Chapter 11

Prautes

Appropriate Response

How Are You Going to Respond?...

The longer the sentence, the more challenging it is to comprehend. That is especially true with Paul. So, as we begin our review of the sixth chapter of his epistle to the Galatians, consider this rendition of the opening line as it is found in the Nestle-Aland 27^th Edition interlinear: "Brothers if also might be taken before man in some trespass you the spiritual ones put in order the such in spirit of gentleness looking carefully yourself not also you might be pressured." It is almost as if Paul randomly selected twenty-three words and strung them together as a puzzle.

While I don’t know what the author was trying to say, I know that the words Paul chose, rearranged in the order dictated by the conversion from Greek to English, convey: "And also (kai) brothers (adelphos), if (ean) a man (anthropos) may have previously detected or caught (prolambano – might have previously held) in (en) someone (tini) a false step (paraptomati – slip up, misdeed, or deviation), you (umeis), the ones (oi) who are spiritual (pneumatikoi – who acts spiritually), you must thoroughly prepare and completely restore (katartizo – make totally adequate, entirely render and furnish, produce and arrange, wholly mend, repair, make sound and equip) the one (ton) such as this (toioutos) with (en – in) an appropriate response, and in a controlled and considered (prautes – responding appropriately after carefully evaluating the circumstances, errantly rendered meek, gentle, or humble) spirit (ΠΝΙ / pneumati – Divine Placeholder for the Ruwach Qodesh, or Set-Apart Spirit (however, since Sha’uwl’s spirit bears no resemblance to our Spiritual Mother, the lowercase spirit is appropriate)), carefully observing (skopeo – focusing on, closely watching, being concerned, and thinking about) yourself (seauton) so then (kai) you may not be examined or might not examine (me peirazo – may not be tested or might not ascertain the truth)." (Galatians 6:1)

There are so many things wrong with this passage, with a focus on exposing errant Christian theology, let’s tackle these one word at a time. The problems begin with "prolambano – may have previously detected or caught." This is very similar to the Qur’an asking Muslim children to spy on their parents and turn them in to the authorities if they suspect them of rejecting any of Muhammad’s orders or teachings. It was how most everyone in Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany were controlled. It was the spirit behind the Salem Witch Trials in America. And it is how professors, politicians, priests, preachers, and media spokespeople are compelled to walk a conforming path today. It is the operating mechanism behind Political Correctness. It is the spirit behind: "We are watching you, and if you step out of line (remember "stoichomen – march in a conforming line following the leader), we will send you off to be reprogrammed."

Moving from Paul’s police, to the "paraptomati – false step," we discover that in this religion "deviations" from Pauline Doctrine will not be tolerated. No one will be allowed to "slip away or turn aside from the path" which has been articulated by "God’s Apostle." It is especially telling that paraptomati is a compound of para, meaning "from," and pipto, "to descend, being thrust down and prostrating oneself." Paul is establishing a religion, which like this letter, will not tolerate a rival, nor any challenge to his authority or instructions. All those who rebel and offer dissenting views, must be caught and thoroughly dealt with.

Prior to examining this passage, I had wondered how "pneumatikoi – being spiritual and acting spiritually" became synonymous with the Christian religion. Like faith and belief, it has given rise to a host of erroneous concepts and errant behaviors. The standard we are asked to observe is the Torah, which is why the example we are encouraged to follow is Yahshua—the Word made flesh. We are not asked "to be spiritual," because the most active "spirit" on this planet is Satan’s.

Christians demonstrate what it means to "act spiritual" when they wave their arms in the air at praise services, and when they point to the heavens after achieving some success in an athletic event. Spirituality is on display when someone, ignorant of the purpose of freewill, says "God has a plan for your life," or says "it was all part of God’s plan," in an ill-advised attempt to blame their misfortune on God, suggesting that their failures were His will. Spirituality is manifest again at funerals when someone claims that a deceased friend was called home. Worse, Christians think that they are demonstrating their spirituality when they insist others do what "Jesus Christ," did, not recognizing that the Christian caricature of the Messiyah Yahshua is Pauline, and thus is unrelated to God.

Also interesting in this regard, this is one of the few Greek passages where any form of pneuma is actually written out, as opposed to being represented by a Divine placeholder for Ruwach (as it is the second time in this sentence). The only thing which distinguishes pneumatikoi is the tikoi suffix. Tikto means "to bring forth, to bear, and to produce." It is used in the context of "a woman giving birth."

If it were not for the fact that "katartizo – you must thoroughly prepare and completely restore" was written in the second person plural as katartisete, and thus indicating that "you all must repair and restore," or that "all of you must make totally adequate, entirely repair, and make completely sound," then it would have been a worthy instruction. But this is not our job. It’s the Qodesh/Set-Apart Ruwach/Spirit’s responsibility to "repair and renew" our souls, "making us totally complete and entirely sound." Worse, katartisete was written as an active imperative, and thus as a "command" or "commandment" that the subject of this order must perform.

"Prautes – ­an appropriate and considered response," is what Questioning Paul was written to inspire. You have been encouraged to "carefully evaluate the evidence and then respond appropriately."

With regard to prautes, Aristotle said that the word stood in the middle between getting angry without reason and not getting angry at all. Prautes describes a "measured and considered reaction which is suitable to the circumstance." It isn’t passivity or aggression, but instead the "fitting reply based upon adequate knowledge and proper understanding."

Prautes is most often rendered "meekness or humility" but the word does not suggest weakness, being impotent, or being lowly or impoverished, because all of that misses the point of the word. Prautes is the courage and character to do what is right regardless of the consequence. It was used by Yahshua in the Sermon on the Mount to describe those who understand the appropriateness of relying upon Yahweh for their salvation as opposed to themselves. Therefore, prautes isn’t about meekness as we use that word, but instead about understanding the human condition relative to Yahweh’s Word, and responding appropriately.

The merit of prautes is that it encourages us to consider the evidence thoughtfully before we respond. It is an "informed and rational response." So, now that you know that Sha’uwl’s message is the antithesis of Yahweh’s, who are you going to trust?

The key, or course, to making the right decision is "focus." We must "skopeo – carefully observe, be concerned and think about" Yahweh’s Word. But unfortunately Paul told Christians to "skopeo – be concerned about, focus upon, and look at" themselves, not God or His Word.

The reason Sha’uwl wants Christians to be self-circumspect is so that they "me peirazo – aren’t examined" and so that they "don’t examine." His message cuts both ways. He wants his spies to toe the line he has drawn, so that they "aren’t tempted" to reject his dogma. And he is equally insistent that they don’t "test his instructions so as to ascertain the truth" for themselves.

Peirazo is from peira, "to conduct a trial." But it also means "to know by way of personal experience." It is often translated "to put to the test," "to examine," or "to prove." But keep in mind; while these concepts are appropriate when it comes to evaluating a message or messenger, peirazo was coupled with me in this text which negated all of these things.

The reason that I have ceased rendering the Divine Placeholders such as ΠΝΙ in this passage using the Covenant’s Ruwach is that Sha’uwl’s animosity for everything in the Torah makes this accurate replacement ridiculous. Sha’uwl’s spirit is opposed to God’s Word which means that he is also adverse to the Ruwach Qodesh—Yahweh’s Set-Apart and Cleansing Spirit. Therefore, in the context of Sha’uwl’s epistles, the only "prautes – informed, rational, and reasonable response" to "ΠΝΙ / pneumatií" is to translate the Greek word in the lowercase as "spirit."

Without the clutter of the Greek, and without excessive amplification, the opening verse of the sixth chapter reads: "And also brothers, if a man may have previously detected or caught in someone a false step or deviation, you, the ones who are spiritual, you must thoroughly prepare and completely restore the one such as this with an appropriate response and in a controlled and considered spirit, carefully observing, focusing on, and thinking about yourself so then you may not be examined or might not examine." (6:1)

In the Latin Vulgate, Jerome blazed the trail all others have followed: "Brethren, and if a man be overtaken in any fault, you, who are spiritual, instruct such a one in the spirit of meekness, considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted." Based upon this interpretation, the King James Bible, as a translation of the Latin, and not the Greek, reads: "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted."

Moving into the more modern translations, the literal New American Standard Bible scribed: "Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted."

In spite of the fact that there is no reference to "sisters," "believers" or "godly" in the entire epistle, much less in this verse, the New Living Translation authored: "Dear brothers and sisters, if another believer is overcome by some sin, you who are godly should gently and humbly help that person back onto the right path. And be careful not to fall into the same temptation yourself." In other words, adhere to church doctrine and don’t you dare think for yourself.

After that romp into the realm of religion, we encounter this pearl of fluidity. In it, Paul introduces yet a third "law." We had Sarah’s promised liberation from the Torah, Hagar’s enslavement to the Torah, and now the Messiyah’s Law.

