epangelia is a compound of epi, meaning "upon, by, and before," and aggelos "messenger." So in our attempt to be accurate, according to our fledgling writer, the freeborn child was literally "by messenger," and figuratively "by summons or announcement," but not by "promise."

Ever the clever one, Paul’s ploy was designed to kill two birds with a single stone. By artificially differentiating the conception of Ishmael through Hagar as "of the flesh" and Yitschaq through Sarah (albeit, neither were named) "by way of the promise," Sha’uwl was associating circumcision, which Yahweh described as being "of the flesh," with Ishmael, who was expressly excluded from the Covenant, rather than with Yitschaq, through whom the Covenant was affirmed, and thus circumcision with slavery. The fact that the opposite was true (defined as that which is consistent with God’s Word), was obviously of no concern to this false prophet.

But as is the case with all effective deceptions, there was an element of truth in this statement which gave Paul’s lie credibility, making it sufficiently beguiling to conceive a new religion. Sarah’s solution to God’s announcement was to use a surrogate mother ("of the flesh"). But since Yahweh’s Covenant is based upon the importance of fidelity in marriage, the human remedy (as is the case with all religions, not so coincidently), was not acceptable. The Covenant (which is a mutual vow) would therefore be consistent with God’s plan, not with man’s plans.

Paul’s Christian troubadours scribed the following in support of the false prophet’s ploy. The Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate promotes: "But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh: but he of the free woman was by promise." So then the Authorized Protestant King James Version published: "But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise."

The NLT’s recasting of Paul’s statement is inaccurate with regard to the Torah (Hagar was not Abraham’s wife), and also inconsistent with the Greek text of the epistle. "The son of the slave wife was born in a human attempt to bring about the fulfillment of God’s promise. But the son of the freeborn wife was born as God’s own fulfillment of his promise."

Being accurate here is actually a big deal, because the Covenant is Yahweh’s beneficial message to all mankind. The original announcement of the Covenant agreement made with Abraham is found in but one place: the Torah—which is the foundation of God’s Word. And even today, it serves as Yahweh’s summons to us, one where we are afforded the opportunity to choose to appear before God as His children rather than appear before Him as criminals, with God serving as our Judge.

Now that Sha’uwl has laid the foundation for his faith upon the shifting and desolate sands of deceit, he is set to erect the most beguiling straw man in human history. And since I’m very, very, uncomfortable with (read revolted by) Paul’s next statement, let’s approach the edifice of religion by way of the Nestle-Aland’s scholastic rendering of the text: "Which is being allegorized these for are two agreements one indeed from hill Sinai to slavery giving birth who is Hagar."

Before I comment, I’d like you to contemplate the Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Evangelical portraits of Christianity’s straw man. Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, compiled on the authority of his pope, reads: "Which things are said by an allegory. For these are the two testaments. The one from Mount Sina, engendering unto bondage, which is Agar." Sir Francis Bacon’s political enterprise on behalf of King James published: "Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar." And the Evangelical paraphrase, mislabeled the New Living Translation, authored the following to tickle the fancy of their target market: "These two women serve as an illustration of God’s two covenants. The first woman, Hagar, represents Mount Sinai where people received the law that enslaved them."

Now here is a translation of Sha’uwl’s Greek text for your consideration: "Whatever (hostis) is being (eimi) spoken of allegorically (allegoreo – a form of speech which should be taken figuratively, an illustrated discussion in which a comparison, illustration, or metaphor are used) these (autos) then (gar) exist as (eimi) two (duo) covenants (diatheke – solemn agreements between parties which settles one’s affairs and is legally binding), one (heis) indeed (men – surely) from (apo) Sinai (Sina – a transliteration of the Hebrew Cynay) into (eis) subservience, slavery, and bondage (douleia) giving birth to (gennao) whoever (hostis) exists as (eimi) Hagar (Agar – transliteration of the Hebrew Hagar, from hagah, meaning to moan)." (Galatians 4:24)

As I read these words, my hands are paralyzed above the keyboard. I want to scream and cry all at the same time. My stomach churns, my heart breaks, and my head is bowed in shame. How is it possible that the world’s largest religion was erected upon something so obviously false? Why wasn’t this letter immediately discarded as rhetorical rubbish? Why did anyone believe Paul?

Unlike his previous statements, this is neither a credible counterfeit nor a plausible ploy. It is an outright lie—the kind of thing which only fools fools, hoodwinking the ignorant and irrational.

Paul has postured a deception which pierces the heart of God. He has crossed the point of no return and taken Christians back into the wilderness to die.

There is only one covenant, not two. The Hebrew word beriyth upon which the Familial Covenant Relationship is based is never plural. It was established between Yahweh and Abraham, and then affirmed with Yitschaq and Ya’aqob after him. Ishmael (who was freed incidentally) was expressly excluded from the Covenant, and was banished from the Promised Land, as was his mother (who was also freed).

This singular Covenant begat the Children of Yisra’el. It led to the liberation of the Chosen People during the Exodus. Yahweh’s one and only Covenant was memorialized in the Torah and serves as the foundation of God’s Word. According to Yahshua, the Torah’s presentation of the Covenant delineates the narrow path to our redemption. The Messiyah said that there is no life apart from the Torah. For it is this very Torah which gave rise to the Messiyah, and which dictates the timing of Yahshua’s return. In fact, according to Yahuchanan, the Messiyah Yahshua is "the Word made flesh," which is equivalent to calling Him: "the living embodiment of the Torah."

There is no association between Hagar, and the revelation of the Torah on Mount Sinai, nor between the Covenant memorialized in the Torah, and being placed into bondage. So what Paul has done by speaking of the Covenant in these terms, by referencing bondage, and by dropping the names Sinai and Hagar, is wrap his overt lie in a warped inversion of the truth, making it particularly insidious. And in so doing, he established the model Muhammad, Satan’s second most effective messenger, would follow. Both religions would be based upon Abraham, at the exclusion of the Torah and Yahweh.

Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Mormonism have been made to appear credible by weaving twisted elements of truth through overt distortions of it, and thereby making outright lies appear credible to the unsuspecting and unthinking—to the ignorant and malleable. That is what has occurred here. Some of this is true, albeit corrupted to suit Satan’s agenda. Scripture has many allegorical elements because Yahweh loves to compose word pictures. There is a Covenant. It was codified on Mount Sinai. And while Hagar and her son were excluded from it, Islam, the Arabic word for "submission," did in fact emerge from them, leading billions into subservience, slavery, and bondage.

Moreover, the Christian religion was established upon this allegory, whereby their "Lord Jesus Christ" and His "death on the cross" were disassociated from Yahweh and His Torah. The purpose and benefit of His sacrifice were thereby annulled. For Christians, as a direct result of Paul, it became sufficient to "believe that Jesus died on the cross" for them "to be saved." A profession of faith in something they do not comprehend, replaced understanding, trust, and reliance upon the path Yahweh had established.

But why were so many people fooled by something which was diametrically opposed to that which God had communicated in His Word? It is preposterous to correlate the Covenant promises memorialized on Mount Sinai with Hagar, or to suggest that God’s Word enslaves. The Torah’s codification of the Covenant celebrated Yahweh’s ability to lead His children—all of us—away from human religious and political oppression, and to freedom.

Before we wrestle with the devastating blunders Paul has articulated, some words about the words. Allegoreo didn’t need to be translated because the Greek term was transliterated into English. It is from allos, meaning "other or another," and agoreo, meaning "to address an assembly by speech or in writing." So an allegory is "another way of communicating with people."

Unfortunately however, Paul is saying that no matter what the allegory or word-picture God was painting in the Torah’s depiction of Hagar and her banished child, that was irrelevant to the point he, Paul, was now making: which is that there are two covenants, with the one codified with Moseh on Mount Sinai leading to slavery. In other words, Sha’uwl is saying: "Regardless of the intent of Yahweh’s parable, my interpretation is the truth." Never mind the fact that the Covenant codified with Moseh was written during the Exodus, when Yahuweh was leading the Children of Yisra’el out of house of slavery and the realm of bondage.

If you believe Paul and rely upon his epistles, you are a Christian. And when you die, your soul will cease to exist. If you trust Yahweh and rely upon His promises as delineated in His Word, you are God’s child and will live forever with Him. But you cannot have it both ways. To believe Paul is to distance yourself from Yahweh. To trust Yahweh is to distance yourself from Paul. Because of what Sha’uwl wrote, there is no connection between Christianity and the Torah, and thus between Christians and Yahweh.

Moving on to the next interesting word, in addition to meaning "covenant," diatheke describes "a testament or will used to transfer property to one’s heirs." It is from the verb diatithemai: "to arrange one’s affairs in such a way that by entering into an agreement they are assured to inherit something valuable." The verb is a compound of dia, "by way of," and tithemi "that which is set aside and set in place." Thithemi also conveys the idea of "having money laid aside to help establish someone," and as a result, it foreshadows the concept of "redemption." So there is nothing wrong with the term. The problem here is that Paul rendered it in the plural and then he built the most deadly of all straw men upon it.

During my first pass through this material, I had hoped to somehow exonerate Paul by suggesting the confusion was between the Sinai desert and Mount Sinai, and that the covenant with Hagar was really nothing more than God’s promise that Ishmael would be the father of a great (in the sense of numerous) nation. But this attempt failed for many reasons. Most every lexicon at our disposal links the Sinai with Mount Sinai/Horeb, and thus with the place Yahweh dictated the Torah to Moseh. Moreover, Paul ends any doubt that he was speaking of Mount Sinai, not the Sinai Peninsula in the next verse.

