Questioning Paul
Chapter 7
part 3
Therefore, based upon what he has written and what follows, this is what Paul meant to say. It is the basis of Pauline Doctrine. It is what Christians believe. It is wrong.
The Torah says that Yahowah will shower us with blessings, and He will lead us to salvation, so long as we listen and respond to the advice He has shared in His Torah. And based upon the fulfilled prophecies He has articulated therein, we can trust Him.
A relationship with Yahowah is predicated first upon coming to know Him based upon what He had to say about Himself in His Towrah. And second, it is predicated upon observing the Towrah’s teaching closely and carefully regarding the Covenant, which enables us to properly respond to its conditions. Salvation follows. It is a byproduct of the Covenant. It, like all of the Covenant’s blessings, is afforded to those who answer Yah’s Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with Him, and most especially Passover, Un-Yeasted Bread, First-Born Child, and Seven Sabbaths.
To engage in a relationship with God and to be saved by Him, we must come to understand His Torah sufficiently to trust and rely upon Him, His message and His plan. And so while no one has ever been saved because they performed Passover, Un-Yeasted Bread, First Born, or the Promise of Seven perfectly, all who are saved are beneficiaries of Yahowsha’ and the Set-Apart Spirit observing Pesach, Matsah, Bikuwrym, and Shabuw’ah perfectly.
The reason Yahowah consistently uses the Hebrew word, shamar, meaning "observe," in connection with His Towrah Guidance, is because He wants us to examine the Torah closely, to look at it intently, to investigate it thoroughly, to not only move in close and scrutinize its jots and tittles, but to step back and visualize how its threads are woven into a comprehensive and cohesive tapestry. In this regard, shamar and shama’ are related concepts. Shama’ means "listen to" and shamar means "to observe." By combining our senses of hearing and sight, our understanding of God grows.
By inspecting the Torah as if our life depended upon it, by listening to what Yahowah had to say, by understanding the message, and by coming to know its Author, we are in a position to trust Him, to rely upon His Word. And that is the sum and substance of the Towrah, its Covenant, and our subsequent salvation.
Yahowah told us what to eat and what to avoid consuming, not only because His advice, if respected, would keep us healthy, and enable us to live longer, more enjoyable lives, but because He wants us to look at the words we are being asked to consume. Ingest too many unhealthy and poisonous propositions, and eventually they will kill you. Dine on a feast of trustworthy terms, like those found in the Torah, and you will live. No one has ever engendered themselves with God because they never ate pork, but if you roll around in the mud with pigs, you are going to die estranged from Him. The reason that Chawah, Esau, and Yahowsha’ were tempted with things which were not good to eat is because nothing is more deadly than a deceitful diet.
God wants us to know Him and understand His message, so that we can objectively and rationally choose to trust and rely upon Him. He doesn’t want us to jump into the darkness with our eyes closed, in a giant leap of faith, because that will get us killed. He wants us to walk with Him into the light, with our eyes, ears, hearts, and minds open and receptive to His message.
This next Pauline proposition also includes a citation from the very Towrah the writer was demeaning. And while it is another truncated misapplication of Yah’s Teaching, this time from Qara’ / Leviticus 18:5, without referencing it we would be challenged to make sense of these words:
"But (de) the Towrah (nomou – the allotment which is parceled out, the inheritance which is given, the nourishment which is bestowed to be used to grow, the precepts which are apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper and approved, and the prescription to become an heir) exists (eimi – is) not (ouk) out of (ek) faith or belief (pistis), but to the contrary (alla – making an emphatic contrast with an adversarial implication), ‘The one having done (o poieomai – the one having made and performed as such becoming) them (autos) will live (zao) in (en – with and by) them (autos).’" (Galatians 3:12)
Or if you prefer, the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear, reads: "But the law not is from trust but the one having done them will live in them." While both are reasonably accurate renditions of the text, neither approach literate.
The prevailing verbs are "poieomai – having done" and "zao – will live." Poieomai, which means "do, make, perform, carry out, cause to be, work, toil, behave, or accomplish an assigned task," was written in the aorist participle which designates antecedent time. That means a person must perform, doing what the Towrah says, to live, at least according to Paul. Antecedent time addresses that which has gone before, that which precedes another event – in this case future life. Further, in the active voice, poieomai presents the individual performing the action, which is to say that he is trying to prolong his own life. The nominative case requires us to view the subject, those attempting to perform as the Torah directs, as becoming reclassified, thereby actually becoming defined by the Torah.