"The (ta) weighty burdens (baros – hardships, weight, oppressive sufferings, and troubles) [of] one another (allelon) you endure and carry (bastazo – undergo, remove, take away, and bear) and (kai) thus in this way (houto) you complete (anapleroo – provide, fulfill, and replace) the (ton) Law (nomon) of (tou) Christou (ΧΥ / Christou – placeholder for the Messiyah, the Implement of Yah)." (Galatians 6:2)

The only "Law of the Messiyah" is the Torah. God’s Word and Yahshua are synonymous. He is the Word made flesh. But since Paul has condemned the Torah transcribed by Moseh on Mount Sinai, it’s obvious that his mythical "Law of Christou" is an unspecified and imaginary Torah replacement.

And speaking of fantasies, the notion that ordinary people "complete and fulfill" the Law, is only possible in Paul’s religious realm. But in the world Yahweh created, He alone fulfills and completes His Word—and He does it His Way and on His schedule.

No man "bastazo – endures or carries, removes or bears," the "baros – burdens," of others. We cannot remove our own burdens, much less someone else’s. This is God’s job. He alone is qualified. And this makes every aspect of Paul’s instruction fraudulent. Frankly, since the Messiyah Yahshua endured pain and separation beyond imagination to fulfill the Law on Passover and Unleavened Bread explicitly to remove and bear our burdens, Paul asking others to perform this same job is presumptuous and insulting.

It is telling to note that Rabbis like Sha’uwl never read from Yasha’yahu / Isaiah 53, so "God’s Apostle" would never have considered its message while studying to be a Pharisee. And yet it affirms the Messiyah’s role in our redemption. Please consider: "Surely our sickness and maladies He Himself lifted from us, accepted, and bore (nasa’ – lifted up, sustained and carried away), and our pain (mak’ob – physical suffering and emotional anguish) He carried away (cabal – sustained the load, dragging our burden away)." (Yasha’yahu / Isaiah 53:4)

"All of us like sheep have gone astray (ta’ah – erred by wandering away, staggered while intoxicated, deceived ourselves, and have been misled). Mankind has turned to his own way. But Yahuweh has caused the guilt and punishment (‘avon – the liability, perversity, depravity, iniquity, and the consequence of the sin) of us all to fall on Him (paga’ – to encounter Him for Him to make intercession, to make physical contact with Him resulting in injury and death so as to spare us, and carry our burdens away)." (Yasha’yahu / Isaiah 53:6)

This next statement speaks of Yahshua’s soul enduring She’owl on our behalf on the Called-Out Assembly of Unleavened Bread. "When, as a concession, He shall render His Soul as a guilt offering (‘asham – to be declared guilty, offensive, and desolate, suffering the punishment) for sin... He will be numbered with those who rebel, Himself lifting up and bearing (nasa’ – taking and carrying away) the crimes and penalties of many. And He will intercede for those who are in rebellion. Shout for joy." (Yasha’yahu / Isaiah 53:10-12 - 54:1)

The contrast between Yahweh’s Word and Paul’s irritating and erroneous drivel is monumental. It is the difference between God and man. So why is it that anyone believes Sha’uwl?

The Nestle-Aland Interlinear reports: "Of one another the burdens bear and thusly you will fill up the law of the Christ." It is what Jerome wrote in the Vulgate as well: "Bear ye one another’s burdens: and so you shall fulfill the law of Christ." So, we should not be surprised to see this repeated in the KJV: "Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ." Good luck with that.

Recognizing the hubris and pain associated with even pretending to do what the Messiyah had done, the NLT arbitrarily changed "complete" to "obey." "Share each other’s burdens, and in this way obey the law of Christ." But that would require observing the Torah.

Having digressed from utter nonsense to utterly wrong over the course of two sentences, let’s approach the third with a touch of skepticism. Therefore, in our quest for accuracy, please note that we find "eiper – if indeed" in Papyrus 46 in place of "ei gar – because if," at the beginning of this verse.

"Since if (eiper – if indeed or if after all) someone (tis) supposes and presumes (dokei – is of the opinion or is reputed) to be (einai) someone (ti) [he] is (on) nothing (meden), deceiving (phrenapatao) himself (eauton)." (Galatians 6:3) This is true. But at the same time it is true of Paul.

One of the reasons this statement indicts Sha’uwl is because of what he has previously said about Ya’aqob, Shim’own, and Yahuchanan using "dokei – supposes and presumes" to demean their status. So, since Sha’uwl seems to know what the word meant here, he knew what it meant there. Remember Galatians 2:9: "And knowing and recognizing the kind and fortuitous gift given to me, Ya’aqob, Petros, and Yahuchanan, the supposed and presumed (dokei – the opinionated and imagined) existing pillars, gave the right hand of fellowship to me and Barnabas to the nations, but they to the circumcised."

As for the established translations, we find this in the NA: "If for thinks some to be some nothing being he deceives mind himself."  From this, Jerome wrote: "For if any man think himself to be some thing, whereas he is nothing, he deceiveth himself." Once again demonstrating that the KJV was a translation of the Latin Vulgate, not the Greek text, we find: "For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself." Writing their own bible, the NLT scribed: "If you think you are too important to help someone, you are only fooling yourself. You are not that important."

After incriminating himself, the Devil’s Advocate boasts: "But (de) the (to) work (ergon – deeds, accomplishments, and performances) [of] himself (heauton – itself) they must examine (dokimazo – they should scrutinize their accomplishments so that they will be deemed worthy and prove that their performances should be recognized as meritorious) [each (ekastos – every) omitted from P46], and (kai) then (tote) to (eis) him (auton) alone (monos – to the exclusion of all others) the (to) boast (kauchema – pride and praise, exaltation and glory) he or she will possess (echo – will have and hold) [and (kai) omitted in P46], not (ouk) on behalf (eis) of (ton) another (heteron – other)." (Galatians 6:4)

Playing with the pieces of the same puzzle, the NA assembled: "The but work of himself let approve each and then in himself alone the brag he will have and not in the other."  The LV proposed: "But let everyone prove his own work: and so he shall have glory in himself only and not in another." Parroting Jerome, the KJV said: "But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another."

So, if this is what Paul meant to say, and it probably is, then we have to question his mental stability. The last two verses are at cross purposes with each other. One says that if someone presumes that they are important, then they are deceiving themselves. But then he says that we should examine everything we have done so that we can boast and glorify ourselves.

Beyond the duplicity, there is an additional problem. We shouldn’t be about the business of boasting in what we have done. We aren’t to glorify or exalt ourselves. Our mission should never be about us, especially to the exclusion of others. Our words and deeds should be focused on encouraging people to choose to have God lift them up and exalt them instead.

Recognizing this problem, the NLT simply changed the text to keep Paul from looking like he had just contradicted himself. "Pay careful attention to your own work, for then you will get the satisfaction of a job well done, and you won’t need to compare yourself to anyone else."

Speaking of schizophrenia, after telling his audience that they should remove and bear other people’s burdens, Sha’uwl says that everyone will carry their own load. And yet, the "good news" is that Yahweh has already removed the burdens of all those who have availed themselves of Yahweh’s gift (remember Yashayahu/Isaiah 53:6?). "For (gar – because then) each and every one (ekastos) their (to) own individual and distinct (idion – unique and separate, belonging to one’s self) burden (phortion – load and cargo, figuratively speaking of obligations, oppressiveness, and legalistic requirements) will carry (bastazo – will accept, endure, and bear)." (Galatians 6:5)

Beyond the fact that Paul has contradicted himself regarding a command he has just issued, and beyond the fact that this negates the Messiyah’s fulfillment of Unleavened Bread, bastazo was rendered in the future tense and the indicative mood (making it a reality from the writer’s perspective). That means that Paul is saying that they "will actually continue to bear and endure" their "burdens" into the future. In other words: there won’t be any forgiveness. And unfortunately, for those who believe Paul, there will not be any.

In light of the fact that Paul has contradicted himself in addition to having contradicted God, he has once again neglected to consider the role of the Messiyah. And that means that these translations are an accurate reflection of his errors. NA: "Each for the own pack will bear." LV: "For every one shall bear his own burden." KJV: "For every man shall bear his own burden."

But in league with those who benefit financially from Christianity, and therefore willing to alter the words which were written in Galatians to make Paul appear credible, the New Living Translation not only perpetuates the deception that Sha’uwl was inspired by God, they published a text that they knew was not accurate: "For we are each responsible for our own conduct." There is no possible way the Greek scholars responsible for translating Galatians actually thought that "phortion – burden" meant "responsible," or that "bastazo – carry" meant "conduct." This is fraud, a knowing and willful deception perpetrated for money. It is criminal.

