Questioning Paul

Chapter 7

part 7


Up to this point, Sha’uwl has promoted his case for his Faith by misquoting, truncating, twisting, dismantling, dissolving, and demeaning the Torah. There has been no reason to delve into the realm of Rabbinical commentary, Greek or Roman society, or into the use of slaves. But since Paulos has now gone down this path, we are compelled to reveal pertinent failings.

In the rabbinical mindset, a paidagogos "directed the affairs of children," and was used to describe "slaves who supervised and directed the lives and moral conduct of adolescent boys." It is from pais and a repudiated form of ago. Pais means: "a child, especially a young boy or adolescent, who is often a servant and slave." It is in turn derived from paio, meaning "to strike or smite, to wound and sting." Ago and its cognate, agoge, mean "to conduct training and discipline, to be an attendant of servant, and to lead away," even to "impel or force, influencing the mind." This root speaks of "leading someone away to the magistrate at a criminal court."

Therefore, especially considering the Rabbinic baggage, paidagogos is in lockstep with Sha’uwl’s tortured perspective on the Towrah. In his view, God, as the "Taskmaster," is a "Pedagogue: someone who instructs in a particularly pedantic and dogmatic manner using strict, old-fashioned methods, with an overbearing demeanor, always ready to smite those He has enslaved if they dare step out of line." Paul is then positioning himself, and his Faith, as less constraining and overbearing, as more modern, more compassionate, more tolerant, more generous, and freeing. Nothing is asked, nothing is expected, nothing is required, and nothing except the Torah is wrong. But unfortunately, also nothing is accomplished.

If, as Paulos is asserting, Yahowah and His Towrah are antiquated and arcane, the logical extension would be to label His old-fashioned methods the "Old Testament." And then through similar extrapolation, why not label Paul’s more modern, less judgmental, and more universally tolerant politically correct and outcome-based approach, a "New Testament."

And speaking of Paul’s influence in the conception of the Christian "New Testament," a tome his letters dominate, as a result of the faith-based salvation scheme he conceived, a belief system emerged, one where the initiates can only hope that at some undisclosed point in time there is the possibility that something favorable might happen to them. Pretending to step forward, the religious have been taken back to the myths and mysteries of old. It would be a leap of faith into obscurity, uncertainty, and ignorance. To which Yahowah says, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowing. Because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being ministers for Me. Since you have forgotten the Towrah of your God, I also will forget your children."

The paidagogos were not associated with schools, or with learning, but instead with harsh discipline, so the KJV would be wrong with "schoolmaster." "Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." LV: "Itaque lex pædagogus noster fuit in Christo, ut ex fide iustificemur." "And so the law was our guardian in Christ, in order that we might be justified by faith." NLT: "Let me put it another way. The law was our guardian until Christ came; it protected us until we could be made right with God through faith." There is no basis for "it protected us" in the Greek text.

Even if we were to deprive paidagogos of its arcane cultural baggage, we’d be left to resolve a whole new set of issues raised in Sha’uwl’s next sentence. When you start with a bad metaphor, things go from bad to worse. Such is the case with this, "Having come but the trust no longer under tutor we are," as it was rendered in the Nestle Aland.

"But now (de) having come (erchomai – having happened and become, coming forth and arriving) the (tes) Faith (pistos – the system of belief or religion), no longer (ouketi – not any more) do we exist (eimi – are we placed) under (hypo –under the auspices of) an old fashioned and strict disciplinarian (paidagogos – a pedagogue who instructs in a particularly pedantic and dogmatic manner using harsh, old-dated methods, with an overbearing demeanor, an antiquated taskmaster enslaving children by striking, smiting, and stinging them)." (Galatians 3:25)

In other words, "believers have been liberated from the supervision, control, discipline, and even instruction of the Torah." There are no rules, no requirements, no directions, from God. He no longer cares what you think of Him, what you believe, how you act, or what you do. Since there is no longer a right way, there are no wrong ways. Every path, so long as it is nebulous and unrestrictive, now leads to Paul’s god.

In Sha’uwl’s religion, Yahowah’s Towrah "no longer exists" as a meaningful guide. In his Faith, man’s fate is no longer linked to the path that God provided. According to Sha’uwl, the Torah is passé; its dominion is over—it is an encumbering and hurtful icon of the past. Goodbye and good riddance.

So let’s see if the most influential Christian translations followed their leader down this ungodly dead end. KJV: "But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster." LV: "But now that faith has arrived, we are no longer under a guardian." NLT: "And now that the way of faith has come, we no longer need the law as our guardian."