Zao was scribed in the future tense, once again reinforcing the process Sha’uwl is rejecting. In the middle voice, we discover that the Towrah observant individual is being affected by his own actions, suggesting that his performance will determine his fate. And finally, in the indicative, the writer is portraying this cause and effect scenario as real, even though he may not actually believe what he’s saying.
Reflecting Paul’s intent without actually translating what he wrote, the fervent Pauline apologists at the New Living Translation published: "This way of faith is very different from the way of law, which says, ‘It is through obeying the law that a person has life.’" Apart from changing "having done" to "obey," altering all three verb tenses, and adding without justification "this way," "very different from," "the way," "which says," "it is through," "the law," and "that a person has," while ignoring "but," "not out of," "to the contrary," "the one," having done," and "them" twice, what the NLT has proposed appears to convey the spirit of Sha’uwl’s proposition. However by promoting a loose paraphrase, they have run even farther afield of the partial passage Paul cited.
To their credit, it is true that the "way of faith is very different from the way of the Torah." One is the opposite of the other, telling us that the way of faith actually leads in the opposite direction of the way presented in the Torah, with faith being at cross purposes with Yahowah’s Guidance.
To satisfy our quest for understanding, the Qara’ 18:5 passage Sha’uwl is misappropriating is set into the context of the following instruction:
"Speak (dabar – communicate using words) to (‘el) the Children of Yisra’el (beny Yisra’el – children who engage and endure with God), and (wa) say (‘amar – affirm) to them (‘el), ‘I am (‘anky) Yahowah (efei), your God (‘elohym). (18:1-2) With regard to things which could be considered similar to (ka – as with and making a direct comparison to) the practices (ma’aseh – the pattern of behavior, the work, the things done, undertakings, and pursuits) of the realm (‘erets – land) of the Crucible of Egypt (Mitsraym – crucibles of religious, political, military, and economic oppression) where (‘asher) you dwelt (yashab), you should not engage in or act upon (lo’ ‘asah – you should not celebrate or profit from) similar (ka) pursuits (ma’aseh – patterns of behavior, things done, undertakings, and practices) in the land (ba ‘erets) of Kana’any (Kana’any – Zealousness which subdues, bringing people into subjection; commonly transliterated Canaan), which beneficially as a result of the relationship (‘asher), I am (‘anky) bringing and accompanying you (bow’ ‘esh). There (sham), you should not act upon or engage in (lo’ ‘asah) their decrees and customs (chuqah – their prescriptions for living and their traditions and statutes), never walking in or following them (lo’ halak – never patterning your life after them). (18:3)
With (‘eth) My means to exercise good judgment regarding the resolution of disputes (mishpat – My means to decide regarding justice and judgment), you should continually engage and genuinely act (‘asah). With (‘eth) My prescriptions for living (chuqah – My inscribed recommendations which cut you into the relationship), you should consistently examine and carefully consider (shamar – you should make a habit of consistently and actually observing) for the purpose of approaching by (la) walking in them (halak ba). I am (‘anky), Yahowah (efei), your God (‘elohym)." (Qara’ / Called Out / Leviticus 18:4)
This Fatherly advice serves as an open indictment against religion and politics. It is a call to expose and condemn the incorporation or adoption of the rites, rituals, and festivals of pagan religions into a community or culture. It is therefore denouncing the very fabric of Roman Catholicism, where the entire religion is predicated upon incorporating such things. And it speaks against the integration of religion and politics, the propensity of the initial civilizations to maintain large militaries, as well as their tendency to improperly compensate workers for their labor. The civilizations Yahowah is describing in Egypt and Canaan were famous for creating and worshiping religious imagery. They gave birth to the concepts of the Trinity, to crosses, to Easter, Christmas, and Sunday worship, to Communion and to the Eucharist, to faith and to bowing, to gods dying and being resurrected, even to viewing a woman as the Mother of God and Queen of Heaven – all of which were incorporated into Christianity. They were the first to refer to God as the Lord, and they called God all manner of names, none of which was Yahowah.