Now that the first paragraph of the sixth chapter is complete, let’s review what Sha’uwl has said thus far. "And also brothers, if a man may have previously detected or caught in someone a false step or deviation, you the ones who are spiritual, you must thoroughly prepare and completely restore the one such as this with an appropriate response and in a controlled and considered spirit, carefully observing, focusing on, and thinking about yourself so then you may not be examined or might not examine. (6:1) The weighty burdens of one another you endure and carry and thus in this way you complete the Law of Christou. (6:2) Since if someone supposes and presumes to be someone he is nothing, deceiving himself. (6:3) But the work of himself they must examine, and then to him alone the boast he or she will possess, not on behalf of another. (6:4) For each and every one their own individual and distinct burden will carry." (6:5)

No matter how one slices and dices these words, written as a command, this next statement is a problem, especially in this context. "But (de) one must share (koinoneito – he must participate together as a partner and in association with others must take part in) that (o) which one is taught (katechoumenos – orally informed) of the (ton) word (legos), orally communicating (katechounti – verbally instructing) in (en) all (pas) useful ways (agathois – profitable, beneficial, and good means)." (Galatians 6:6)

We are in the sixth chapter, and there haven’t been six passages cited from Yahweh’s Word thus far. And recognizing that the Torah verses which have been cited have all been misquoted and twisted, it’s obvious that the "word" Sha’uwl wants promoted is his own. Since his purpose has been to demean the Word of God, obsolescing and besmirching the Torah, there is no chance whatsoever that Sha’uwl was motivating the Galatians to share the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. And at this point, Mark and Luke had not been written, and Matthew’s eyewitness account wouldn’t have been of any value to the Galatians because it was initially written in Hebrew. And while John’s testimony was composed around this time, it had not yet been widely distributed. Therefore, the Devil’s Advocate was ordering, actually commanding since koinoneito was written in the imperative mood, the Galatians to recite what he had preached and written.

If the Nestle-Aland is right, then Paul was also saying that the one being instructed should do the instructing. That’s like asking a class of children to educate their teacher (a.k.a. a liberal American classroom). NA: "Let be partner but the one being instructed the word to the one instructing in all good." Jerome agrees with them in the LV: "And let him that is instructed in the word communicate to him that instructeth him, in all good things." And therefore, the KJV regurgitates this same upside down notion of the student informing their instructor: "Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things." Apparently suffering writer’s block, the NLT serves as a revision of the King James: "Those who are taught the word of God should provide for their teachers, sharing all good things with them." This unique twist of the text is quite revealing. It says that "those who are taught the word of God" which is code for "Evangelical Christians," "should provide for their teachers, sharing all good things with them," which is code for "pay your pastor a generous salary and provide him with a nice house and a munificent living allowance." Not surprisingly, the authors of the NLT were money-grubbing preachers.

This next line comes out of the wild blue yonder. Devoid of context or an intelligent transition, the Apostle who has devoted himself to mocking God and treating His Word with contempt, says: "You should not wander about deceived (me planaomai – you must not stray from the truth, be deluded and be led astray into error); God (ΘΣ) is not ridiculed (ou mykterizo – is not mocked nor treated with contempt, literally one does not sneer, turning up one’s nose). Because then (gar – for) whatever (o) man (anthropos) may (ean) sow (speiro – scatter) this (touto) also (kai) he shall reap (therizo – harvest grain)." (Galatians 6:7)

In truth, God is mocked all the time. Christians call Him "Lord," an epithet for Satan, rather than referring to Him by His name. As a result of Sha’uwl sneering at Him, the faithful treat Yahweh’s Torah with utter contempt, suggesting that it enslaves and that it was annulled—even that it was wrong. Christians uniformly turn up their noses at His annual Festivals—also as a result of Paul’s epistles. In addition to this, it’s hard to imagine wandering further from the truth than saying that there are two covenants, not one, or that the Covenant memorialized on Mount Sinai was established with Hagar and led to slavery.

And while, as a result of Passover and Unleavened Bread, we don’t all reap what we have sown, those who deliberately lead souls away from God as Paul has done, will reap what they have sown. Sha’uwl will spend his eternity in the place that shares his name: She’owl.

Here then are the translations written by the religion which was founded on deceit and mockery. NA: "Not be deceived God not is mocked. What for if might sow man this also he will harvest."  LV: "Be not deceived: God is not mocked. For what things a man shall sow, those also shall he reap." KJV: "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." NLT: "Don’t be misled—you cannot mock the justice of God. You will always harvest what you plant." If God’s justice cannot be mocked, then every Christian who has rejected His Law based upon Paul’s encouragement is in serious trouble.

Speaking of reaping that which one sows, Sha’uwl continues his agricultural theme by pointing out the obvious. It is not a revelation that flesh decays or that a spirit is eternal. So, for Galatians 6:8 to have been useful, Paul would have had to have done what Yahshua did in His discussion with Nicodemus, and explain the process of Spiritual birth. But that wasn’t Paul’s intent. With him, "the flesh" is synonymous with "the Torah" (in part because of its insistence on circumcision) and "the spirit" is nebulous and thus equivalent to "faith." Therefore, he is saying that sowing the seeds of God’s Word leads to destruction and decay, while those who place their faith in his spirit will enjoy eternal life.

In his own sneaky way, Sha’uwl is saying: the circumcised are cut off. "Because (oti) the (o) one sowing (speiron – scattering seed) into (eis) the (ten) flesh (sarx), from (ek) himself (eautou) reaps (therizo – harvests) the (tes) flesh’s (sarkos – the body’s (singular genitive and thus specific and possessive) destruction (phthora – decay and moral corruption, depravity which leads to perishing). But (de) the (o) one sowing (speiron – scattering seed) to (eis) the (to) spirit (ΠΝΑ / pneuma – Divine Placeholder for the Ruwach Qodesh, or Set-Apart Spirit (however, since Sha’uwl’s spirit bears no resemblance to our Spiritual Mother, the lowercase spirit is appropriate)), will reap (therisei – will harvest) eternal (aionios) life (zoe)." (Galatians 6:8)

This is true in a way, but not in the way Sha’uwl intended believers to understand it. If we were to consider sowing as being actively engaged planting and nurturing the lies of Pauline Doctrine, then those who do "will reap eternal life." Unfortunately it will be in She’owl.

And while it is a technical point, we don’t "sow the Spirit." We can sow the seeds of truth by conveying Yahweh’s Word, and we can invite the Ruwach Qodesh into our own lives and receive Her, but that is all we can do. The notion of "sowing to the Spirit" isn’t sound literally, operationally, metaphorically, allegorically, or Scripturally.

The following translations are accurate, but yet their message is not. NA: "Because the one sowing in the flesh of himself from the flesh will harvest corruption the but one sowing in the spirit from the spirit will harvest life eternal."  LV: "For he that soweth in his flesh of the flesh also shall reap corruption. But he that soweth in the spirit of the spirit shall reap life everlasting." KJV: "For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting." NLT: "Those who live only to satisfy their own sinful nature will harvest decay and death from that sinful nature. But those who live to please the Spirit will harvest everlasting life from the Spirit." We are not called to "please the Spirit," we are only told not to belittle Her. And while our Spiritual Mother plays a crucial role in our salvation, "eternal life" isn’t the result of anything we do, including "living to please the Spirit."

Not finished, Satan’s gardener continues to plow the fields of deception. In this case, after having recast and inverted good and evil, he encourages believers to cultivate the field of human souls on behalf of his faith. "But (de) we do not lose motivation (me egkakomen – become discouraged and give up) doing (poiountes – performing) good (kalon – that which is advantageous, beautiful, and fitting, healthy and sound) on a propitious and fixed seasonal occasion (kairo – at an opportunistic, appropriate, and established moment in time which has been duly measured), because (gar) individually (idio – on one’s own, uniquely, and separately) we will harvest (therisomen – will reap) never (me) lose heart, spirit, or faith (ekluomenoi – becoming weary or discouraged)." (Galatians 6:9)

Egkakomen is a bit of a riddle. It is from ek which means "from" or "out of," and kakos "a bad nature or wrong mode of thinking." That makes it a double negative, conveying: "from bad" or "out of wrong." Following "me – never" this clause literally says "individually we will reap never separating ourselves from that which is bad nor leave that which is wrong. Concern over this causes some lexicons to define egkakomen as "acts badly" or "is utterly spiritless." Others suggest that when associated with a participle (a word displaying the qualities of an adjective and verb), which occurred with the first use but not the second, that it can mean "to become weary and discouraged."