That is not to say that there aren’t two Sinais, however. There are, and they are not coterminous. The Sinai Peninsula is a desert sandwiched between the two arms of the Red Sea. The Children of Yisra’el crossed this wilderness en route to Mount Sinai, which is on the other side of the Gulf of Aqaba in Arabia. Hagar, however, was never in one or on the other.

Mount Sinai, also known as Mount Horeb, was the place Yahweh introduced Himself to Moseh, and where He subsequently revealed the Torah to him. But Hagar wandered aimlessly toward Shur before Ishmael was born. Shur, we learn from Genesis 16:7, 20:1, 25:18, and Exodus 15:22 was within walking distance of what is today’s southeastern border of Israel. That places Shur east of Egypt, east of the Sinai, and east of the Gulf of Aqaba crossing of the Red Sea. It was therefore in northwestern Arabia. Then after Ishmael was born, Hagar and her son were banished to the desert of Paran, which is similarly located.

Rather than associating the wilderness of Sin (a.k.a. the Sinai Peninsula) with Paul’s four references to Sina (three in Galatians and one in Acts), Strong’s Lexicon defines Sina as "a mountain or rather a mountainous region in the Arabian Peninsula made famous by the giving of Mosaic Law." They are right, which makes Paul wrong.

The Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament says of Sina: "the mountain or mountain range in the peninsula of the same name, between Egypt and modern Arabia." Unaware that the "peninsula" was and remains part of Egypt today, they would be wrong on both accounts. The Mount Sinai Moseh visited before he entered Egypt, and again after he had left Egypt, was on the eastern side of the Red Sea crossing, and thus not in Egypt but instead on the Arabian Peninsula.

The Complete Word Study Dictionary also exacerbates Paul’s dilemma, saying that Sina refers to "the site of the burning bush." It is "the name of a peninsula and a mountain range." In that they go on to associate the location of Mount Sinai within the Sinai Peninsula, they would also be wrong, as there would have been no sea to cross and the Exodus would have stalled in Egypt.

The Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament cites Acts 7:38 which digs Paul into a still deeper hole. It reads: "They are the ones who became the called-out assembly in the desert with the messenger speaking to him in the Mount Sinai (Sina) and our fathers who welcomed the living words given to us."

But we really didn’t need the help of the scholastic tomes to hang Paul. He hung himself. As I mentioned, in the very next verse he acknowledges that the Sina he is associating Hagar’s covenant with is "Sinai mountain existing in Arabia." And that is the site upon which Yahweh dictated the Torah to Moseh.

So, let’s be clear. Paul has said that there are two covenants and God has said there is one. Paul has said that there was a covenant formed with Hagar, and God has said the opposite. Further, Paul has said that the covenant codified on Mount Sinai enslaves us while God has demonstrated that it liberates us. So, since there is an irreconcilable divide between Paul and Yahweh, one of the two must be wrong.

Since I am stating categorically, not allegorically, that Paul, the mother of the Christian Church, is lying, and that his thesis is in direct opposition to God, let’s bring his thoughts together before we analyze them within the context of Yahweh’s Word.

"Speak to me those who desire to be under the auspices of the Law. The Law cannot hear. (4:21) For indeed it has been written that Abraham had two sons, one from the slave girl and one from the freeborn. (4:22) But nevertheless indeed then from the slave girl in accord with the flesh was procreated, but from the freeborn by way of a promise. (4:23) Whatever is being spoken of allegorically, these then exist as two covenants, one indeed from Sinai into slavery, giving birth to whoever exists as Hagar." (4:24)

Now let’s consider God’s side of this story. He was opposed to establishing a covenant relationship with Hagar’s son: "Then Abraham said to God, ‘What about Ishmael? Could he exist in your presence?" (Genesis 17:18) "God said, ‘No.’" (Genesis 17:19) There would be no covenant of any kind with "the son of the slave woman." Sorry Paul.

The Covenant is singular and eternal. It was established with ‘Yitschaq as opposed to Ishmael: "Sarah, your wife, shall have a child, bearing your son, and you shall call his name: ‘Yitschaq.’ I will stand up and establish My Covenant Relationship with him—an eternal and everlasting family relationship with his offspring after him." (Genesis 17:19) Yahweh’s Word and Paul’s letter are irreconcilable, as are those who pronounce their faith in Paul’s lies.

In direct opposition to Paul’s claim that "indeed from Sinai into slavery," on Mount Sinai, and in His own hand, Yahweh wrote: "I am Yahuweh your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." (Exodus 20:2)

The following passage obliterates the notion that Paul had poetic license to delete portions of the Torah he did not like, or add his own commandments: "With all the words (debar – communications and statements) that relationally I instruct (sawah – provide by way of direction to) you with, carefully observe and be secure in (samar – regard, revere, and keep) them. Do not add (yasap – make any increase or addition) to them and do not decrease or reduce (gara’ – subtract from) them." (Deuteronomy 13:1)

As for Paul’s assertion that the Torah had a limited shelf life, Yashayahu wrote: "The grass dries up and the flower withers but the Word (dabar) of our God stands and is established (quwm – encourages, supports, raises up, and restores) forever (‘owlam – eternally)." (Yashayahu / Isaiah 40:8)

Regarding the unchanging nature of God, His Covenant Promise will be honored (which is to say it will be fulfilled in our future): "Because I, Yahuweh, have not changed, you, the children of Ya’aqob will not perish or be destroyed." (Mal’aky / Malachi 3:6)

How is it that Christians believe Paul’s anti-Torah rhetoric was true when his statements were diametrically opposed to the Messiyah’s? Yahshua said: "Do not assume that I have come to weaken, dismantle, invalidate, or abolish (kataluso – loosen, tear down, or dissolve, put an end to, do away with, or annul) the Towrah (nomos – Law) or the Prophets. I have not come to do away with it, but instead to completely fulfill it. Truly (amein – this is reliable and trustworthy), I say to you, till heaven and the earth pass away not one jot (iota – the smallest letter, or yod in Hebrew) nor tittle (keraia – the top stroke or horn of Hebrew letters) shall be passed by (parerchomai – be ignored or disobeyed, be disregarded) from that which was established in the Towrah until the time and place it all happens. Therefore, whoever dismisses (luo – does away with, dissolves, invalidates, or abolishes) the least of these commandments (entole – precepts, prescriptions, ordinances, and authoritative directions) or teaches (didasko – indoctrinates or instructs) people to do the same, they will be called the least dignified in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever performs (poieomai – accomplishes and celebrates, practices and profits from) them, and teaches them, they will be called the greatest and most important in the kingdom of heaven." (Mattityahu/Matthew 5:17-19) The Messiyah Yahshua’s statement regarding the Torah is the antithesis of Pauline Doctrine.

And yet God was not done. Yahshua would conclude His Sermon on the Mount with this announcement regarding the connection between the Torah and life: "For then this is the Torah and the Prophets: begin by entering through the narrow, exacting, and specific doorway [Passover], because the passageway is crafted to be wide, artificial, and unreliable, and the way is wide open which deceives and influences someone to go astray to the point of destruction and perishing, needlessly squandering their existence, and the vast preponderance of people start the first step in their journey through it. The doorway is exacting and specific, and the way of life is unpopular, which leads to life, and few experience it." (Mattityahu/ Matthew 7:12-14) Therefore, according to God, the Torah is the source of life, while man’s ways lead to death.

The Messiyah’s final words to His Disciples echoed this same thought: "He said to them, ‘These are My words which I spoke to you while I was with you, because it is necessary to (inevitable and logical, beneficial and proper, as part of the plan to) completely fulfill (carry out fully, totally perform, accomplish, proclaim, giving true meaning to, realizing the prophetic promises of) everything that is written in Scripture in the Mosaic Towrah, the Prophets, and the Psalms about Me.’ Then He opened their minds so that they would be intelligent and have the capacity to understand the written Scriptures. He told them, ‘Because in this way it is written that the Implement of Yah must undergo and experience suffering and be enabled to stand up from lifelessness the third day. And it should be announced publicly (preached and proclaimed in a convincing manner to persuade and warn, be heralded, published, and proclaimed with authority) in Yahuweh’s name, ‘Change your perspective, attitude and thinking to be forgiven and pardoned wandering from the path and missing your inheritance,’ to all nations, races, and places, commencing and leading from Yaruwshalaym. You are witnesses to this. And behold, I have prepared and sent you off as Apostles to convey the message of My Father’s announced and promised agreement (beneficial vow which leads to the assurance of reconciliation) upon you. But now, you remain in the city until which you are clothed in power and ability from above.’" (Luke 24:44-49) Yahshua and the Torah are inseparable. One is simply the manifestation of the other.

In direct opposition to Paul, David wrote the following lyrics for a Psalm in which he proclaimed the value of the Torah: "Yahuweh’s (YaHuWeH) Towrah (towrah – law, instructions, and prescriptions for living) is complete and entirely perfect (tamym – without defect, lacking nothing, correct, sound, genuine, right, helpful, healthful, beneficial, and true), returning, restoring, and transforming (suwb – turning around and bringing back) the soul (nepesh – consciousness). Yahuweh’s (YaHuWeH) testimony (‘eduwth – witness) is trustworthy and reliable (‘aman – verifiable, confirming, supportive, and establishing), making understanding and obtaining wisdom (hakam – educating and enlightening oneself to the point of comprehension) simple for the open-minded (pethy)." (Psalm 19:7) Not only is this the antithesis of Pauline Doctrine, but more than that, if Christians compared this passage to Paul’s epistles, they would reject everything the man wrote.