Yahowah’s next statement is the verse Sha’uwl misrepresented to promote his agenda – one that adopted the political and religious practices of the Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans. But before I share it with you, take note of the fact that in it "shamar – observe," which is to "closely examine and carefully consider something by focusing upon it with your eyes," was scribed in the qal perfect consecutive. Thereby, Yah is encouraging us to choose of our own volition to literally examine the totality of His "chuqah – inscribed prescriptions for living" and His "mishpat – means to resolve disputes," viewing God’s written testimony as a whole while recognizing that it is complete.
But then you’ll note, with "‘asah – engaging in and acting upon" what we have observed and come to know about His prescriptions for living and His means to resolve disputes, the qal imperfect was deployed. From this we learn that our response does not have to be complete, nor perfect, but simply ongoing. God is not expecting us to do anything flawlessly, nor is He even asking us to behave in complete harmony with His instructions.
This realization has profound implications which exonerate the Towrah and condemn Sha’uwl. God has given us the opportunity to examine and consider His Towrah testimony, but the choice is ours whether we elect to read it, ignore it, or oppose it. All God is asking is that we don’t take snippets of what He has said out of context, but rather that we review His Towrah as a whole while recognizing that it is complete. This means that we should consider it from Bare’syth to Dabarym, from creation to Eden, from the flood to the Covenant, from slavery in Egypt to freedom in the Promised Land. We should also view Yah’s Towrah as lacking nothing. It provides answers to every question regarding life and relationship. Nothing should be added, nothing should be taken away, and thus nothing should be changed.
And yet, our willingness to observe what God has written is just the input side of this equation. On the output side, we have our reaction, which is essentially our attitude and our words in response to God. Here, scribed now in the imperfect, God is neither expecting nor asking, and most especially not requiring perfection from us. We are only being asked to continually try to do the best we can. As we learn more, our testimony improves. As we understand more, we become more trusting and thus more capable. It is a process, as are all relationships, with us growing with Yah over time.
But you see, Sha’uwl’s point has been that there is no reason to observe the Towrah because unless a person does everything the Torah demands flawlessly, they will be condemned by God. But that is the antithesis of what Yahowah is saying here...
"And so (wa) you should choose of your own volition to actually and completely observe (shamar – under the auspices of freewill, you should consider choosing to carefully examine the totality (qal perfect consecutive)) accordingly (‘eth) My prescriptions for living (chuqah – My inscribed (and thus written) instructions which cut you into a relationship (and thus into the Covenant) with Me) and also (wa) My means to resolve disputes (mishpat – My means to exercise good judgment regarding redemption (thereby directing our attention to His seven Invitations to Meet). Whoever (‘asher – relationally and beneficially) over time and as an ongoing process acts upon and engages (‘asah – consistently endeavors to genuinely celebrate and continually benefit (qal imperfect)) with them (‘eth), that individual (ha ‘adam – that man and person) indeed (wa – emphasizing this) is actually and completely restored to life as a result of this desire and his decision, living forever (wa chayah – he is literally revived, perfectly renewed, actually nurtured, completely spared, and kept alive into perpetuity through this exercise of freewill, raised, preserved, and allowed to flourish (qal perfect consecutive)) through them (ba – with and by them). I am (‘any) Yahowah (efei)." (Qara’ / Called Out / Leviticus 18:5)
If I may add another interesting consideration. Yahowah has promised to "chayah – restore the lives" of those who not only choose to examine and consider His Towrah, but who also respond favorably to His prescriptions for living and His means to resolve disputes. And since the restoration and elongation of His children’s lives is our Heavenly Father’s doing, He had Moseh scribe "chayah – life" in the best way possible. The qal stem is relational, creating a connection between the subject, which would be those of us who listen to Yah, and the action of the verb which is to be restored and live. The qal stem also conveys actions which are simple to understand, straightforward, and real, and thus actual. The perfect conjugation reveals that Yahowah is not only promising to make us whole and complete, entirely perfect, He is saying that He will do all of the work to accomplish this on our behalf – with nothing additional added on our part. He is even saying that the restoration of our lives isn’t a process that could be abated for some reason, but is instead, done, as in leaving nothing to prove, nothing more to accomplish, and nothing more to do. Then it gets better because here the perfect was prefixed with a wa, making this the consecutive form. This causes the perfect conjugation to reflect the unfolding and ongoing nature of the imperfect, telling us that our lives are being restored forever. In addition, the consecutive form reveals that this is volitional, and thus it reflects our choice and God’s will.