Based upon several factors, I’m convinced that Paul was taking another swipe at Yahweh’s Called-Out Assemblies. I say this because the seven Miqra’ey are directly associated with the "reaping" of saved souls, and these "propitious harvests" are all celebrated on "fixed seasonal occasions." In fact three of the seven are designated as harvests (FirstFruits, Seven Sabbaths, and Trumpets) and a fourth, Shelters, is symbolic of a covered shelter or storehouse of saved souls. Sha’uwl has after all, told Christians to ignore Yahweh’s Feasts, He has impugned the Torah which presents them, and he has disassociated Yahweh’s Called-Out Assemblies from the Messiyah even though He observed and fulfilled them. Further, Sha’uwl’s edicts in this regard are being associated with "reaping with the spirit," just as five of Yahweh’s seven Miqra’ey are made possible because of the work done by the Set-Apart Spirit.

Now that I have shared my concerns about this passage, let’s consider the Christian translations. NA: "The one but good doing not we give in to bad in season for own we will harvest not being loosed out." LV: "And in doing good, let us not fail. For in due time we shall reap, not failing." KJV: "And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not." NLT: "So let’s not get tired of doing what is good. At just the right time we will reap a harvest of blessing if we don’t give up."

Personally, I have a couple of problems with these translations as well. First, it’s God’s job, not ours to reap the harvest of saved souls. And second, far too many people go out ill-prepared and just spin their wheels endlessly. It’s like the person who has read some of the quotes in Prophet of Doom and then runs off to debate Muslims in chatrooms and wonders why they aren’t making any progress. While there is nothing wrong with trying, those who are prepared get better results with considerably less effort. (That is not to suggest that pertinent information and logical reasoning prevail with those still mired in religious delusions. All a prepared person can hope to accomplish is to provide a trigger that encourages open-minded individuals to approach their search for the truth from a different perspective. The better prepared you are however, the better the chances are that you will eventually find a topic which resonates with your audience.)

This problem resonates throughout Paul’s letter. He throws all manner of poorly identified and unsupported things against the wall, hoping that something will stick. But he hasn’t presented sufficient evidence to educate anyone or to prove any of the points he has sought to make.

A long time ago, when I was a salesman in the retail consumer products industry, I overcame my personal limitations (I was very shy), by being better prepared than those I competed against. I studied my customers, researched my factories, dissected my products, compared them to the competition, and then invested another five hours preparing and tailoring each sales presentation for every hour I spent presenting it. Then, after the sale was made, I invested an additional five hours following through on the logistics of the shipment, making sure nothing went wrong. I was prepared, and thus prevailed.

Before we leave Paul’s field of lies, I’d like to share something from his most famous prophecy, one specifically related to a harvest, which proves that he was a false prophet. While the purpose of religion is to control and fleece the masses, clerics achieve this goal in part by allaying people’s fears over the death of loved ones. So the founder of the Christian religion said: "But I do not take pleasure in (thelo – desire and enjoy) you all being ignorant (agnoeo – ignoring and not knowing) brothers about those who are asleep, so that you are not sad (hypeo – don’t grieve) like those who remain (loipos – those who are left and are lacking) not possessing (me echo – not clinging to) hope (elpis)." (1 Thessalonians 4:13) Hope, like faith, which is akin to religion, in that they are all bred in "agnoeo – ignorance." But since we will soon discover that Sha’uwl was wrong with regard to his prophecy, why would anyone who isn’t ignorant trust his reassuring words in this regard?

As God, the Messiyah Yahshua cannot die, and thus believing that He did, isn’t accurate nor beneficial. "For if we really believe (pisteuo – we actually have faith (first person plural, present active indicative)) that ‘Iesous really died (apothnesko – was actually dead (aorist (past tense with indicative) indicative (in reality))) and actually rose (anistemi – stood up (aorist indicative)) thus likewise (houtos – it follows) also the God [for] those who have been put to sleep (koimeoentas – have been caused to sleep and been put to sleep (aorist passive (meaning that they were acted upon))) by (dia – through or on behalf of) ‘Iesou, will really be carried and go away (ago – will be led and guided away (future indicative)) with Him." (1 Thessalonians 4:14) Forgetting the religious notion echoed at most funerals that "God" was responsible "for putting people to sleep," Sha’uwl’s theology is wrong.

If you’d like to have a full appreciation from God’s perspective of exactly what happened on Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits, and why, and if you’d like to understand how it applies to you and your salvation, I invite you to read the Salvation Volume of Yada Yahweh. There you will discover that Yahweh’s Spirit left Yahshua’s body and His soul on the upright pole so that His physical body could die and so that His soul could descend into She’owl for the express purpose of enabling the promises of Pesach and Matsah.

The implication in this next statement is that Sha’uwl is quoting something from Yahshua, in which case it would be the first time in any of his letters, but it isn’t true. Yahshua never said anything like this. In fact His depiction of the Taruw’ah Harvest was quite different. "For this we actually say (legomen – we really speak (first person plural, present indicative)) in (en) the Lord’s (kuriou – Master’s (genitive and thus possessive) word (logo – statement (singular)), that we (emeis) the (oi) ones who are alive (zoetes – live (plural present tense)), the (oi) ones who are left and remaining (perileipo – ones surviving and being left around; a compound of peri meaning concerning, and leipo, being left behind (present tense, passive (being acted upon), participle (acting as a verb and adjective) plural)) unto (eis) the (ten) arrival and presence (parousia) of (tou) the Lord (kuriou - Master) not (ou) we  shall not come prior to (me phoasomen – we may not arrive or precede (first person plural, aorist (as a snapshot in time) subjunctive (indicating a possibility)) those (tous) who have been caused to sleep (koimeoentas – have been put to sleep (aorist passive (meaning that they were acted upon)))." (1 Thessalonians 4:15)

I’ll leave you to speculate as to why Sha’uwl used a double negative ou and me in succession. You can also speculate on the identity of Paul’s "Lord and Master." And you can even speculate why Sha’uwl claimed to speak for God and yet neglected to cite any of His instructions on the Taruw’ah Harvest as they appear in the Torah, in Yashayahu (Isaiah), Zakaryah (Zechariah), or Mal’aky (Malachi). But it is undeniably clear that Paul predicted that he would be "one of those who are left and remaining unto the arrival and presence of the Lord." He wasn’t.

Yahweh had long since established in His Word that the Taruw’ah Harvest and Trumpets were synonymous, so the association of the harvest with the call of a trumpet is accurate, but not prophetic. As for the rest of this, while it is neither accurate nor prophetic, the "call of the archangel" is reminiscent of Islam. "Because the Lord (kurios – Master) Himself in (en – with) a commanding call (keleusma – an order and summons) in the voice of an important messenger (archaggelou – chief representative, the most important messenger of god) and in (en – with) God’s (theos – the deity’s (genitive and thus possessive)) trumpet (salpiggi) will really step down and walk (katabaino – will descend, coming and moving; a compound of kata, meaning down from, and basis stepping and walking) separated from (apo) heaven (ouranos), and the dead (nekros – lifeless) in Christo will actually rise and stand (anastesontai – will really stand up) first (protos – before)." (1 Thessalonians 4:16)

If Sha’uwl has said "on Trumpets," rather than "in God’s trumpet," he would have affirmed Yahweh’s Word. But alas, he didn’t. And the order of rising, if indeed there is a difference, is completely irrelevant in association with eternity. But what’s especially troubling here is Sha’uwl’s use of "apo – separated from" as opposed to "ek – from and out of" with regard to heaven. While Yahshua can come "from and out of" heaven, He cannot be "separated from" heaven.

In the conclusion of his prophecy, Sha’uwl predicts through the use of "emeis – we" and through his selection of verbs, that he would be alive when, and would survive until, the "harpazo – violent snatching away" occurred. Since he was wrong, he was a false prophet. "Later (speita – thereafter) we (emeis – the first person personal plural pronoun includes the speaker who is Sha’uwl) that (oi) are alive (zontes – live (masculine plural, present participle), those who remain left behind (perileipo – who survive and are around) at the same time (hama), we will actually be violently seized and snatched away (arpayesomeoa – will be attacked, controlled, drug away, spoiled and plundered by force by thieves; from harpazo (first person plural, future passive indicative)) in (en – with) clouds (nephele – an obscuring atmosphere) to (eis) a meeting with (apantesis – a rendezvous of those going in opposite directions; from apo, to be separated, and anti, to be against and to be opposed, instead of or in place of) the Lord (kuriou – Master) into (eis) air (aer), and (kai) thus (outos – in this manner) we will really exist (esomeoa – we will actually be (first person plural, future indicative)) with (syn) [the] Lord (kurio) always (pantote – at all times)." (1 Thessalonians 4:17)

Also of issue, "harpazo – will be violently attacked, controlled, dragged away, spoiled and plundered by force by thieves" isn’t the kind of word one would normally associate with the Messiyah Yahshua. But it’s a perfect depiction of Satan’s (a.k.a. the Lord’s) idea of a good time. And what’s particularly interesting is that Yahshua used a derivative of harpazo in Matthew 7:15 to describe "harpax – exceptionally self-promoting and self-serving" wolves such as Sha’uwl: "You must be alert, carefully examine, prosecute, and turn away (you should pay close attention, watch out for and beware of, guarding yourself) from false prophets who come to you from within dressed in sheep’s clothing, yet they actually are wolves who are exceptionally self-promoting and self-serving (harpax – vicious carnivorous thieves who secretly and deliberately rob, extort, and snatch away; from harpazo: to violently, forcibly, and eagerly claim and seize for oneself and pluck away)."