But David wasn’t finished affirming what Paul attempted to belittle. "Yahuweh’s (YaHuWeH) precepts (piquwdym – directions and instructions) are right (yasar – straight forward, upright, and morally appropriate), causing the heart to be elated (samah leb – rejoice and be glad, be happy and joyous). Yahuweh’s (YaHuWeH) terms and conditions (miswah – authoritative directives) are brilliantly pure (bar – radiantly purifying and cleansing), enlightening (‘owr – providing sight and illuminating) the eyes (‘ayin – providing perspective and understanding)." (Psalm 19:8) David didn’t find the Torah to be an unbearable burden as Paul has alleged.

If this is right (and it is), the basis of Paul’s manifesto was wrong. "Respecting and revering (yir’ah – recognizing and appreciating the awesomeness of) Yahuweh is purifying and restoring (tahowr – cleansing and renewing), enabling us to be present before Him, standing and remaining (‘amad la – established and sustained, enduring) forever (‘ad – in an everlasting and eternal association). Yahuweh’s judgments (mispat – decisions, justice, and practices) are trustworthy and reliable (‘emeth – honest, certain, dependable, and true), all together (yahdaw – in unison, in one accord, acting as one unified plan, totally and completely) justifying, acquitting, and vindicating (sadaq – announcing our innocence and declaring us not guilty, making us appear righteous and in accord with the law)." (Psalm 19:9) So much for Paul’s notion that God’s Torah never justifies and always enslaves.

"Moreover (gam), your servant is admonished (zahar – enlightened and taught, even warned) by them. And in carefully observing (samar – closely examining, revering, keeping, and clinging to) them there is a great (rab – abundant) consequence and benefit (eqeb – reward)." (Psalm 19:11) This was and remains the purpose of the Torah. It’s our Maker’s Operating Manual, telling us through words and pictures how to get the most out of this life and make it to the next. Those who carefully observe what our Heavenly Father had to say will be rewarded, because they will become His children and inherit the universe.

The most debilitating sin became Sha’uwl’s Achilles heel. "Also, keep your servant away (hasak ‘ebed – spare and restrain your laborer) from arrogance (zed – pride, being self-willed and self-assured), not letting this rule over (masal ba – have dominion and govern) me, then I will be completely prepared and blameless (tamam – ready for action, upright, and lacking nothing) and I will be considered innocent (naqah – will be pardoned and forgiven) distanced from (min) the great (rab) transgression of rebellion (pesa’ – defiant revolt against authority)." (Psalm 19:13) If God is right, Paul was wrong. Observing the Torah is the source of wisdom, renewal, joy, enlightenment, being eternally established in Yahweh’s presence, justification, and innocence, in addition to providing a great reward.

Further, the key to our redemption is our attitude toward God. If we are self-assured and self-reliant, then we are not in a position to rely upon Yahweh’s provision. In this light it is especially worth noting that David listed "rebellion" as "the great transgression," something Paul should have considered before he spoke so defiantly against God.

David’s closing line is particularly noteworthy. "Let the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart be acceptable and pleasing in your presence, Yahuweh, my Rock and my Redeemer (ga’al – Savior)." (Psalm 19:14) The best way to accomplish this is to observe the Torah—the very thing Paul told his believers not to do.

Therefore, since Paul’s message and Yahweh’s are diametrically opposed, there is but one informed and rational conclusion: Paul lied. He was a false prophet. While the issue of whether or not Yahweh can be trusted is life and death to all of us, and is easily answered, it is irrelevant to Paul, because he claimed to speak for the God he contradicted.

This is the end of the line for Sha’uwl’s credibility. He has proven beyond any doubt that he was not trustworthy, that he was not speaking for God, that his epistle was not inspired and thus is not Scripture, and that he was a complete fraud.

Had Paul not repeatedly made the arrogant claim that he was speaking for God as his authorized apostle to the world, had Paul not claimed that he could not lie, had he not said that his preaching saved those who believed him, or that they were his children, and that they should follow his example, then Paul’s errant statements would have been no different than thousands of other misguided religious advocates. But he made these claims, and as a result, Paul’s lifeless deceptions were placed in the heart of the scriptures canonized by the faith he conceived. The consequence of his arrogance has been catastrophic.

Now that there is a rational comparison, it should be noted that Yahweh used precisely fulfilled prophecy, brilliantly conceived imagery, a masterfully designed plan, and a consistent, multi-faceted, intertwined message, along with the creation of the universe and the conception of life, to prove beyond any doubt that His Word could be trusted. But Paul could neither write intelligently nor credibly recount his own personal history. This contest has not been David versus Goliath; it has been a speck of dust against the Creator of the Universe.

Why is it then that nearly two billion Christians believe Paul over Yahweh?

There is no question that Christians have been deceived, or that they are wrong, but the question remains; are they in this horrid position because they are ignorant, or because they are irrational, apathetic, or delusional? Has Paul’s faith corrupted their attitude, perspective and thinking to the point that truth no longer matters?

Whatever the cause, their condition cannot be resolved until they are willing to change their attitude, their perspective, and their thinking to reflect that of the Torah—to view our existence and means to salvation from the vantage point of God’s Word. But to do so, Christians will have to drain their religious swamp of Paul’s delusions; otherwise the seeds of truth will not take root or grow.

We will continue to plod our way through Paul’s letter, recognizing that he was a fallible individual writing on his own behalf. There will be no pretense of Galatians being Scripture. We will credit God when Paul affirms something which is true, and which enhances our understanding of Yahweh and His plan of salvation. And we will expose and condemn Paul when he errs, recognizing that the cost of his corruptions can be counted in the millions, even billions, of human souls.

Sha’uwl’s next statement reads: "So (de) now (nyn) Mount (oros) Sinai (Sina) exists (eimi) in (en) Arabia (Arabia – a transliteration of the Hebrew ‘Arab) therefore (de) corresponding to (sustoicheo – standing in the same row, parallel and resembling) Yaruwshalaym (Ierousalem – a transliteration of the Hebrew Yahuwshalaym, meaning source of salvation), to being enslaved (douleuo –  being controlled as a slave) because of (gar) being associated with (meta – among) her (autos) [Hagar’s (Agar) omitted in P46] children (teknon – sons and daughters)." (Galatians 4:25) Contradicting God once again, Paul has left no doubt this time. According to this false prophet, the message Yahweh conveyed from Mount Sinai in the Torah was as counterproductive as was the place where God’s Word was fulfilled: Jerusalem. In Pauline Doctrine, God’s work in these places enslaved. Only Satan would inspire a man to say such a thing.

‘Arab has several negative connotations in Hebrew, such as "dark and desolate," but it also conveys the positive idea of "offering a pledge of pleasing fellowship." And that is indeed what happened on Mount Sinai (also known as Mount Horeb) in Arabia. And Paul has used it here to take his believers back to the dark and desolate wilderness of lifelessness and ignorance.

Sustoicheo is from sun, meaning "with and together" and stoicheo, "proceeding to march as soldiers in a row, to walk, and to direct one’s life." It literally conveys "to be in a series with, to be in the same row or rank, and to stand in the same line." Figuratively, sustoicheo is "used in logical discussions of things which have distinctive features which fit in the same category," and thus it means "to correspond." Therefore, in the context of an allegory, the "corresponds" rendering seems the most appropriate. And that means that Paul is associating Hagar, the Covenant memorialized in the Torah on Mount Sinai, and Jerusalem, with slavery.

But I would be remiss if I didn’t remind you that sustoicheo is related to stoicheion, which Sha’uwl used in Galatians 4:3 to demean the Torah, saying: "And also in this way it follows that when we were small children under the arranged constitution (kosmos – worldwide political or religious system of governance and control) of the initial teachings and doctrines which were basic, improperly formed, and underdeveloped, representing the first step (stoicheion) we were slaves."

He deployed stoicheion again six verses later, this time in context with "douleuein – to be controlled as a slave," to further demean the Torah when he wrote: "Notwithstanding when indeed you did not perceive or acknowledge God, you were a slave to nature which are not gods. (4:8) But now you know God, but more importantly are known by God. How can you return back to the weak, incompetent, and worthless initial teachings and doctrines which were underdeveloped and inadequate, representing the first step (stoicheion)? Which by turning back once again to the beginning you are choosing to be controlled as a slave (douleuein) (4:9) by observing days and months and times and years." (4:10)

It was during our review of these earlier Galatians passages that we discovered that stoicheo conveyed a host of derogatory connotations, from "demonic supernatural powers or spirits" to "that which is basic, improperly formed, underdeveloped, and simplistic." Something which is stoicheo is "initial, rudimentary and natural and thus associated with the elements which comprised the universe." Stocheion suggests that "something’s usefulness has come to an end." It conveys the idea of "a first step" as well as something which is "primitive, underdeveloped, childish, and worldly." Because stocheion is indicative of the "command and control aspects of a military regime," and of "soldiers following orders, and marching in conformity," it is the antithesis of freewill.

And also, we learned that there are a number of troubling Greek words which share a common root with sustoicheo, all of which convey negative aspects of Sha’uwl’s nature and tactics. These include: "sustasiastes – one who revolts and joins an insurrection," "sustatikos – to introduce a new concept," "sustauroo – to crucify someone or something," "sustello – to abridge, diminish, shorten, and enshroud so as to terminate or conceal," "sustrepho – to twist something so as to alter its intended meaning or purpose," and "sustrophe – to be a disorderly and rebellious individual acting in a coalition or conspiracy inappropriately blending things together in a poorly disclosed and hidden combination," so as to get people to: "suschematizo – conform, following the example set by another, and thereby change their mind, attitude, and perspective." In a word, we have encapsulated Sha’uwl’s nature, tactics, and purpose.