Returning to Galatians, Paul said: "But the Towrah exists not out of faith or belief, but to the contrary, ‘The one having done and preformed them will live in them.’" (Sha’uwl / Galatians 3:12)
Comparing that to the Towrah, Yahowah said: "And so you should choose of your own volition to actually and completely observe My prescriptions for living and also My means to resolve disputes. Whoever over time and as an ongoing process acts upon and engages with them, that individual indeed is actually and completely restored to life as a result of this desire and decision, living forever through them. I am Yahowah." (Qara’ / Called Out 18:5)
It is hard to miss the horrible pattern that is immerging. This time, however, Sha’uwl’s statement is misleading principally because he removed Yahowah’s statement from the context of the point God was making, and in so doing created a perception which is invalid. He did the very thing Yahowah asked us not to do in the passage he abbreviated.
Yahowah is telling us that restoration and life eternal are a direct derivative of observing His means to resolve disputes which serve as prescriptions for living. And Paul is promoting blind faith.
Once again, Sha’uwl has abridged, misquoted, and misapplied a passage which is inconsistent with his own message, perhaps hoping that the use of a common word, this time, "perform / do," in conjunction with an aspect of the Towrah would be sufficient to convince the impressionable and ignorant that God agrees with his position.
But at least we have another affirmation that it is Yahowah’s Towrah that Sha’uwl is assailing by misappropriating citations from it. Under these circumstances, a rational argument cannot be made in favor of the Oral Law or the Yaruwshalaim Talmud being the focus of Sha’uwl’s ire. He consistently refers to the Towrah in order to undermine it, while never once referring to nor citing the Oral Law which was ultimately memorialized in the Babylonian Talmud.
Also, while Yahowah’s message was clear, even straightforward and easy to understand, Sha’uwl’s was not. What on earth does "the law exists not out of faith and belief" mean? What is the connection or contrast between this clause and Yahowah’s statement in Qara’ / Leviticus 18:5? Why did Paul only cite the end of the verse when its meaning is derived from the introduction?
Since Paul’s castrated citation of this passage was as inappropriate as his statement was undecipherable, let’s turn to those hypnotized by his spell for additional insight into the Christian mindset. The King James Version reads: "And the law is not of faith: but, the man that doeth them shall live in them." At least it’s clear that it was derived from the Latin Vulgate which says: "But the law is not of faith; instead, "he who does these things shall live by them."
If nothing else, we know that Shim’own Kephas / Peter was right in saying that Paul’s letters would be twisted, such that they would deceive the ignorant and malleable, robbing them of their salvation. But like so many prophecies, just because it’s true, doesn’t mean that we should allow ourselves to be destroyed by it.
In that Paul was fanning the flames he was using to burn Yahowah’s Torah, I am convinced that he meant to say: "The Torah is not like the way of faith, but to the contrary, it requires you to do what it says in order to live." (Galatians 3:12 reflecting Paul’s intended message.)
At this point we must ask ourselves: can Paul’s faith, his religion, be "unlike" "the Torah" and still facilitate a relationship with God? Is it possible that God could have endorsed a plan which is counter to the one He authored?
Irrespective of the answer (which is obvious), at least the battle lines have been drawn. According to Paul, it is his testimony against God’s Word. We are now immersed in the Great Galatians Debate: Are we to trust Yahowah’s Torah or believe Paul’s Gospel of Grace?
Before we press on, since the context of the Qara’ / Leviticus passage was particularly germane to Paul’s Galatians epistle, a letter which serves as the foundation of Christendom, I’d like to reinforce Yahowah’s advice. God encouraged His people not to follow the religious practices or political traditions of the Egyptians and Cana’anites. That means we are to avoid doing the same things which were also done in Babylon, Greece, and Rome whose civilizations either inspired or copied them. And that means we should not celebrate New Year’s Day, Saint Valentine’s Day, Lent, Easter, Halloween, or Christmas, nor gather in churches on Sundays.