Since the "schoolmaster and guardian" represent the Torah, according to Paulos, we are no longer living in God’s world. The Almighty is neither teacher nor instructor. There is nothing we can learn from His "Towrah – Teaching." Since He is no longer guiding His children, we cannot follow Him. And because His example is now outdated, we cannot benefit from His work. Yahowah is no longer an influence in our lives. But if that is so, who is?

Paul’s message in Galatians 3:25 isn’t salvageable. For the "paidagogos – guardian or disciplinarian" metaphor to work, the one who leads us as little children to our Heavenly Father has to be Yahowsha’—the Word made flesh. But since our salvation cannot be independent of Him, the second half of the statement is invalid. Moreover, Yahowsha’ is inseparable and indistinguishable from the Towrah and from Yahowah, a reality in irreconcilable conflict with Sha’uwl’s new belief system.

The best possible spin that can be put on this is to say that Sha’uwl might be saying that while the Torah may have led us, however harshly, to the point where we could embrace the Faith, its value ends once we have done so. And that means that Yahowah’s life-saving advice is suddenly beneath believers. But how is it that Paul’s Faith can soar above the Word of God?

Beyond this realization, how is anyone going to grow in a relationship with our Heavenly Father without solid food, without devouring the Word of God, without being nourished by God? The fact is, Yahowsha’, Himself, explained His entire life from the perspective of the Torah and Prophets. According to Him, observing what they reveal is the only way to understand and capitalize upon who He is, what He said, and what He did.

While there are many reasons to be troubled by Sha’uwl’s paidagogos metaphor, it isn’t one which helps Christendom either. Pastors and priests present themselves, as well as their churches, as if they were still the guardians, supervisors, and teachers," of their flock, as opposed to Yahowsha’ having lived that role. So all they have done is substituted themselves for the Torah, and thereby, they have become their own god. It is exactly what Rabbi Akiba, the founder of modern Judaism, did when he empowered rabbis above an unnamed god. As was the case with Paul, so it was with Akiba. One replaced the Towrah with a "New Testament" comprised of his letters, while the other replaced the Towrah with a "Talmud," comprised of his arguments.

Before we press on, a little perspective is in order. Mired in the midst of the third chapter of Galatians, we are discovering that almost nothing Paul has written has been true. And the remainder of what he has scribed is either incomprehensible or irrelevant. Therefore, one has to be ignorant of what Paul wrote, or irrational, to think of Galatians as being inspired by God. By claiming it as such, your god becomes an unknowable, vacillating, inconsistent, unreliable, and incomprehensible mirage.

This next line, removed from this abysmal context, would offer a glimmer of hope had Paul meant pisteos to say "trust and reliance" instead of it announcing "the Faith." And while that is what the word meant at the time he wrote this epistle, that connotation isn’t permissible in the context of Galatians. As we have come to realize, Paul hasn’t provided any evidence for the reader to rely upon. And he has relentlessly assailed the Torah—the world’s only source of universal truth.

Still clinging to the original meaning of pisteos, while rejecting the original title and name of the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’, the NA reads: "All for sons of God you are through the trust in Christ Jesus." So then more precisely and completely, this is what Sha’uwl wrote:

"For (gar – indeed because) all (pas) sons (huios – children) of God (ΘΥ), you all exist (este – you all are) by way (dia – through and on account) of the (tes) Faith (pisteos – belief system or religion in the singular genitive specific characterization) in (en) Christo Iesou (ΧΡΥ ΙΗΥ – placeholders for the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’ which Sha’uwl overtly disassociates from Yahowah)." (Galatians 3:26)

Trust is not possible if no evidence is provided to demonstrate that the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’ is the diminished corporeal manifestation of God set apart from Him to serve us, the One who fulfilled a staggering number of exacting prophecies, the One who walked out of the pages of the Towrah, observing and affirming its every letter and word. Proving the case on behalf of Yahowsha’ is one of the prime directives of the Towrah. It is why Yahowah’s Word is filled from Bare’syth to Mal’aky with promises depicting what God, Himself, would do for us. But all of that must be rejected, along with the Towrah, for faith to be operative.

But apart from the Torah and Prophets, Yahowsha’ is without identity or purpose. The Ma’aseyah’s life is a lie and His sacrifices are for naught if He is disassociated from His source. Who is Christo Iesou if not Yahowsha’, the One predicted and described in the Torah and Prophets, if not the Ma’aseyah, the One He, Himself, claimed to be?

If Paulos is right, then Abraham, Yitschaq, and Ya’aqob are estranged from the Covenant. In spite of the fact that Yahowah said that the offspring of His Covenant would be numerous, there isn’t one.