But keep in mind, by using stoicheo and sustoicheo in conjunction with the Torah and with Yaruwshalaym, Sha’uwl has associated all of these negative connotations with Pauline Doctrine and with his assault on Yahweh’s Covenant as memorialized in the Torah.

In reality, everything Paul has written here is wrong. There is one Covenant not two. The Covenant was formed with Abraham and Yitschaq after him, not with Hagar or her son Ishmael, who were specifically excluded from the Covenant and expelled from the Promised Land. Therefore, Yahweh’s one and only Covenant was formed and confirmed with Abraham, Yishaq and Ya’aqob (who became Yisra’el). And the only reason this Covenant is known to us because it was announced and memorialized in the Torah which was handed down and recited on Mount Sinai/Horeb. This Covenant commemorated the emancipation of the Yisra’elites from human religious, political, and economic oppression, and it provides the means to our salvation. Many of the Covenant’s promises were then fulfilled and enabled by Yahshua in Yaruwshalaym, which is why its name means "the source of redemption." And curiously, Hagar and her son were freed from slavery, making Paul wrong on all accounts.

The things which actually correspond between the Covenant forged with Abraham and memorialized on Mount Sinai with Moseh, and that which was fulfilled in Yaruwshalaym by Yahshua, is that all those who rely on Yahweh’s Word are liberated from man’s religious schemes and adopted by God. But Paul is saying the opposite, that the Mount Sinai Covenant codified in the Torah is associated with Hagar, and that it leads to slavery. He is also saying that Yaruwshalaym is no different than Sinai in this regard. Rather than standing for the "Source of Salvation," in Paul’s twisted mind, Yaruwshalaym is now a coconspirator in the enslavement of humankind. After having pierced Yahweh in the heart, Paul has now poked his finger in God’s eye.

Before we move on, I’d like you to consider the Nestle-Aland and other renditions of Paul’s ongoing thesis. "The but Hagar Sinai hill is in the Arabia it lines up together but in the now Jerusalem she is enslaved for with the children of her." LV: "For Sina is a mountain in Arabia, which hath affinity to that Jerusalem which now is: and is in bondage with her children." KJV: "For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children." Then the NLT augmented Paul’s words to more accurately convey his blasphemy: "And now Jerusalem is just like Mount Sinai in Arabia, because she and her children live in slavery to the law."

Based upon this letter, the Christian Church would have nothing to do with the Covenant, with the Torah, with Jerusalem, or with the Commandments or Feasts of Yahweh. Because of Paul, their way would not be God’s Way. It is total separation.

Paul’s next statement is totally incomprehensible, which I suppose is better than being totally inaccurate. "Above (ano – upward and heavenward) the freeborn (eleutheros) Yaruwshalaym (Ierousalem) exists (eimi), who (hostis) is (eimi) our (ego) mother (meter)." (Galatians 4:26) It’s hard to tell if the reasoning is flawed, because the writing quality is abysmal.

And the issue isn’t the translation, but instead in the Greek text. Consider the NA: "But the up Jerusalem free is who is mother of us." After a steady diet of lies, it would be unreasonable to give Paul the benefit of the doubt, or to attempt an interpretation which would make sense of this.

The most logical conclusion is that Paul, and the dark spirit he was serving, came to despise what occurred on Mount Sinai with the revelation of the Towrah, and what occurred in Yaruwshalaym with the fulfillment of Passover, Unleavened Bread, FirstFruits, and Seven Sabbaths, so, just as they had created a mythical covenant, they conceived a mythical city, one floating in the sky. And then to add insult to injury, they demeaned the role of our Spiritual Mother by associating Sarah (a.k.a. the "freeborn") with their replacement realm, calling her/it our mother. She was now "the Queen of Heaven," reprising the role of the Madonna and Child in the Babylonian religion.

And if you think I’m pushing the envelope here, consider the NLT: "But the other woman, Sarah, represents the heavenly Jerusalem. She is the free woman, and she is our mother." They are wrong of course, as was Paul. Posturing the false notion that Sarah serves as our mother was simply part of Paul’s ploy to bypass the Torah. Sarah was the mother of one: Yitschaq. Moreover, the NLT just contradicted their patron saint. In the previous verse, Paul associated "Jerusalem" with the "enslavement of children."

Here is the Catholic and Protestant translation. LV: "But that Jerusalem which is above is free: which is our mother." KJV: "But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all."

According to God’s Word, Sarah isn’t our mother, nor is Jerusalem—so no matter what Paul intended to convey, he was wrong. The Set-Apart Spirit is the Mother of those invited to live in heaven and Yaruwshalaym is the source of our restoration.

Speaking of God’s realm, the "heavenly Jerusalem" is not yet established. It will be constructed by Yahweh as part of His new heaven and earth at the end of the Millennial Sabbath.

And just when we thought it couldn’t get any worse, Paul’s Greek deteriorates to the point where we need to use the Nestle-Aland as a handrail. "It has been written for be merry sterile the not giving birth rip and cry aloud the one not having birth pains because many the children of the desert more or of the man." This brings to mind one of my favorite sayings: I know that you think you heard what you believe I said, but I’m not sure that you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

For the living embodiment of that conundrum, please consider: "For indeed (gar) [it] has been written (grapho), ‘Rejoice (euphrainomai ­– be glad and celebrate) infertile (steira – barren and sterile) [one] not (ou) giving birth (tikto – bearing children, being productive, or growing), violently lacerating (rhegnymi – throwing an angry fit ripping things to pieces) and (kai) crying out (boao – shout), [the one] not (ou) suffering birth pains (odino – in labor and travail) because (hoti) many (polys) children (teknon) the desolate (eremos – the forsaken and deserted, solitary and lonely) [will have], or (e) more (mallon) [they will] possess (echo – hold on to, have, and experience) [than] the man (andra – human husband).’" (Galatians 4:27) While that’s not decipherable, or even recognizable, without the pope’s secret decoder ring, the citation is allegedly from Isaiah 54:1.

Cognizant of the wannabe apostle’s reprehensible tactics, it’s rather obvious that Sha’uwl is trying to fool his audience into believing that Yahweh’s prophecy regarding the Set-Apart Spirit was actually about Sarah. So in our quest for verification we’ll have to go back in time seven-hundred years and consider what God revealed through a prophet named "Salvation is from Yahweh" to see if we can affirm that Yashayahu 54 was actually about our Spiritual Mother’s enactment of Seven Sabbaths, following Yahshua’s fulfillment of Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits, to demonstrate how this stanza in Paul’s ill-conceived thesis twists God’s intent.

In that context is always an essential part of understanding, the cited passage follows the most vivid portrayal of Yahshua’s redeeming sacrifice found anywhere in Scripture. The last two lines of the 53^rd chapter read: "Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, and He interceded for the transgressors."

This leads to a celebration of the healing and beneficial message and to its consequence. "‘Shout and sing for joy barren one (‘aqar – woman who has not yet experienced motherhood) and She who has not yet borne a child be serene (pasha – be at peace, without worries or distress), rejoicing (rinah – shouting for joy, pleading and communicating). And let your light shine (sahal – shouting out good news and issuing a warning), the one who has never been in labor (hyl – not already brought forth new life), for indeed (ky), the children (ben) of the desolate woman (samem – feminine individual who is currently lifeless and deserted) will be greater than (rab) the children who are associated with Lord Ba’al (ba’al – who are married to the Lord, those who are lorded over, who are owned, who are slaves to their master, and who are possessed),’ says Yahuweh." (Yashayahu / Isaiah 54:1)

Christian apologists, steeped in the poisonous brew of Pauline Doctrine, will tell you that the self-pronounced Apostle cited this verse to suggest that Sarah, who was once barren, would become fertile, and that as such, she became the mother of the faithful. In their mind, this in turn explains why there are so many Christians, and why they became so powerful, in that Paul’s troubadours saw themselves as the "children who would be greater in number and status." But Sarah’s infertility was resolved 1,300 years before Yashayahu penned these words (which would have made him a prophet predicting the past), and 2,000 years before Yahshua enabled this celebration. Since Sarah had long since experienced labor, not only was she specifically excluded from this prophecy, the birth of Yitschaq was now history. Moreover, Sarah had but one child, and he was the patriarch of the Yisra’elites, not to mention, the designated heir to the Covenant Paul has condemned.

If we distance ourselves from Paul’s polluted mantra, it becomes obvious that the Mother being described in Yashayahu 54 is someone very special. This prophecy is telling us that following the fulfillment of the first three Called-Out Assemblies by the Suffering Servant (prophetically described in Yashayahu 53), our Spiritual Mother will give birth to the Called-Out Assembly, fulfilling the fourth Miqra’, known as Shabuwa. God was telling us that She would be responsible for the spiritual rebirth of every adopted member of His family. And indeed, the Set-Apart Spirit is the Mother of the ekklesia, the one whose children have become greater than those associated with Lord Ba’al.

Specifically, our Spiritual Mother adorns us in a "Garment of Light," which is suggested in "sahal – let your light shine." She is responsible for enlightening us as well, illuminating the path to God. But the Set-Apart Spirit is also our Counselor, "rinah – pleading on our behalf" with our Heavenly Father, elevating our humble speech into something appropriate for God to hear. Even more specifically, She empowered the Called-Out Assembly to "rinah – shout out the healing and beneficial message" to people the world over, regardless of the languages they spoke. And She is the power behind Yowm Taruw’ah, where we are called to "joyously proclaim the Way" to God, while also "shouting out a warning" to those headed in the wrong direction.