The key to understanding this next statement is "katara - curse." As we discovered at the beginning of this discussion when reviewing Galatians 3:10, kata is either being used to communicate "down from," "according to" or "against," with the latter serving as a negation of ara, and its root, airo, which is either a "prayer" or "a curse." Therefore, the "ara – curse" could well be "not having one’s prayer answered, not having one’s "airo – burdens lifted," or not having one’s soul "carried away" to heaven. Further, katara is especially demeaning. It suggests that Yahowah uses His "supernatural power to invoke harm by promoting evil, doing what is accursed and abhorrent, detestable and loathsome, maligning and malicious."
According to the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear, Paul wrote: "Christ us brought out from the curse of the law having become on behalf of us curse because it has been written curse on all the one having hung on wood." And now, literally...
"Christos (ΧΡΣ – placeholder for Ma’aseyah [but it is unlikely in this context and with this audience that Sha’uwl would have associated the Ma’aseyah with Yahowah]) us (ego) bought back (exagorazomai – worked to redeem and purchase, making good use of the opportunity, taking advantage to buy and deliver; from ek, out of, and agarazo, doing business in the marketplace where (agora) people assemble for a public debate, to buy, sell, and vote) from (ek) the curse (katara – from the evil, hateful, abhorrent, loathsome, maligning, and malicious influence) of the (tov) Towrah (nomou – the means to being nourished by that which is bestowed to become heirs, precepts which were apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper and to be approved through prescriptions for an inheritance; from nemo – that which is provided, assigned, and distributed to heirs to nourish them (singular genitive, and thus a specific characterization)), having become (ginomai – having existed as) for our sake (hyper ego) a curse (katara – a repugnant prayer, invoking the power to harm others by wishing evil upon them, maligning and malicious), because (hoti) it has been written (grapho – inscribed): ‘A curse on (epikataratos – being exposed to divine slander and vengeance) all (pas) the one (o) having hung (kremamai – suspended) on (epi) wood (xylon).’" (Galatians 3:13)
Paul is reaffirming his diagnosis. In his view, Yahowah’s "Torah is an abhorrent and detestable curse which promotes evil." God’s Word, according to Sha’uwl, is "malicious and repugnant." Rather than Yahowsha’ affirming, observing, and fulfilling the Towrah as God, Himself, attests in the 5th and 7th chapters of Mattanyah / Matthew, according to Sha’uwl, the Ma’aseyah has cut a deal and engaged in a business transaction whereby He has redeemed us, not from sin, but instead from the Torah itself.
Since this hideous lie is the antithesis of what Yahowsha’ said and did, we now know for absolute certain that Paulos was psychotic. Calling this man who contradicted God’s message while claiming to speak for Him "delusional" is wholly inadequate. Paul’s position has also made it obvious that he was demon-possessed, goaded and controlled by one of Satan’s envoys. But even then, this is hard to swallow.
This insane admission does, however, confirm that Paul was deliberately maligning the Towrah in his opening statement, because what he wrote in Galatians 3:13 echoes the same sentiment found in Galatians 1:4. Remember:
"Iesou Christou, the one having produced and given Himself on account of the sins and errors of us, so that somehow, He might possibly gouge or tear out, rooting out and taking us away from the past inflexible and unrelenting circumstances of the old system (aionos – the previous era; from aei – circumstances which are incessant, unremitting, relentless, invariable, and inflexible) which had been in place which is disadvantageous and harmful (poneros – which is wicked and worthless, evil and faulty, immoral and corrupt, annoying and mischievous, laborious and criminal, unprofitable and useless, unserviceable and malicious, malevolent and malignant) extending down from and according to the desire and will of the God and Father of us…" (Galatians 1:4)
Now, the "poneros – worthless and malevolent" "aionos – inflexible and unrelenting old system" which is being called "katara – a repugnant curse" is identified as the "nomou – Towrah" – the Teaching and Guidance of Yahowah. If true, then everything Yahowah said and everything Yahowsha’ did was untrue and unreliable. So how is it possible that someone who claims he was exclusively authorized to speak for the former is believable when he contradicts God? How can Sha’uwl’s message about "Iesou Christou" be credible when it is the opposite of Yahowsha’s own Instruction on the Mount? By calling Yahowah’s Towrah a curse, and by saying that Christos therefore became a curse because of it, Paul has proposed the preposterous. The proposition is so asinine it serves to prove that religion renders its victims incapable of rational thought.