In this vein there are a couple of other problems. An "apantesis – meeting" depicts a "rendezvous where the participants are going in opposite directions." It conveys the ideas of "separation" and "opposition," and also of "substitution." And in this context that infers that this rendezvous is a counterfeit, or substitution, for Yahweh’s summons for us to meet with Him on the Miqra’ of Taruw’ah—the Called-Out Assembly of Trumpets.

Recognizing these problems, it is telling that Paul concluded his false prophecy with this related command: "As a result (oste – therefore) you must summon and call out, earnestly pleading with (parakaleite – you shall call out a summons while begging (as an imperative)) each other (allelon – one another) in (en – with) these (toutois) words (logois – statements)." (1 Thessalonians 4:18) Paul’s harvest of souls was just another of Satan’s counterfeits—a substitution for the summons to the Called-Out Assembly of Trumpets found in God’s Word. But based upon his false prophecy, it’s clearly a bogus bill.

Returning to Galatians, and sounding more like Comrade Paul, the Devil’s Advocate told everyone to start working for the benefit of his household: "As a result (ara) therefore (oun) likewise (hos) on a propitious and fixed seasonal occasion (kairon – at an opportunistic, appropriate, and established moment in time which has been duly measured), we really grasp hold of (echo – possess, hold onto, and experience (first person plural, present indicative)) [the] work (ergaxometha – business) of (to) good (agathos – doing good) to the advantage of (pros) all (pas). But (de) especially (malista – chiefly and above all) benefiting (pros) the household (oikeios – family and home) of (tes) faith (pisteos – belief; while pistis originally conveyed trust, that concept is incompatible with Sha’uwl’s epistle)." (Galatians 6:10) In P46, ergazometha, the verb "to work," becomes ergaxometha, the noun "work."

According to Pauline Doctrine, man does the beneficial work God promises to do in His Torah—the very work God’s Word asks us not to do. And those who believe Paul came to embody a "household of faith," as opposed to a "family related to Yahweh" conceived through trusting in and relying upon on His Covenant.

The Nestle-Aland 27^th Edition Interlinear renders the passage: "Then therefore as season we have we might work the good toward all especially but toward the households of the trust." After investing the first half of this epistle criticizing "works," calling them unproductive, Paul is now promoting them as good. So much for consistency. But to be fair, or unfair depending upon your perspective, Paul wants everyone to do what he commands and not what Yahweh’s requests.

The Catholic Latin Vulgate reads: "Therefore, whilst we have time, let us work good to all men, but especially to those who are of the household of the faith." Therefore, the KJV says: "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith." Toeing a similar line for a change, the New Living Translation published: "Therefore, whenever we have the opportunity, we should do good to everyone—especially to those in the family of faith."

In his own words, Sha’uwl wrote: "But one must share that which one is taught of the word orally communicating in all useful ways. (6:6) You should not wander about deceived; God is not ridiculed. Because then whatever man may sow this also he shall reap. (6:7) Because the one sowing into the flesh, from himself reaps the flesh’s destruction. But the one sowing to the spirit, will reap eternal life. (6:8) But we do not lose motivation doing good on a propitious and fixed seasonal occasion, because individually we will harvest never becoming weary or discouraged. (6:9) As a result therefore, likewise on a propitious and fixed seasonal occasion, we really grasp hold of the work of good to the advantage of all, but especially benefiting the household of faith." (6:10)

Sha’uwl’s next line is perplexing. Most assume that it means that he has taken the papyrus and quill away from whoever was serving as his amanuensis, and was now writing this in his own hand. It didn’t help. But it did establish a trademark, and verify that Paul himself composed this epistle.

To begin, Paul wrote "elikois – as old as and as tall as," not "pelikois – how large and how great." Elikos is from elix, "a comrade of the same age, height, and status," and thus elikos is said to mean "as great as," in addition to "as old and tall."

What follows is one of many indications that Galatians was Sha’uwl’s first letter. He is telling believers to closely examine his handwriting so that they would be able to recognize it when they see it again, and thus be able to determine if subsequent letters were authentic. "You should look at and become acquainted with (idete – you must see, notice, perceive and become familiar with (written as a command)) how old, tall, and great (elikois) [the] letters (grammasiv – written alphabetic characters) I write (egrapha – I actually inscribe with pen to) [to] you all (umin) [with] my (emos) hand (cheir)." (Galatians 6:11)

We cannot say for sure if Paul was bragging that his penmanship was great, or lamenting that his eyesight was so poor that his letters were large. But we do know that there were grammatical mistakes in a sentence that was otherwise irrelevant (aside from Paul establishing the fact that he, himself, was to blame for what we have read).

While the Nestle-Aland doesn’t add anything to the equation with: "See how great to you letters I wrote in the my hand," should Jerome be right, we cannot blame the scribe for butchering Paul’s epistle. The Latin Vulgate reads: "See what a letter I have written to you with my own hand." If this is correct, then Sha’uwl wrote all of this, from beginning to end, and what’s more, he’s proud of it.

Following the Catholic’s lead, or more accurately, plagiarizing him, Francis Bacon and the team he assembled to produce the King James Version, wrote: "Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand." Here, Galatians is being called substantive as opposed to great.

Always entertaining, and sometimes even accurate, the novelists at the New Living Translation authored this in all caps (I suppose to be faithful to the text): "NOTICE WHAT LARGE LETTERS I USE AS I WRITE THESE CLOSING WORDS IN MY OWN HANDWRITING." That’s hilarious. In modern email parlance, Paul is now screaming at us.

Whether this is the second sentence Paul wrote in his own handwriting or the seventh from the last in his great and large letter, we still have to make corrections based upon the oldest witness. Papyrus 46 adds a placeholder for Yahushua’s name after the one for Messiyah. And while there is also a conflict regarding the mood of the final verb (indicative as opposed to subjective), "may" works better in this context than does "actually." And recognizing this confusion, I’m going to ignore the passive voice of the verb (as reflected in the NA27 and LV) because it renders the concluding thought senseless.

And in case you may have thought that I had been presumptuous suggesting that Sha’uwl was demeaning the Torah’s instruction on circumcision under the guise of "the flesh," consider what the man wrote with his own hand. "As much as (hosos – as great as and as far as) they really desire to (thelousin – they actually take pleasure in, propose, and enjoy) make a good showing (euprosopesai – make a favorable impression) in (en) this (houtos) flesh (sarx), to actually compel (anagkazousiv – to force, obligate, and necessitate) you (umas) to be circumcised (peritemno) merely (monon – only and just) so that (hina) they may not pursue (me dioko – they might not follow and strive after) the cross (στρω / stauro – Divine Placeholder for Upright Pillar indicating that God is the Doorway to Heaven and that He serves as this Shelter’s Support (but since Sha’uwl has disassociated God’s symbols from God’s purpose it is unlikely that he would have made this connection)) of (tou) Christou ‘Iesou (ΧΡΥ ΙΗΥ / Christou ‘Iesou – Divine Placeholders for the Messiyah Yahushua (but since the purpose of Galatians has been to disassociate Yahushua from Yahweh and the Messiyah from the Torah, Sha’uwl most likely wrote the corrupted Greek name and title))." (Galatians 6:12) Since Paul likes to namedrop, the Messiyah Yahushua was circumcised. So Paul is saying that Christians shouldn’t follow His example.

The big letters aren’t making a big difference. This is both poorly written and wrong. First, by stating his point this way, it’s obvious that "making a good showing in this flesh" is to be read "making it appear as if they are observing the Torah." And with this in mind, observing the Torah is then cast as an excuse not to pursue the benefits of Yahshua’s sacrifice. In other words, Sha’uwl is once again distinguishing between the Torah and Yahshua as opposed to connecting them.

Second, no one, not Yahweh, not Yahshua, not the most fundamentalist Rabbi, nor the most ardent Christian, ever postured the notion that "circumcision" was a substitute for anything—especially Passover. It’s the sign of the Covenant—nothing more or less. But by associating "the flesh" and "circumcision" in this way Sha’uwl is reinforcing the madness behind his mantra. In his warped mind: "the Torah can be dismissed as being solely of the flesh because it encourages circumcision." Sure it’s a weak argument and a flimsy case, but simply misrepresenting one of Yahweh’s symbols while ignoring and rejecting the rest, was sufficient to lead billions of souls away from God.