As an interesting aside, once we understand the promise and purpose of Yahweh’s Called-Out Assemblies, we recognize that each temporarily resolves an aspect of something associated with our adoption into Yahweh’s family and to ultimately camping out with God—at least until they are properly enabled (a.k.a. fulfilled). Therefore, those who answered the summons, and observed the seven Miqra’ey in accordance with Yahweh’s instructions, temporarily received the promised benefit which only became permanent upon their fulfillment. So it wasn’t until God enabled His promises, fulfilling Passover and Unleavened Bread perfectly and completely, that the Spirit was allowed to permanently indwell the likes of Abraham and David, causing them and others to be part of the FirstFruits harvest of saved souls following Passover and Unleavened Bread in 33CE. Then Gowym were born anew from above seven sevens later on the Called-Out Assembly of Seven Sabbaths, fulfilling this prophecy (Yashayahu 54) and giving birth to the Called-Out Assembly. Therefore, our Spiritual Mother was without children prior to the perfect and promised fulfillment of this prophecy.

Recognizing what happened on Bikurym – FirstFruits, which means "first-born children," consider what Yahweh predicted next: "Enlarge (rahab – joyfully take advantage of the opportunity to expand and make roomy) your (‘ath) shining sheltered place and protected home for the upright (‘ohel maqowm – camping site at the standing place and covered tabernacle of light)..." (Yashayahu / Isaiah 54:2) Our Heavenly Father’s family would be enlarged as promised on the Miqra’ of Shabuwa.

‘Ohel, meaning "covered shelter," describes "pitching a tent to campout." It is indistinguishable in the text from ‘ahal, "to shine a pure and clear light." So we have within this word a depiction of how our Spiritual Mother protects Her children. This becomes even more obvious when we recognize that ‘ohel is a "dwelling place, a household, and tabernacle." Affirming this, the next word, maqowm, and its root quwm, describe the "standing place" where the Son "stood up for us so that we could stand with Him." The Messiyah Yahshua is the living embodiment of quwm. And of course, "maqowm – the standing place," would be Yaruwshalaym—Paul’s coconspirator along with Sinai in our enslavement.

As a result of the Messiyah Yahshua bearing our sin and interceding for our transgressions, our Spiritual Mother was able to expand our Heavenly Father’s family. While there were many who were considered upright and righteous as a result of their reliance upon Yahweh and the atoning sacrifices prescribed in His Torah, God’s household was greatly enlarged by our Spiritual Mother following the fulfillment of Passover and Unleavened Bread, which is why Shabuwa is a more inclusive celebration than Bikuwrym. And all who have been enveloped in, and protected by, our Spiritual Mother’s Garment of Light, are "rab – greater" in every meaningful way, than those who joined Sha’uwl in devotion to Lord Ba’al. (To affirm the Christian affinity for "the Lord," all you have to do is open your favorite "Bible." No matter the translation, you will find Yahuweh’s name replaced by Satan’s (a.k.a. Ba’al’s) title, "the Lord," 7,000 times.)

God’s family portrait of the Son and Spirit working together to enlarge His family continues with: "...and your sheltered dwelling place (yary’ah miskan – your woven protective covering for a garment, home, and tabernacle): stretch and spread it out (natah – bend down and extend yourself to expand the protected campsite)." (Yashayahu / Isaiah 54:2) Yahshua is Yahweh on His knees, bending down and extending Himself to increase the protected campsite—heaven.

Speaking of our Spiritual Mother, the object of the Fifth Commandment, and the operating force behind the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Called-Out Assemblies, our Heavenly Father said: "And do not withhold elongating your tent cords and strengthen your tent stakes, because indeed, on your right and left side your descendants (zera’ – seed and offspring (plural in 1QIsa but not in MT)) will be born from your womb (paras – will burst forth and increase over a wide area) taking possession of and treasuring (chacan – (in 1QIsa not MT)) the Gentile nations (Gowym) causing them to be heirs (yaras – and receive an inheritance). And they will inhabit (yasab – live and dwell in, become established and remain in) desolate (samem – lifeless and destitute) towns (‘ywr)." (Yashayahu / Isaiah 54:2-3)

Indeed, as predicted by the Called-Out Assembly of Seven Sabbaths, and as result of the work of the Spirit and Son, on Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits, Gowym were invited into Yahweh’s family. We became adopted Yahuwdym, which means "related to Yah," because He treasured a relationship with us sufficiently to enable it.

Therefore, had Paul been a true prophet, he would have spoken of the Son as the fulfillment of Passover and Unleavened Bread, and of the Set-Apart Spirit as being the fulfillment of FirstFruits and Sevens, thus as our Savior and as our Mother. But instead, in Paul’s twisted mind, Abraham became our father and Sarah became our mother.

It should be noted that the intended meaning behind the second to last word of the previous verse, "samem – appalling and desolate," isn’t immediately obvious. But I think God is saying that His adopted children, the Gowym who will be born from above by way of our Spiritual Mother, will live in "appalling and lifeless" cities. In so doing, He would be confining the meaning of rab used in Yashayahu 54:1, to say that our Spiritual Mother’s children will be "greater" in status and power, not greater numerically, than Lord Ba’al’s offspring. In this way, Yahshua’s depiction of the "narrow and unpopular path to life" isn’t in conflict with Yahweh’s prophecy.

And look at the bright side. One of the benefits of having Paul routinely misquote the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms is that it gives us the chance to spend some quality time reading something which is enlightening and uplifting, not to mention, comprehensible, in the midst of this rhetorical rubbish. At least it keeps our brains from turning to mush and our souls from withering.

In this light, I am particularly fond of the fifth verse of the fifty-fourth chapter: "For you are married to your Maker. Yahuweh of the assembled implements is His name. And He is your Redeemer, the Set-Apart one of Yisra’el, called God of all the earth."

Therefore, Paul not only misquoted Yashayahu, he improperly associated Sarah with a prophecy depicting our Spiritual Mother’s fulfillment of the Called-Out Assembly of Seven Sabbaths. In this light, please consider how different Paul’s Greek is from Yashayahu’s Hebrew:

Sha’uwl: "For indeed has been written, ‘Rejoice infertile not giving birth, violently lacerating and crying out, not suffering birth pains because many children the desolate, or more possess the man.’" (Galatians 4:27)

Yashayahu: "Shout and sing for joy barren one, and She who has not yet borne a child be serene, rejoicing (shouting for joy, pleading and communicating). And let your light shine, the one who has not been in labor, for indeed the children of the desolate woman will be greater than the children who are associated with Ba’al,’ says Yahuweh." (Isaiah 54:1)

While our intent was to discern what Paul tried to say, and then determine why he said it, the one thing I know for sure is that Yahweh is articulate, and is indeed a profound communicator, and Paul is neither.

Recognizing that Sha’uwl once again misquoted, twisted, and misapplied Yahweh’s Word to infer that he had Divine authority for his blasphemous position, let’s consider how the religious community handled his mistakes. The Catholic Latin Vulgate reads: "For it is written: Rejoice, thou barren, that bearest not: break forth and cry thou that travailest not: for many are the children of the desolate, more than of her that hath a husband." The Protestant King James therefore says: "For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband."

The Evangelical New Living Translation accurately assessed Paul’s intent, but misrepresented his Greek text by translating the Hebrew passage instead: "As Isaiah said, ‘Rejoice, O childless woman, you who have never given birth! Break into a joyful shout, you who have never been in labor! For the desolate woman now has more children than the woman who lives with her husband!’" In a moment, I’ll share the Christian interpretation of Paul’s message so that you will be able to more fully appreciate how this lie was woven into the fabric of the faith.

Continuing with the Galatians epistle, please note that the following verse contains a pronoun, a conjunction, a preposition, four nouns, and one lone verb hanging out at the end of the "sentence." NA: "You but brothers by Isaac promise children you are." It’s hard to explain Paul’s point when his words don’t make any sense.

The father of the Christian faith wrote: "But (de) you (umeis) brothers (adelphos) [are] according to (kata) Yitschaq (Isaak – a transliteration of the Hebrew Yitschaq, meaning laughter) existing as (eimi) children (teknon) [of] an announcement (epangelia – the declaration of an assured agreement)." (Galatians 4:28)

Last time I checked, Yitschaq had two children—twins as it turns out, not hundreds, thousands, millions, or billions of children. One of his two sons, his first born, Esau, Yahweh despised—so that’s not an appealing option. (Although it would be reasonable to associate Sha’uwl with Esau.) And Yitschaq’s second son, Ya’aqob became Yisra’el, and thus he represents the nation and the race—namely Yahuwdym—or "Jews" in today’s vernacular. Ya’aqob was the father of the twelve tribes known collectively as "Yisra’el." But Galatians has established, and Thessalonians will affirm, that Jews and Israel were Paul’s mortal enemy, so Ya’aqob isn’t a viable option either. Therefore, even the details which comprise Paul’s attempted recasting of Yahweh’s message are inaccurate and inappropriate. As such, his argument was designed to fool the religious, the ignorant, and the irrational.

Even metaphorically, Gowym, who are adopted into Yahweh’s family, aren’t Yitschaq’s children, but instead we are the product of our Heavenly Father and Spiritual Mother. And this adoption process is only possible when we accept the terms and conditions of Yahweh’s Covenant, which was memorialized in the Torah, something Paul rejected, as have Christians after him. And thus, Sha’uwl’s statement is nothing more than misleading religious rhetoric.