Yahowah’s, and thus Yahowsha’s, soul, on Matsah, not Pesach, and thus not while He was hanging on wood, bore our sins, not to free us from the Towrah, but from their consequence, when His soul descended into She’owl. He did not become a "katara – curse," but instead the means to facilitate the Towrah’s promises and the Covenant’s blessings. Yahowsha’ was perfect because He observed the Towrah. He did not become a "katara – repugnant prayer," He did not "katara – invoke evil," and there was nothing "katara – malignant, maligning, or malicious" about Him. It is impossible for the living manifestation of the Towrah to free us from that which He, Himself, observed. And if we are to believe that the Torah is a curse, then as its corporeal representation, Yahowsha’ was a curse. So Paul is saying that the cure for the disease is the disease.
His claim on behalf of Christianity, is so absurd it strains credulity. Yahowsha’, by His own admission, is the diminished manifestation of Yahowah, the human representation of God. So how is it that Yahowah would curse us with His Word only to Himself become a curse to ransom us from His Word?
And yet as spellbinding deceivers have done throughout time, Paul continues to weave the semblance of a good thread through his evil tapestry, all to make his lies appear plausible. Yes, it is true, "the Ma’aseyah redeemed us," but not "from the curse of the Torah." Our redemption was based upon Him enabling "the Torah’s" promises. Yahowsha’s sacrifices apart from the Torah were useless, because there would have been no reason for them, nor any benefit. Unless the Ma’aseyah fulfilled Passover and Un-Yeasted Bread in perfect harmony with the Towrah’s Instructions, His sacrifices were irrelevant. In fact, if the Towrah didn’t depict Yahowah’s enduring plan of salvation, then Yahowsha’ would have been a liar who should not have been trusted, because He said otherwise.
The statement Sha’uwl misquoted also comes from the Towrah, this time from Dabarym / Words 21:23. The passage reads:
"Indeed, when (wa ky) it comes to pass over time (hayah) that by association (ba) an Individual (‘ysh – a Man) is considered to be guilty of sins (chata’ mishpat – it is judged, decided, determined, and thought that He is liable for sin in order to resolve disputes) worthy of death (maweth), and He chooses to be dispatched to the realm of the dead (wa muwth – He passively allows Himself to be slain so as to be absent from life, completely fulfilling the penalty (hophal stem perfect conjugation consecutive mood)), and then (wa) you decide to suspend Him (talah ‘eth – you want to literally hang Him by completely fastening Him (qal perfect consecutive)) on (‘al) a wooden timber (‘ets – or tree), His corpse shall not remain overnight (lo’ lyn nabelah – His body must not endure the night, staying there after sunset) on that timber (‘al ha ‘ets – near the wooden pillar).
Rather instead (ky – truthfully and certainly), you should surely prepare and entomb His body (qabar qabar – it is essential that you place His body in a sepulcher) on this same day (ba ha yowm ha huw’). Indeed, because (ky) the One being suspended (talah – the one being hanged) is being diminished and slighted as a result of an owth (qalalah – is maligned and abated, going away as a result of a promise (in the construct form, the abated and diminished is being associated with and is connected with and bound to)) of God Almighty (‘elohym).
So you should not defile (wa lo’ tame’ – you should not cause to be unclean), accordingly (‘eth), your soil (‘adamah – your land, realm, and world; from ‘adam – mankind and thus your human nature), which relationally and beneficially (‘asher) Yahowah (efei), your God (‘elohym), gave (natan – produced, offered, and bestowed) to you (la – for you to approach) to become an heir (nahalah – as a means to an inheritance)." (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 21:22-23)
This is a prophetic picture of the Ma’aseyah’s fulfillment of the Torah’s presentation of Passover and Un-Yeasted Bread leading to First-Born Child and to inheriting the Covenant. It confirms that the source of our salvation is based upon the very book Paul is demeaning and attempting to depreciate and annul.