The NA, LV, KJV, and NLT all translate "they may not pursue" in the passive voice with a tertiary definition, suggesting that Paul wrote: "they may not be pursued or suffer persecution." "As many as want to put on good face in flesh these compel you to be circumcised alone that in the cross of Christ not they might be pursued." So for this rendering to be accurate, one would have to believe that Paul’s foes encouraged circumcision in order to avoid being pursued and harassed. And yet this inverts the historical record and has Jews persecuting Christians, as opposed to the actual legacy of Christians continually harassing Jews.

And while Christian apologists might protest, saying that Gentile followers of The Way were acquiescing to circumcision to avoid being persecuted, that argument won’t fly. Back in Paul’s killing days, he harassed Jews (who were circumcised at birth), not Gentiles. And he did so for the crime of acknowledging the association between Yahweh and Yahshua which was blasphemous according to the Rabbis. At this time, the overwhelming preponderance of the followers of The Way were Yahuwdym, not Gowym—as is reflected in their affinity for the Torah. And since they were born Jews, circumcision was a given, not something which was compelled later in life. Moreover, Jews do not have a history of compelling anyone outside of their race into following their customs, and when it comes to persecution, they are victims, not perpetrators.

Reflecting this same inverted notion, and perhaps fanning its initial flames, the Catholic Latin Vulgate reads: "For as many as desire to please in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised, only that they may not suffer the persecution of the cross of Christ." Surely Jerome was not attempting to equate the pain of circumcision with the anguish of crucifixion?

The KJV parroted the Roman Catholic publication: "As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ." But if this is the case, if Paul wants us to believe that his foes encouraged circumcision to avoid Christian persecution, then he is again a false prophet because this is the opposite of what actually transpired.

As usual, the NLT has a novel rendition of this sentence—one which bears very little resemblance to the actual text they were purporting to translate: "Those who are trying to force you to be circumcised want to look good to others. They don’t want to be persecuted for teaching that the cross of Christ alone can save." Since Paul has positioned himself as someone who was persecuted for "teaching that the cross of Christ alone can save," this variation of the text presents Paul’s foes as cowards.

There are two additional discrepancies in this next sentence between Papyrus 46 and the Nestle-Aland 27. The opening word is "houte - neither," instead of "houde –not even," although neither option makes any sense. One says that those who were observing the Torah were "not even" circumcised, which is an eternal contradiction, and the other establishes a "neither nor" which does not follow in the text. Further, the verb peritemnomenoi, is rendered in the perfect passive participle, and thus conveys: "those who have already been circumcised" as opposed to "who are being circumcised."

And while it is a gnat among camels, no one boasts about being circumcised or brags about circumcising others. It is a private choice, one which parents make regarding how they intend to raise their sons. It is made in quiet contemplation as mother and father commit themselves to sharing God’s Covenant with their children. "For (gar – because then) neither (houte) those (oi) who have already been circumcised (peritemnomenoi) themselves (autoi) carefully observe (phulasso – actually obey) [the] Law (nomon – Torah). To the contrary (alla – but nevertheless) they want and take pleasure in (thelousin – are of the opinion, purpose, and desire that) you (umas) being circumcised (peritemnesthai) in order that (hina) in (en – with) your (umetera) flesh (sarx) they may boast (kauchesontai – they might brag and be glorified)." (Galatians 6:13) Paul, who was by his own admission uncontrollably conceited, and who overtly rejected the Torah, had the audacity to call those with the humility and good sense to observe and rely upon the Torah: Lawless and boastful. Like most every politician today, Sha’uwl was a complete hypocrite.

Paul has covered this ground before, so other than to demean his adversaries in a completely hypocritical fashion, this is redundant. But since he has once again contradicted Yahweh’s testimony, here are the facts. In the Torah, Yahweh instructs us to circumcise our sons on the eighth day as a symbol of the Covenant. Abraham did as Yahweh requested—and on the very same day that he was asked. And while that single act didn’t save him, it demonstrated the appropriate attitude and mindset—one which we should all consider adopting. Unlike Paul, Abraham respected what Yahweh had to say—he trusted God—and as a result, Abraham followed and relied upon Yahweh’s advice. And that is what saved him.

The process of discounting Yahweh’s instructions, and renouncing His symbols, not only displays a bad attitude, and thus irritates God, it stunts our growth. But worse, when we openly criticize, even ignore, conceal, change, or corrupt elements of Yahweh’s plan we dim the lights, blur the signs, and put stumbling blocks on the path to salvation. And that is what Paul is doing here.

The NA rendering of this abomination is as follows: "But not for the ones being circumcised themselves law they will guard but they want you to be circumcised that in the your flesh they might brag." Jerome had a somewhat similar take on this verse in his LV to my own: "For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law: but they will have you to be circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh." And following his lead, the KJV reported: "For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh." Taking this ball and running with it, the NLT suggested: "And even those who advocate circumcision don’t keep the whole law themselves. They only want you to be circumcised so they can boast about it and claim you as their disciples." This is more of a commentary than a translation, which would be fine if it was identified as such.

What these folks are all missing, including Paul, is that Yahweh is the one who is advocating circumcision. It is one of many things He prescribes in the Torah. So, who are we to suggest that His advice is outdated and passé, or that our advice is better?

For those who would defend Paul, and say that neither doing what the Torah prescribes generally, nor undergoing circumcision, specifically, saves, that’s like saying that Passover in and of itself is insufficient. While that is technically accurate, in that Pesach is one of seven steps home, it’s horribly inappropriate to demean any part of God’s plan.

The Torah is Yahweh’s Way, His Operating Manual. Included therein along with His words are symbols which aid our understanding. Circumcision is one of these word pictures. Just as Yahweh "cut a covenant with Abraham," one in which he agreed to separate himself from Babylon and be set-apart unto God, trusting Him with his family, we can cut ourselves in on this same deal—the offer of a lifetime—and join Yahweh’s family by following His instructions. Yahweh’s Covenant is an open invitation. You and I are free to accept it or reject it. We can even criticize it. But we cannot change it. The path Yahweh has provided home isn’t open to human copyedits or alterations.

Speaking of copyedits and alterations, the oldest witness to Paul’s letter reveals a third "me – not," this one between "existing" and "boasting" in this next verse. So, continuing to be a hypocrite, he writes: "But (de) I (emoi) am not (me) one who wishes to exist (genoito) not (me) boasting (kauchasthai – bragging), if (ei) not (me) in (en) the (to) cross (στρω / stauro – Divine Placeholder for Upright Pillar indicating that God is the Doorway to Heaven and that He serves as this Shelter’s Support (but since Sha’uwl has disassociated God’s symbols from God’s purpose it is unlikely that he would have made this connection)) of (tou) our (emon) Lord (KY / kuriou – Divine Placeholder for Upright One (but since Sha’uwl is speaking against God the Adversary’s title is a better fit in this context)) Christou ‘Iesou (ΧΡΥ ΙΗΥ / Christou ‘Iesou – Divine Placeholders for the Messiyah Yahushua (but since the purpose of Galatians has been to disassociate Yahushua from Yahweh and the Messiyah from the Torah, Sha’uwl most likely wrote the corrupted Greek name and title)), by (dia) whom (ou) my (emoi) world (kosmos – universe, earth, or world system) was actually crucified (ΕΣτρΑΙ / estaurotai – Divine Placeholder for being affixed to the Upright Pillar, identifying the Door to Heaven and the Way to Heaven with Yahweh (something Sha’uwl has sought to negate)) and I (kago) [to the] world (kosmo)." (Galatians 6:14) It sickens me to realize that Christians believe that the man who routinely contradicted Yahshua and demeaned His Word "bragged in the cross," rather than in his own perverted message, and that he was somehow "crucified" with the Messiyah he never knew. Yes, he crucified himself with his own words, but that doesn’t count.

If Paul’s opening claim was actually true, then he would not have written the first two chapters of this letter—pages which defend and glorify him. Paul’s reputation and Paul’s mission would have been irrelevant to him. All that would have mattered was presenting Yahshua as Yahweh, and as the fulfillment of the Torah and its promises. But that is the antithesis of what Galatians has done.

Further, there is no connection between Paul and Yahshua’s sacrifice. Paul’s sacrifices, whatever they may have been, are completely irrelevant. Even if Paul had told the truth rather than convolute it, his actions have not and cannot save anyone. So it’s shameful that he continues to be so focused on himself.

The NA touts: "To me but not may it become to brag except [n/a] in the cross of the Master of us Jesus Christ through whom to me world has been crucified and I to world." Jerome, setting a literary precedent for paraphrasing the text, wrote the following in his LV: "But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ: by whom the world is crucified to me, and I to the world." The textually unjustified "God forbid" statement frond in both the LV and KJV serves as an indictment against the KJV claim that it is a translation of the Hebrew and Greek: "But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world." Continuing to buff and polish Paul’s image, the NLT proposed: "As for me, may I never boast about anything except the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. Because of that cross, my interest in this world has been crucified, and the world’s interest in me has also died." It appears as if the NLT translators have never read Paul’s letters. But alas, if only: "the world’s interest in me had also died."