As such, we find the following in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate: "Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise." Which was then reflected in the King James: "Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise." And then this was augmented in the NLT to convey: "And you, dear brothers and sisters, are children of the promise, just like Isaac." It was a case of money see, monkey do." Unwilling to admit that epangelia means "announced declaration of an assured agreement" not "promise," and ignorant of the fact that the "announcement" is contained in the Torah, and that the "assured agreement" was the "Covenant," each religious tome parroted Paul’s inaccurate and uninspired drivel.

Since I don’t know what more to say with regard to exposing Christians to the fact that Paul should not be trusted, let’s move on to the next verse. "Otherwise (alla – on the contrary and nevertheless) just as (hosper) at that time (tote – then) accordingly (kata), [the] flesh (sarx – the physical body) gave birth (gennao – procreated and brought forth) [and] pursued, persecuted, and expelled (dioko – hastily pressed forward, putting others to flight, running over them and driving them away, harassing and oppressing) [those] according to (kata – down, along, throughout, among, against, in accordance with, and with regard to) Spirit (ΠΝΑ) and so it continues (houto – follows) even now (nyn – at the present time)." (Galatians 4:29)

The Nestle-Aland proposed the following: "But as indeed then the by flesh having been born pursued the by spirit thusly also now."

In that this "sentence" is incomprehensible, let’s consider the Roman Catholic translation. Jerome wrote: "But as then he that was born according to the flesh persecuted him that was after the spirit: so also it is now." I wouldn’t know where to begin translating this.

The King James appears to be a racist rant, suggesting that Yahweh’s Jews were persecuting Paul’s Christians: "But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now."

As we have come to expect, the authors of the New Living Translation took this potentially anti-Semitic idea and ran with it: "But you are now being persecuted by those who want you to keep the law, just as Ishmael, the child born by human effort, persecuted Isaac, the child born by the power of the Spirit." While I can’t quarrel with the realization that this may well encapsulate Paul’s intent, it isn’t even remotely close to what he actually wrote.

There is no association between the "law," "Ishmael," or "human effort." Further, while Ishmael is said to have teased Isaac, that’s a world away from "dioko – persecution." Moreover, since dioko means "to persecute by hastily pursuing someone, to oppress and harass them, and thereby cause the victim to flee, and ultimately be expelled," it’s the wrong verb to apply to Ishmael’s taunting of Isaac, especially since it led to Ishmael’s, not Yitschaq’s, expulsion from the Promised Land. No matter how Paul’s message is interpreted, it is consistently wrong.

"Otherwise (alla – on the contrary and nevertheless) what (tis) the Writing (graphe – indicative of Scripture) says (lego), ‘Throw out and expel (ekballo – cast out and send out) the (ten) slave girl (paidiske) and (kai) her (autos) son (huios) [not (me) omitted in P46] for (gar – because then) not (me) receive (kleronomeo – gain possession or inherit) the son (huios) [of] the slave girl (paidiske) with (meta) the son (huios) [of] the free (eleutheros – free person or freeborn, one unrestrained and not bound by obligation)." (Galatians 4:30) Once again, even the Torah quotation was garbled and inaccurate.

So that we have another perspective from which to consider Paul’s misquotation of Genesis 21:10, here is what the Nestle-Aland published: "But what says the writing: Throw out the servant girl and the son of her not for not will inherit the son of the servant girl with the son of the free."

Jerome’s Latin Vulgate reads: "But what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman." So we should not be surprised that the KJV conveys the same thing: "Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman." Other than confirm that Paul was attempting to quote the Torah, the NLT’s rendering is very similar: "But what do the Scriptures say about that? ‘Get rid of the slave and her son, for the son of the slave woman will not share the inheritance with the free woman’s son.’"

The Torah passage Sha’uwl cited begins similarly, but ends differently. This is in Sarah’s voice: "And she said to Abraham, ‘Banish and expel (garas – cast out and divorce yourself from) this slave woman and her son, for this slave woman’s son will not be an heir (yaras – will not receive an inheritance along) with my son Yitschaq.’"(Genesis 21:10)

But Galatians reads: ‘Throw out and expel (ekballo – cast out and send out) the slave girl and her son for not receive (kleronomeo – gain possession or inherit) the son of the slave girl with the son of the free (eleutheros)."

So why do you suppose Paul removed "And she said to Abraham" from the beginning of this sentence? After all, he was positioning Sarah as the "Mother of the faithful," so her words should have carried Divine authority. But, more importantly, why did Paul corrupt the ending of the sentence, changing "for this slave woman’s son will not be an heir with my son Yitschaq," to: "for not receive the son of the slave girl with the son of the free"? Beyond the fact that we have an obligation to quote Scripture accurately, and Paul didn’t, it’s obvious that he misquoted the ending because he wanted the passage to fit his thesis. So when Sarah didn’t differentiate between "the son of the slave girl and the son of the free," Sha’uwl changed the text to create the illusion that he had a Divine sanction for his faith.

What’s so deeply troubling about all of this is that Sha’uwl knew that this particular passage was one of many which confirm that there was no covenant established with Hagar or Ishmael. They were banished into the desert, and separated from God and from the Children of Yisra’el. Thus the basis of Sha’uwl’s second covenant, the one allegedly memorialized on Mount Sinai with Hagar, which enslaved us, is torn asunder by this Scriptural citation. Therefore, once again, it is evident that Paul thought that his audience was too poorly informed, and too irrational, to connect these things and thereby rebuke him. And as it turns out, his assessment was accurate. And this might illuminate one of the reasons Sha’uwl spurned Jews (who knew the Torah and would have held him accountable for twisting it) and marketed his ideas exclusively to Gentiles who didn’t know any better. It is one of the reasons there are so few Jewish Christians today.

Before we move on, I’d like you to consider something. If we were to put aside the big picture for a moment where Paul’s message has been the antithesis of Yahweh’s, how is it that Christians can consider this to be Scripture, the inspired and inerrant Word of God, when the quotations are inconsistent and inaccurate when compared to the original text? By definition, inaccurate is not inerrant, thereby destroying the most important percept of the Christian faith.

If you are a Christian your options to resolve this problem include blaming the inspiration, that is to say, you can accept the fact that Paul wasn’t inspired by the Spirit who revealed the Torah. But that means Paul didn’t speak for God, and was thus a liar.

You can also blame the scribes, and say that they changed Paul’s words. But this "answer" is far more devastating, because only Papyrus 75, which covers part of Luke and most of John, is more reliable, and it was probably written one hundred years after Papyrus 46, which documented all of Galatians in the late first-, or early second-century. So if scribal error has significantly changed the text of Galatians over the course of thirty to fifty years, then nothing in the Renewed Covenant is remotely reliable, save perhaps portions of Yahuchanan and Luke. As such, the entire foundation of Christendom crumbles.

I suppose that the only other option is to side with Marcion, and believe that God Himself was so incompetent and senile that He could no longer remember what He said and was no longer relevant. And worse, that God, if He was still alive, came to realize that His original plan was so hopelessly flawed that He needed to have someone correct it for Him. But how is that possible since the Messiyah affirmed every aspect of Yahweh’s Word and plan, and Paul has alleged that his message is the same as Yahshua’s? Besides, if God authorized Paul to contradict Him, and change His message and plan of salvation, why is Paul quoting from the failed plan which has been annulled?

Considering the options, it’s little wonder Paul based his "faith" on "believing him." Those who are informed, and who are willing to think, will conclude that he was untrustworthy. Removed from a religious context where the faithful will believe most anything, Paul’s thesis isn’t the least bit credible.

Returning to the Torah, so that we understand what Paul was hoping his religious audience would ignore, we read: "God said to Abraham, ‘Do not show a distressed outward appearance regarding your teenage boy with the slave woman. Everything related to this which Sarah says to you, listen to and obey her voice. Indeed through Yitschaq, your offspring will be summoned (qara’ – called and invited).’" (Genesis 21:12) Qara’ serves as the basis of Miqra’, the name Yahweh selected to describe His Called-Out Assemblies. The Miqra’ey in turn serve as the basis of the Renewed Covenant’s Ekklesia—or Called-Out Assembly.

This was followed by: "I will cause the son of the slave woman to be a foreign people (gowy – to be gentiles, heathens, pagans, an uncultured nation, an animalistic herd) because he is your seed." (21:13) So, Abraham didn’t send Hagar and Ishmael out into the desert to die. They were freed and sent away with provisions. "Abraham rose early in the morning, grabbed hold of a loaf of bread and a skin of water, and gave them to Hagar, placing them and the child on her shoulder and sent her away (salah – dispatched, divorced, and exiled them, casting them out). And she wandered in error (ta’ah – went astray, staggering around without understanding) into lifelessness, the desolation of Beersheba." (Genesis 21:14) She was freed, as was her son, and they were given the provisions required to extend their mortal existence.

Excluding the boy from the Covenant’s promise of eternal life in God’s family was one thing, but robbing him of his earthly life would have violated the oath Yahweh made to his father. "And she walked, settling down in front of him, about as far away as you could shoot an arrow from a bow, and she said, ‘Don’t let me witness the death of my child.’ As she sat opposite him, she raised her voice and wailed." (Genesis 21:16) You’ll notice that while Yahweh was aware of the boy’s plight, because He had made prophetic promises regarding him (being a wild ass of a man and living in hostility with the world), He didn’t send him back to Abraham. He simply did as Abraham had done—He had an envoy provide for him, offer some encouragement, and then sent him on his way. "And God heard of (sama’ – received news and reports of) the sounds of the teenage boy, and summoned a messenger of God from heaven to Hagar, who questioned: ‘Concerning what are you afraid Hagar?’" Unlike His encounters with Abraham and Sarah, Yahweh didn’t meet with Hagar or Ishmael. They would not enjoy a familial covenant relationship with God.