Yahowah’s prophetic testimony reveals that Yahowsha’ would be considered to be guilty of sin worthy of death, that He would be suspended from a wooden timber, that His body would be removed from the upright pole before the sun set, that His carcass would be prepared and placed in a sepulcher, as opposed to being buried in the ground, and that as a result of having our sins associated with Him, God’s soul would become the slighted and diminished aspect of God – in other words it would be separated and abated in She’owl. It tells us that His body, in keeping with Yahowah’s instructions regarding Passover, would cease to exist that night. Also, by using ‘adamah, it is "‘adam – human nature" which is no longer defiled as a result.
So while the passage is powerful in the sweeping nature of its predictions, it was not even remotely supportive of Paul’s argument. If anything, this precise prediction demonstrates that the Towrah and its Author can be trusted to do what He has promised.
Recognizing that Sha’uwl quoted a truncated portion of the Dabarym reference to Yahowsha’, and recognizing that his was a woefully inaccurate rendering of it, we are compelled once again to question the veracity of everything Sha’uwl wrote and said, even question his intentions. There is a very significant difference between: "A curse on all the one having hung on wood," and "Indeed when it comes to pass that by association an Individual is considered to be guilty of sins in order to resolve disputes worthy of death, and He chooses to be dispatched to the realm of the dead, and then you decide to suspend Him on a wooden timber, His corpse shall not remain overnight on the wood. Rather instead, you should prepare and entomb His body on this same day. Indeed, because the One being suspended is being diminished and slighted as a result of an owth of God. So you should not defile your soil or your nature, which relationally and beneficially Yahowah, your God, gave to you to become an heir."
Without the context provided by Yahowah, the reference to being the slighted and diminished aspect of God is senseless. A profound and precise eyewitness account, serving as both prediction and explanation of an event which would transpire fifteen centuries hence, becomes incomprehensible, and thus worthless apart from God’s explanation.
And yet Sha’uwl has now plucked three statements Yahowah has made from the context that makes them valuable, miscasting his redacted variations such that each truncated citation now infers the antithesis of what God actually revealed. Each time he revised God’s Word to suit his thesis. So are we to suppose that Sha’uwl was misinformed, even ignorant, and that these were just careless and uninspired mistakes, or was this deliberate, making Sha’uwl a disingenuous deceiver? The only other possibility requires us to view most every Greek manuscript of the "Christian New Testament" as being unreliable, including the Papyrus 46 codex dated to the vicinity of 85 CE, in which Paul’s letters are extant.
Paul is stuck in a rut. Each Towrah quotation has been chosen, not because it affirmed his position, but because of word linkage. He has gone from "towrah – doing," to "towrah – justified," to "towrah – performing," and then to "curse – hanging on wood." In all four couplets, he has abridged God’s statement and then twisted it to make it appear as if his preaching was consistent with God’s position. To excuse this pattern of malfeasance as "being an honest mistake," "being God’s will," "being inspired by the Spirit," or "being a product of scribal error" is to be played for a fool.
Paul is a false witness. He is purposefully misquoting and perverting Yahowah’s Word in order to establish his doctrine. This is evil in the worst sense of the word. And the consequence has been catastrophic. Billions of souls have been ensnared in his hideous trap and cursed by these letters.
Unwilling to consider the Greek or Hebrew text, and relying instead on the Latin Vulgate, the Christian theologians who created the revision known as the King James Version missed the fact that the Torah predicted what Yahowsha’ fulfilled: "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, ‘Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.’" If the King James has accurately reflected Paul’s thought, then, at least according to Paul, the Torah is actually a curse. Rather than fulfilling the Torah, Yahowsha’ ransomed us from it. And rather than being the perfect Lamb of God, Yahowsha’ embodied all the negativity a "curse" implies.
Had Jerome created his Latin Vulgate from Greek manuscripts, as opposed to blending his preferred readings from Old Latin variations, he would have seen the light as well. But alas, he didn’t. "Christus has redeemed us from the curse of the law, since he became a curse for us. For it is scriptum / written: ‘Cursed is anyone who hangs from a tree.’"
The only curse pronounced by the Torah is upon those who disregard it, and Christians are wont to do just that. NLT: "But Christ has rescued us from the curse pronounced by the law. When he was hung on the cross, he took upon himself the curse for our wrongdoing. For it is written in the Scriptures, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.’" When they added "he was hung on the cross," it became obvious that they noted the very same pattern I’ve been warning you about. The NLT translation team members, like their patriarch, aren’t oblivious, they are mischievous.