Like a bad dream that won’t go away, "But (gar) neither (oute) someone (ti) really exists (estin) circumcised (peritome) nor (oute) uncircumcised (akrobystia), on the contrary (alla) [a] new (kaine) creation (ktisis)." (Galatians 6:15) The only thing which has been "newly created" is Pauline Doctrine. And it is "alla – contrary" to Yahweh’s instruction on everything from circumcision to salvation.

Had Paul wanted to be helpful here, as opposed to repetitive and argumentative, he would have said: By closely observing the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms we can come to know Yahweh and come to understand how and why the Messiyah Yahshua came to fulfill our Heavenly Father’s promise to adopt us into His Covenant. By respecting His instructions, and by relying upon the seven-step path home He has provided, we can be born anew from above, by way of our Spiritual Mother, and become God’s children. And when we are born spiritually into Yahweh’s family we are renewed by God. That is not to say "we become a new creation," we don’t. We aren’t recreated but instead our souls are "renewed." "Renewal" and "newly created" are entirely different concepts.

If this is what Paul scribed with his own hand, he shouldn’t have bothered. NA: "Neither for circumcision some is not uncircumcision but new creation."  Trying to redeem the mother of his religion, Jerome proposed the following in the Latin Vulgate: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision: but a new creature." The KJV merely plagiarized him: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." But yet as someone who was without exception Torah observant, Yahshua was circumcised. And paraphrased in Elizabethan English, Yahweh said that "uncircumcised not availeth," in that uncircumcised men are explicitly excluded from His Covenant, Family, and Home. As clearly as words allow, Yahweh stated that anyone who has not been circumcised has broken His Covenant.

Speaking for themselves and Paul, but most certainly not Yahweh or Yahshua, the NLT promised: "It doesn’t matter whether we have been circumcised or not. What counts is whether we have been transformed into a new creation." So why do you suppose Yahweh and Yahshua bothered with the Torah or the Covenant?

The oldest witness of Paul’s extraordinary penmanship says that he scribed "stoicheosin – might follow" in the next line as opposed to "stoichesouin – will follow." But the question remains, who or what are they to follow?

The only person Paul has asked the Galatians to "imitate" is himself. He has not asked them to follow in the footsteps of Yahshua. In fact, Paul has assailed, belittled, convoluted, and concealed the path the Messiyah followed, as it is laid out in the Torah. Moreover, if "this rule" is defined by his previous statements, that circumcision is irrelevant, then Paul is asking believers to fall in line, and consider Yahweh’s Word meaningless. "And (kai) as many and whoever (osoi) might march in conformity following (stoicheosin – might proceed arranged in ranks, and might walk compliantly in someone’s footsteps, imitating them with) this (touto) rule (kanoni – literally the measuring rod, and figuratively the standard and principle) peace (eirene) upon (ep) them (autous) and (kai) mercy (eleos – compassion and affection, loving kindness and clemency) and also (kai) upon (epi) the (tou) Yisra’el (‘Israel – a transliteration of Yisra’el, meaning individuals who strive with God), of this (tou) God (ΘΥ)." (Galatians 6:16)

We first encountered "stoicheion – initial teachings and doctrines which were improperly formed and underdeveloped, representing the first step," in Galatians 4:3, where it was deployed to demean the Torah. It was there that we learned that stoicheion was derived from stoicheo, which spoke of "soldiers marching off (as in away from the Torah) from one place to another (as in from the "Old Testament" to the "New Testament"). We also discovered that stoicheo was similar to Yahweh’s depiction of His "malak – spiritual messengers" who are: "saba – relegated to a military command and control regimen where they follow orders," in that stoicheo describes "armies in orderly ranks, with each combatant simply following the leader, and with everyone moving in a structured line, existing in conformity" with the instructions they have been given. And that’s important because it is Satan’s quid pro quo: he wants mankind treated as he was treated. So while stoicheo’s "submit and obey" connotation was meant to be derogatory when applied to God, it’s just fine when believers relinquish the benefits of informed freewill, and fall in line with Sha’uwl’s satanically-inspired commands. It’s little wonder Christians act like lemmings.

More telling still, albeit in a horrible way, the rule most important to Paul, the one he wants all believers to walk in conformity with, following his example, is: "But neither someone really exists circumcised nor uncircumcised, on the contrary a new creation." According to the Devil’s Advocate: "eleos – mercy" is afforded those who accept his standard which requires rejecting Yahweh’s standard.

There is only one "rule," one "measure," one "standard" which matters according to Yahweh—the Torah. Even Yahshua was measured and governed by this standard. It is why when our "sin was associated with Him," in accordance with Second Samuel 7, Yahweh "did not spare the rod." It is the reason Yahshua had to endure Passover and Unleavened Bread. It is why He prevailed on our behalf.

And yet Paul has said that Christians should measure truth by his standard. Sadly, those who believe him will discover too late that neither his promises nor their faith will deliver "peace or mercy."

Sha’uwl’s ending clause was intentionally provocative. Whether he meant to convey "the Israel of God" or "the Israel of this God," there is only one Yisra’el—and the name already includes ‘el, which is God’s title. So we must assume that Sha’uwl was making a distinction between the Yisra’el of the Torah, and his "new creation"—the Christian Church.

And speaking of provocative, by writing the Greek word "eleos – mercy" at the end of this letter in which he established his new faith upon the Greek goddess Charis – Charity, known as Gratia or Grace in Latin and English, Paul proved conclusively that his elevation of the pagan goddess to Christian icon was deliberate. While "eleos – mercy, compassion, affection, loving kindness, and clemency" was the perfect word to convey the nature of Yahweh’s gift, the man who listened to and heeded the words of Dionysus during his conversion, promoted his daughters to willing Greek and Roman ears. In so doing he established the religious model Catholicism would follow, whereby cultures were assimilated en masse into the Church because the Church willingly incorporated pagan gods, rites, and holidays into their religion. This is a devastating blow to those who promote: "Grace alone."

As we conclude our review of this verse, you’ll notice that the Nestle-Aland acknowledged the existence of "tou – of, the, or this" before "theos – God," when they scribed: "And as many as in the rule this will walk peace on them and mercy and on the Israel of the God." The Catholic Vulgate published: "And whosoever shall follow this rule, peace on them and mercy: and upon the Israel of God." So why did the Catholics impose so many additional rules if ignoring circumcision was sufficient? Thirteen hundred years later, the Authorized Protestant KJV promoted: "And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God."

Paul did not write "God’s peace and mercy," nor did Paul suggest that these gifts came from God. NLT: "May God’s peace and mercy be upon all who live by this principle; they are the new people of God." Are the Tyndale publishers so anti-Semitic that they think they are justified removing "Yisra’el"? Do you suppose they replaced Yisra’el because they believe that they have become "God’s new people?"

The weasel who loved to antagonize and harass his foes (who just happen to be Yahshua’s Disciples), and who made a career out of beating members of Yahweh’s family, like all insecure individuals, had chronically thin skin and would not tolerate reprisals. This next statement is a command. "Of the (tou) rest who remain (loipos – those who are left), do not let anyone (medeis parecheto – do not allow it to happen that any person should (present imperative (stated as a command in real time))) create troubles, burdens, or cause work for (kopous – exhaust, bother, beat, or grieve) me (moi), because (gar) I (ego) carry (bastazo – accept and endure) the (ta) brands, marks, and tattoos (stigmata – that which is pricked into one’s skin and designates ownership) of (tou) ‘Iesou (ΙΗΥ / ‘Iesou – Divine Placeholder for Yahushua - Yah Saves (which was most likely added by a second century scribe because Sha’uwl’s letter disassociates Yahushua from Yahuweh) in (en) my (mou) body (soma) which I actually bear (bastazo – I really carry, endure, and undergo)." (Galatians 6:17)

When "loipos – rest who remain" was used in the context of Peter’s evaluation of Paul’s epistles, it was convoluted to mean "other" by most every English translation to infer that this and other letters were Scripture. But based upon these translations of loipos, it wasn’t because they didn’t know what the word actually means. They were trying to deceive you. NA: "Of the remaining labors to me no one let hold to I for the brands of the Jesus in the body of me bear."  LV: "From henceforth let no man be troublesome to me: for I bear the marks of the Lord Jesus in my body." KJV: "From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." NLT: "From now on, don’t let anyone trouble me with these things. For I bear on my body the scars that show I belong to Jesus."