The passage goes on to say: "Don’t fear because God has heard (sama’ – received news of) the sounds related to the lost sheep who has strayed here. Stand up, lift up the boy firmly with your hand for He will enable him to be a powerful Gentile (gowy – animalistic people, godless community).’ God had her eyes opened and she saw a pit of water. She walked over and filled up the skin with water and gave the boy a drink." (Genesis 21:17-19) But, "God was against the boy who went astray (na’ar – was a lost sheep) and so he lived in the desert (midbar – wilderness). He became great (gadal – boastful and exalted) shooting arrows with his bow." (Genesis 21:20)

The story of the Covenant was just beginning, but the story of Ishmael was over. The next time we hear something from God regarding Ishmael, we discover that he was specifically excluded from inheriting Abraham’s estate. Then we learn that Esau earned Yahweh’s wrath for having married one of Ishmael’s daughters. From that point, the bastard child fades into oblivion, only to be resurrected by Muhammad to serve Allah and Islam.

Paul knew all of this. He knew that there was no covenant established with Hagar or her son. He knew that Hagar wasn’t associated with the revelation of the Torah on Mount Sinai. And that is why it was so unconscionable for him to state otherwise.

I suppose that Paul’s parting salvo on the mythical second covenant might be valid if it were prophetic, and not historic, and you darted six centuries ahead in time, and associated Ishmael with Islam. "Therefore (ara – so then [in P46 as opposed to dio in the NA]), brothers (adelphos) do not (ou) exist as (eimi) [the] slave girl’s (paidiske) children (teknon), to the contrary (alla), the free (eleutheros)." (Galatians 4:31) In reality, neither Sarah nor Hagar conceived again. But a religion was conceived from these words—one which would be astonishingly anti-Semitic and ardently opposed to the Torah.

Regarding this verse, Jerome embellished his Latin Vulgate with: "So then, brethren, we are not the children of the bondwoman but of the free: by the freedom wherewith Christus has made us free." Surprisingly, the KJV removed the reference to "Christus:" "So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free."

Rather than simply consider the New Living Translation’s rendition of this passage, a more comprehensive view seems appropriate. Interpreting and trumpeting Paul’s blasphemous manifesto, these Evangelical Christians wrote:

"Tell me, you who want to live under the law, do you know what the law actually says? The Scriptures say that Abraham had two sons, one from his slave wife and one from his freeborn wife. The son of the slave wife was born in a human attempt to bring about the fulfillment of God’s promise. But the son of the freeborn wife was born as God’s own fulfillment of his promise.

These two women serve as an illustration of God’s two covenants. The first woman, Hagar, represents Mount Sinai where people received the law that enslaved them. And now Jerusalem is just like Mount Sinai in Arabia, because she and her children live in slavery to the law. But the other woman, Sarah, represents the heavenly Jerusalem. She is the free woman, and she is our mother. As Isaiah said, ‘Rejoice, O childless woman, you who have never given birth! Break into a joyful shout, you who have never been in labor! For the desolate woman now has more children than the woman who lives with her husband!’

And you, dear brothers and sisters, are children of the promise, just like Isaac. But you are now being persecuted by those who want you to keep the law, just as Ishmael, the child born by human effort, persecuted Isaac, the child born by the power of the Spirit. But what do the Scriptures say about that? ‘Get rid of the slave and her son, for the son of the slave woman will not share the inheritance with the free woman’s son.’ So, dear brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman; we are children of the free woman." (NLT Galatians 4:21-31)

In my quest to understand the Christian justification for Paul’s fictitious improvisation regarding a second covenant, with his view that the one formalized on Mount Sinai was associated with Hagar, as opposed to Ya’aqob/Yisra’el, and of it leading to slavery, as opposed to liberation, I found uniformity. It was as if someone wrote a plan for how to deal with Paul’s willingness to demean the Torah and contradict God, and thereafter everyone thoughtlessly parroted the same script. Every one of the score of Christian religious sites I scoured said that Paul was condemning the "Judaizers," as if there actually were such people. But since it sounds nasty, and because hating Jews has become a religious obsession, "Judaizers" became the ubiquitous explanation for Paul’s mythical second covenant.

So that Paul’s thesis is fresh in our minds, here is a recap of his position: "Speak to me those who desire to be under the auspices of the Law. The Law cannot hear. (4:21) For indeed it has been written that Abraham had two sons, one from the slave girl and one from the freeborn. (4:22) But nevertheless indeed then from the slave girl in accord with the flesh was procreated, but from the freeborn by way of a promise. (4:23) Whatever is being spoken of allegorically, these then exist as two covenants, one indeed from Sinai into slavery, giving birth to whoever exists as Hagar." (4:24)

"But now Mount Sinai exists in Arabia therefore corresponding to Yaruwshalaym, to being enslaved, because of being associated with Hagar’s children. (4:25) Above, the freeborn Yaruwshalaym exists, who is our mother. (4:26) For indeed it has been written, ‘Rejoice infertile not giving birth, violently lacerating and crying out, not suffering birth pains because many children the desolate, or more possess than the man.’ (4:27) But you brothers are according to Yitschaq, existing as children of the promise. (4:28) Otherwise just as at that time accordingly, the flesh gave birth and pursued, persecuted, and expelled those according to the spirit so it continues even now at the present time. (4:29) Otherwise, this is what the Writing says, ‘Throw out and expel the slave girl and her son, for not receive the son of the slave girl with the son of the free.’ (4:30) Therefore, brothers do not exist as slave the girl’s children, to the contrary, as the free girl’s children." (4:31)

According to Protestant Christianity: "the allegory of Hagar and Sarah was written to persuade us (along with the Galatians) not to follow the ‘Judaizers’ into slavery with Hagar and Ishmael." This comes courtesy of the Baptist Church. And yet, Scripture says that at Yahweh’s insistence, Hagar was freed, and Ishmael was never a slave. Therefore, if this is what Paul meant to say, he chose the wrong examples.

From a site operating under the acronym CCEL.org (Christian Classics Ethereal Library at Calvin College), and under the heading, "Sermons from Galatians," we find: "It is important to note that Paul does not deny the actual historical narrative, but he simply uses it in an allegorical sense to illustrate his point for the benefit of his readers who are tempted to go under the burden of the law." Yet in fact, Paul’s hypothesis contradicts every aspect of the Torah’s presentation of Hagar, Ishmael, the Covenant, and Mount Sinai, and thus represents a complete "denial of the actual historical narrative."

They write: "Our threat today might not be from Judaizing teachers, but from those who would have us turn away from Christ, such as voices in the world and false religions." For example, they might follow Christian preachers and come to believe the false religion of Christianity.

The Sacra Eloquia provided this twist: "The Apostle Paul, like Morpheus in the film The Matrix, had been a slave to his former religion of Judaism. And the Judaizers wanted the Galatians to be slaves as well." In actuality, it appears that Paul never escaped religion, and stepped from one into another.

The Lectionary Studies of the New Testament provided this perfectly prepared presentation of Pauline Doctrine: "By the use of the Hagar-Sarah illustration Paul makes his strongest argument: forward in the Christian life, or backward to Jerusalem and Mount Sinai. The message is that the Torah enslaves and condemns us. Yet the Judaizers argue that only those who submit to the Sinai covenant share in the promised Abrahamic blessings and thus Gentile believers must submit themselves to the Mosaic Law if they are to share in Isaac’s blessings, as opposed to being cast out with Ishmael." As is the case with Paul, this is wrong from beginning to end. And yet, in these words we find the religious script unveiled which has been deployed to pit Christianity against the Torah, against Yahweh, against the Covenant, against the Called-Out Assemblies, against the Commandments, and lest we forget, against Yisra’el and Yahuwdym. And it is a plot whose mythological origins are rooted in Paul’s letter to the Galatians.

Spreading the Light Ministries Network under the heading "Sermons," protests: "Paul illustrates the difference between believers who rest in Christ only and Judaizers who trusted in the law, by a comparison taken from the story of Isaac and Ishmael." But Paul’s story isn’t "from" the account of Yitschaq and Yshma’el, but is instead a corruption of it. Moreover, there is no comparison or association whatsoever between the banishment of Hagar and the Covenant memorialized in the Torah. Further, Yahshua Himself consistently told those interested in knowing Him and understanding what He came to accomplish, that they must ground their perspective in the Torah.

The Christian organization says: "He tells the Galatians that they are making a big mistake by falling away from the truth." And yet, according to God (Yahweh and Yahshua), the Torah is the truth.

"These things Paul said are an allegory, besides being literal and historical." It’s hard to believe that the proponents of this plot are so stupid that they don’t recognize that Paul wasn’t calling his version "allegorical," but instead Yahweh’s, and that Paul’s thesis was neither literal nor historical.

"Hagar represents the Mosaic Law, slavery." This is only true in Paul’s twisted mind and in the hearts of those sufficiently ignorant and irrational to believe him. Yahweh and the Torah say just the opposite.

Spreading the Light Ministries Network protested: "Mount Sinai represents Jerusalem under slavery to Rome and the Jews...who are under the curse of the Law." The only association between Mount Sinai and Jerusalem is that one predicts, explains, and leads to the other. They are linked, not in "curses" or "slavery," but in being steps along the path to our salvation. The Torah’s Covenant promise was honored on Passover, Unleavened Bread, FirstFruits, and Seven Sabbaths in Yaruwshalaym—the Source of Redemption and Reconciliation.