While I don’t know how one derives "from henceforth" or "from now on" from "tou loipos – of the remaining," but if Paul’s intent was to say "don’t trouble me again with these things," then this "Apostle" needs an attitude adjustment. Can you imagine Yahshua telling Peter, or you and me for that matter: "If you bother me again I’ll have nothing to do with you?" Such a command does not bear the mark of God.

Speaking of brands cut or tattooed into the skin, by virtue of Leviticus 19:28 we know that Yahweh is opposed to both. So it is interesting that the man who has preached against God’s instruction to cut one’s foreskin in compliance with the Torah, has now proclaimed that he bears a tattoo in direct conflict with the Torah.

It should also be noted that Muhammad issued the same command on similar grounds. He ordered Muslims to stop bothering him (while he was having sex with children in the apartments surrounding his mosque) because he bore the mark and sign of Allah’s prophet.

Christian apologists will no doubt acknowledge that a stigmata is a "brand or tattoo," but they will protest that figuratively (albeit by way of religious editing) the word can convey the idea of a "scar." Therefore they will say that Paul was attesting to the fact that he bore scars on his body because he spoke on behalf of "Jesus Christ." But Paul never actually spoke on behalf of the Messiyah Yahshua (misquoting Him once doesn’t count), and his claims to have been beaten are no more credible than the rest of his errant testimony. If you recall, each time Paul has tried to recount his personal past, he has either contradicted or convicted himself. (Although to be fair, knowing what we have come to know about Paul, and appreciating the consequences of his false teachings on billions of Christian souls, given the opportunity, I’ve done my best to strike a mortal blow to his credibility.)

So it is that we have reached the end. But unfortunately, Paul’s concluding comments contain the names of two false gods, five if you consider the Greek or English. And the first of these is especially incriminating because just two verses earlier the Devil’s Advocate acknowledged that he was aware of a perfect Greek alternative: "eleos – mercy." Disregarding it, and promoting the pagan goddess, Paul wrote: "The Charis-Charity/Gratia-Grace (Charis – name of the Greek goddesses of Charity, from who the Roman Gratia, or Graces were named) of the (tou) Lord (ΚΥ – placeholder for ‘edon Upright One or Yahuweh using kuriou, which is more accurately rendered "Lord" using Satan’s title in Sha’uwl’s epistles) our (emon) ‘Iesou Christou (ΙΗΥ ΧΡΥ / ‘Iesou Christou – Divine Placeholders for Yahushua-Yah Saves and the Messiyah-Implement of Yah (but since the purpose of Galatians has been to disassociate Yahushua from Yahweh and the Messiyah from God’s Word, Sha’uwl most certainly wrote the corrupted Greek name and title which has been poorly transliterated "Jesus Christ")), with (meta) the (tou) spirit (ΠΝΣ / pneumatos – Divine Placeholder for the Ruwach Qodesh, or Set-Apart Spirit (however, since Sha’uwl’s spirit (a.k.a. the Lord) bears no resemblance to our Spiritual Mother, a lowercase spirit is appropriate)) of you (umon) brothers (adelpoi). Amen (Amen – the name of the Egyptian sun god, as reflected in Amen Ra and Tutankhamen)." (Galatians 6:18)

If there were ever a place where an article was deadly, it is here. "Tou – of the" before the placeholder ΚΥ precludes the symbol from representing Yahweh’s name in this sentence. And that means that Paul purposefully left Him out of this salutation including the Son and Spirit.

More devastating still, since "the Lord" is Satan’s title (derived from the Hebrew Ba’al), and since Sha’uwl alone wrote "emon – our" before he personally scribed "‘Iesou Christou" with his own hand, we must assume that he was speaking of their "Jesus Christ"— a mythical creation which bore no resemblance to Yahweh, the Torah, or Yahshua, and thus was neither God, Savior, nor the Word made flesh.

Also, Sha’uwl wrote "The Charis of the Lord," properly identifying the Greek goddess with Dionysus, the Greek god upon which his religion was conceived. So Paul has come full circle from his conversion to his corruption.

Continuing to clean up Paul’s mess, it should be noted that he forgot to include a verb in his parting statement. And also, mankind has a "nepesh – soul," not a "pneumatos – spirit. Yahweh’s Ruwach Qodesh, or Set-Apart and Cleansing Spirit, is from God. She is not "with the spirit of you brothers." And since Sha’uwl has just asked believers to be spiritual, it now appears that the spirit of his brothers is now the spirit of Christianity—a spirit which is adverse to God.

And lastly, when transliterated and capitalized, rather than translated, "Amen" is the name of a pagan god—the sun god of Egypt. Had the Greek transliteration (amane) of the Hebrew word (‘amein – pronounced aw·mane) been translated "trustworthy and reliable," then the pagan association would have been eliminated. But alas, it was deified. And this problem is exacerbated by the fact that Yahweh’s name was specifically excluded from a salutation which began and ended with pagan names.

As we conclude, please notice that our trilogy of "translations" transliterated the name of the Roman goddess "Grace," but then translated "kuriou – Lord" rather than acknowledge the placeholder. They ignored the placeholders for Yahushua and Messiyah and transliterated the erroneous Greek name and title. Then, adding insult to injury, they respectfully transliterated "Amen," even capitalizing it, demonstrating that is wasn’t a common Greek word, but instead the name of an Egyptian god. The Catholic Latin Vulgate therefore reads: "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brethren. Amen." The Authorized Protestant King James Version promoted: "Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen." And the Evangelical Christian paraphrase and commentary known as the New Living Translation authored: "Dear brothers and sisters, may the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen."

The final stanza of Sha’uwl’s personal vendetta against Yahweh reads: "You should look at and become acquainted with how old, tall, and great the letters I write to you all with my hand. (6:11) As much as they really desire to make a good showing in this flesh, to actually compel you to be circumcised merely so that they may not pursue the cross of Christou ‘Iesou. (6:12) For neither those who have already been circumcised themselves carefully observe the Law. To the contrary they want and take pleasure in you being circumcised in order that in your flesh they may boast. (6:13) But I am not one who wishes to exist not boasting, if not in the cross of our Lord Christou ‘Iesou, by whom my world was actually crucified and I to the world. (6:14) But neither someone really exists circumcised nor uncircumcised, on the contrary a new creation. (6:15) And as many and whoever might march in conformity following this rule peace upon them and mercy and also upon the Yisra’el of this God. (6:16) Of the rest who remain, do not let anyone create troubles, burdens, cause work for or grieve me, because I carry the brands, marks, and tattoos of ‘Iesou in my body which I actually bear. (6:17) The Charis-Charity/Gratia-Grace of the Lord, our ‘Iesou Christou, with the spirit of you brothers. Amen." (6:18)

"Amen" indeed.

It is with a heavy heart that I provide you with this final summary of Galatians. When God’s Word is used as the standard, Sha’uwl’s message is found to be:

Paul said two things which were completely accurate. "Little yeast the whole batch leavens." (5:9) And: "Since if someone supposes and presumes to be someone he is nothing, deceiving himself." (6:3) Therefore 1% of Galatians was accurate.

Paul made eleven statements which were totally irrelevant and seven more in which he provided insufficient information for what he wrote to have had any value. Collectively, this waste of papyrus and ink comprised 11% of the epistle.

There were twenty-two statements which were essentially incomprehensible, albeit there were many more which bordered on indecipherable. And while the entire letter from beginning to end was poorly written, the utterly unintelligible verses represented another 14% of the total. If we were to add these to those which were simply inarticulate and incoherent, we would have a perfect match for the Qur’an.

But more than anything, Paul was wrong. A stunning one-hundred and eight verses were inaccurate, which is to say that there were elements which contradicted God’s Word. His propensity to deceive was on display in a stunning 68% of all Galatians passages.

Therefore, my introductory challenge has been resolved. I had proposed that if Paul pulled off the miraculous feat attributed to him, if he managed to supersede something as well known and revered as the Torah, and if he supplanted it with something as nebulous and mystical as faith, and convinced the world that he had done so without contradicting God, Galatians would have to have been the most brilliantly written theses of all time. It was not.

Beyond this sorry state of affairs, my hopes were dashed. Properly identifying which Law Paul was assailing did not reconcile a single verse throughout this letter. And while the translators took great liberties with regard to Paul’s words, the plethora of religious deceptions which have been disseminated as a direct result of this epistle cannot be blamed on errant translations. Therefore, all of my preconceived notions were shattered. Paul played me for a fool, just as he has billions of Christians before me.

The verdict is undeniable: Paul spoke for himself, and he was inspired by a spirit in direct opposition to God. He was most often wrong. And the few times he was right, the truth only served to make his lies more beguiling. That is the best possible face we can put on the evidence.

So the Great Galatians Debate is over. You can trust the Creator of the universe or a tent maker, the Author of the Torah, or someone who rejected the Torah. Perhaps it’s just me, but if the Author of life, authored a book, it might be in our interest to thoughtfully consider what He had to say.