The Bible Study Guide to Galatians suggests: "Paul uses the story of Hagar and Sarah as a picture of the relationship between God and man. Paul tells the Galatians that Hagar represents the covenant given on Mt. Sinai, which is the law that the Jews pride themselves on keeping. In so doing, Paul warns us about complying with the Judaizers." The opposite of this is actually true. Abraham, and through him, Yitschaq and Ya’aqob (who became Yisra’el) represent the Covenant between Yahweh and His family, not Sarah. And Hagar was specifically disassociated from the Covenant centuries before it was codified in the Torah on Mount Sinai. Further, the "law that the Jews pride themselves on keeping" isn’t the Torah, but instead, Jewish Oral Law, know as Rabbinical Law.

Bereft of the notion that "proof" requires "evidence," McGarvey and Pendleton’s Commentary published: "Paul proves that Christians are not required to keep the Jewish Sabbath or festivals of Judaism even though the Judaizers insisted upon them." The only thing Paul has proven is that his Greek is impoverished and that he feels no qualms about contradicting God. Equally uninformed, McGarvey and Pendleton as anti-Semites want Christians to believe that the Sabbath, Passover, Unleavened Bread, FirstFruits, Sevens, Trumpets, Reconciliations, and Shelters are the customs of "Judaizers," rather than being Yahweh’s instructions.

M&P wrote: "Paul imagines that the Galatians are seeking the instruction of the Judaizers, as they had once sought him." While Paul has a vivid imagination, there is no evidence for "Judaizers," much less that the Galatians actually sought Paul’s instructions. To the contrary, the text of the epistle indicates that the Galatians rejected Paul and his message. (If only the rest of the world had as well.)

Reading Galatians through glasses fitted at a Christian bookstore, McGarvey and Pendleton wrote: "And Paul, knowing the passion of the Judaizers for allegory, meets them with their own weapon, and presents his case argumentatively and logically." Nothing Paul has said has been logical, albeit, his rhetoric has been plenty argumentative. There is no indication that Rabbis used allegory. It is Yahweh who has a passion for parables, metaphors, and word pictures. And they are not "weapons," but instead teaching aids. But by saying this, these Christians have demonstrated their disdain for God.

Further, they have demonstrated that Christianity renders its victims unable to think. Anyone who has read this passage in Greek understands that Paul specifically differentiated the allegorical meaning of the story, whatever it may have been, from his personal interpretation of it. Paul didn’t say that the two covenants were allegorical, but instead said "these then exist as two covenants." And while Paul is undeniably "argumentative," he is the antithesis of "logical."

From an organization called "From Pentecost to Patmos" we find confusion between religious rhetoric and sound argument: "Paul’s thesis, presented in Galatians chapter 4, verses 8-31, provides a series of arguments for his conviction that justification comes by faith alone, and he contrasts this with the improperly motivated zeal of the Judaizers." This begins well. Galatians is "Paul’s thesis." And therein lies the problem. Paul’s thesis and Yahweh’s message differ.

Pentecost to Patmos’ insistence that "justification comes by faith alone" is invalid according to God. But it is true that faith operates alone, without evidence or support. Whereas trust, which is based upon knowledge and understanding, requires a foundation of supporting evidence.

The longest, most errant, and yet most unapologetically Christian, comparison between Genesis 17:15-21 and Galatians 4:21-31 is found under a Presbyterian site. A pastor on behalf of the "Orthodox Presbyterian Church," wrote the following anti-Semitic rant: "The Judaizers [in actuality, Jews have a history of seldom, if ever, attempting to convert anyone to their way of thinking] entered the Galatian churches [there is no reference to a "church" in the Renewed Covenant Writings, but instead an ekklesia, Called-Out Assembly based upon Yahweh’s seven Called-Out Assemblies], which were primarily Gentile [while this excuse is ubiquitous, the content of Galatians demonstrates that the audience was aware and fond of the Torah, meaning that they were mostly Yahuwdym, not Gowym], and argued that true believers [there is no such thing as a "true believer" in the RC, but instead, someone who knows, understands, trusts, and relies upon the truth as it is revealed in the Torah] had to be engrafted into the lineage through circumcision and obedience to the Law of Moses." This misses the symbolism of circumcision and its Spiritual association with baptism. And it misconstrues "observance" with "obedience." Observance leads to understanding. Obedience leads to submission. Further, the "Law of Moses" is akin to calling the prophecies Yahweh revealed to Yashayahu by the man’s name. Moseh was simply the scribe who wrote what Yahweh said unto a scroll. It is akin to attributing the Declaration of Independence to the calligrapher.

Failing to appreciate the difference between "stating" and "demonstrating," the Presbyterian pastor exclaimed: "But Paul demonstrates that the Mosaic Law itself has come to an end with the coming of the true seed, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the end of the Law." Paul does make this claim, but by doing so he directly contradicts Yahshua’s position on the Torah. Therefore, since Yahshua said that He did not bring an end to the Law, Paul simply demonstrated that he was wrong.

"But sadly the Galatians had begun to buy into the Judaizers’ argument. [Galatians never reveals the nature of Paul’s foe or the arguments they proposed.] They had already capitulated and were being told to observe the fasts and festivals of the Jewish calendar. [Wrong again. There are no fasts, and the festivals are Yahweh’s and dated on His calendar, not a Jewish one.] But we are no longer slaves to the Law of Moses, and are no longer regulated by it commandments." If the Torah isn’t a source of liberation, then Yahweh is a liar and Yahshua fulfilled Passover and Unleavened Bread in vain. Under this condition, there would be no freedom from human oppression, nor vindication from sin.

I was appalled not long ago to see the Presbyterian Church release a stunningly immoral and inaccurate press release following their General Assembly against Jews and Israel and in favor of the Muslims who were terrorizing them. And now, I understand the source of their anti-Semitism. "So Paul turns the Judaizers use of the Old Testament against them." Calling the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms the "Old Testament" demonstrates that Christians remained mired in Marcion’s polluted rhetoric. Scripture, according to Yahshua, begins with the "Torah," and it concludes with the "Prophets." Further, Paul misquoted and misapplied Scripture. And that means that Paul used the "Old Testament" against himself.

According to Orthodox Presbyterian Church: "Paul tells them that the Covenant made at Mt. Sinai where the Law was mediated through Moses in the presence of the angels was a covenant of slavery and bondage." There are no "angels" in Scripture, and the Torah was not "mediated through Moses." To mediate is "to intervene" and to bring accord by being an intermediary." Yahweh spoke for Himself. More importantly, Yahweh as Yahshua intervened for Himself. Further, the explicit purpose of the Torah is to detail the role Yahweh played in the liberation of the children of Yisra’el from the crucible of human religious and political oppression and bondage in Egypt, leading them to a life of freedom in the Promised Land. Yahweh’s seven Called-Out Assemblies delineate this same path for the rest of us.

"Paul’s gospel is not related to Hagar, the Judaizers are." Paul can be blamed for many things, but "gospel" isn’t among them. He used euangelion, meaning "healing and beneficial message." "Gospel" is a Christian myth based upon pagan nomenclature.

The Orthodox Presbyterian demonstrated his ignorance when he postured: "The message of the Torah is one of slavery." According to Paul this is true, but not according to Yahweh. Therefore God’s Torah instructions and man’s religious teachings on this foundational issue are diametrically opposed. How is it then that Christians remain oblivious to this conflict? Search as I might, I was unable to find a single theologian who even attempted to reconcile this problem.

The Christian apologist, having skipped the lecture on the Sermon on the Mount at seminary school, wrote: "Since the city of Jerusalem had become a symbol for the Mosaic Covenant, when that Covenant/Law came to an end, so did all the hopes that were rooted in that city, including the land and temple." Yaruwshalaym is the symbol of salvation, not the symbol of the Covenant. Family is the symbol of the Covenant. The Torah presents them as such. And according to Yahweh, His Word is eternal, never ending. As such, the hope of reconciliation, and the return of Yahshua, will occur on the Mount of Olives just east of the Temple Mount in the one and only Yaruwshalaym.

Presbyterian Christians have separated themselves from Yahweh, from His Torah, from God’s Path home, from Yaruwshalaym the source of reconciliation, and thus from the Promised Land, symbolic of heaven. "No longer for the Christian is Jerusalem, the land of Israel, and the law of Moses the center of our hope. The Christian’s hope is not to be found in whether or not a nation today called Israel locates itself in the Middle East, of if they are able to slaughter enough Arabs to take over the city of Jerusalem, or if they are able to take control of the temple Mount and rebuild the Temple. These things are all vain hopes. They are Jewish empty dreams.  They are simply the confused dog chasing his shadow in the yard." While it’s hard not to envision Yahweh’s anguished expression at the trial of the Christian pastor who scribed these words, it would do these fellows a world of good to read the Prophets and Revelation sometime.

"Rather the Christian has become heirs of the realities, not the shadows. Let the Jews continue to place their hopes in the shadows which have come to an end. Amen" And yet, Christianity remains mired in the myths of Mystery Babylon, confused by Satan’s shadows, his counterfeits. "Amen," indeed.

For Paul’s thesis to be true, for the Torah to be an agent of enslavement, and for it to be annulled, Yahweh, the God who created the universe and conceived life, the author of the Torah and architect of the plan of salvation delineated therein, would have to have come to the conclusion that He was wrong and that He was incapable of resolving man’s condition. As a result, He would have had to recognize that Paul was superior in intellect and ability to Himself, and to His human manifestation Yahshua. Then, God would have had to have asked Paul to correct Him, and to solve these problems a different way. If you believe that is what occurred, that Paul had the authority and ability to correct God, congratulations, you are a Christian.