This, of course, begs the question. If Bikuwrym – First-Born Child is rendered inoperative, if responding to the terms and conditions of the Covenant isn’t the means to be adopted into God’s family, what about Yahowsha’? He observed, upheld, relied upon, and fulfilled the book that Paul has said is devoid of life. So is He, as one would have to surmise by this, dead and estranged from God? There is no mistaking the fact that He, without exception or exclusion, advocated the Towrah, not some new fangled faith.

So in its distinction, Paul’s statement has become the foundation of Christianity. Christians have been led to believe that they become God’s children through faith in "Christ Jesus" – someone whose title, name, identity, nature, life, purpose, words, and deeds they neither know, acknowledge, nor respect. And since they have substituted all of these things for a character who has more in common with Dionysus that Yahowsha’, how is Paulos’s new faith any different than the belief systems of the Babylonian’s, Egyptians, Greeks, or Romans?

By changing the order, and by rendering "pistis – faith," the King James Version has captured Paul’s intended meaning: "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." However, that is not true. We are not all children of God. In fact, most of those Paul preached to, and all of those who subsequently believed his letters, are specifically excluded from God’s Covenant family – victimized as many have been by this false prophet.

Our Spiritual Mother enables our adoption into our Heavenly Father’s family on "Bikuwrym – First-Born Child" based upon our love for Yahowah, our decision to engage in the Covenant relationship in accordance with His conditions, our willingness to answer God’s Invitations to Meet with Him, and our commitment based upon what we have come to know and understand to trust and rely upon what He, through the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’, has done to facilitate the Towrah’s promises. But since one cannot love someone they do not know, cannot engage in a relationship they don’t realize is being offered, and cannot respond to Invitations they don’t think were written to them, what then? Are we to believe that faith based upon ignorance, or worse, denial, has merit?

In reality, it is common for people to place their faith in faulty propositions. The masses have believed fictitious proposals throughout history. But if the promises regarding these things are unfounded, or worse, deceitful, destructive, deadly, and damning, a believer’s faith is as meritless as the misconception. So since Paul has discredited and discarded the only source of reliable promises, what is left other than disappointment?

In his attempt to convey Paul’s thoughts, Jerome missed this realization as well. LV: "For you are all sons of God, through the faith which is in Christo Iesu. (Omnes enim filii Dei estis per fidem, quæ est in Christo Iesu.)" NLT: "For you are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus." It’s telling that each translation was arranged in the same order, one which flows in opposition to the Greek.

Having dismissed the Towrah and its Covenant, there is no longer any merit to circumcision, which Yahowah had stated was the everlasting sign of His eternal Covenant. And therefore, the NA states: "As many as for unto Christ were immersed Christ put on."

Documented more comprehensively, this becomes: "Because (gar – for indeed then) as many as (hosos – so long as) to (eis) Christon (ΧΡN), you all were actually at some point baptized (baptizomai – you all were dipped, immersed, and / or really submerged without process or plan by the actions of another (aorist, passive, indicative)), Christon (ΧΡN) you all clothe or plunge (enduo – you all dress and put on; from en – in and duno – go into or sink into, being plunged (aorist (occurring at some point in time without regard to a plan or process) middle (the subject, you all, are being affected by your own actions) indicative (conveying action the writer wants his audience to believe is real which occurred in the past))." (Galatians 3:27)

Either Paul is unaware of the discrete roles performed by the Son and the Spirit, or he knows them and is being purposefully misleading. But either way, none of this is true.

We are immersed and cleansed by the Set-Apart Spirit, not the Son. And it is our Spiritual Mother who adorns us in Her Garment of Light. We do not clothe the Ma’aseyah. His apparel is irrelevant. Our Spiritual birth from above occurs on "Bikuwrym – First-Born Child," as did Yahowsha’s. And this is only after we have availed ourselves of immortality on "Pesach – Passover" and have answered the Invitation to come into the presence of the Spirit’s Maternal Light on "Matsah – Un-Yeasted Bread," which perfects us so that we are prepared to be adopted. Paul failed to report any of this. And yet God’s Word from beginning to end exists to delineate these profound truths, all of which Sha’uwl swept away with the stroke of a pen.

There are some other issues with this passage. It has become obvious that a second-century scribe, not Sha’uwl, supplied the Divine Placeholder XPN, which would normally be symbolic of "ha Ma’aseyah – the Implement Doing the Work of Yahowah." But without a definite article, it’s readily apparent that the original author wrote "Christon" as if it were a name, and not a title. Further, since the primary purpose of this epistle has been to distinguish Yahowsha’ from Yahowah and from His Word, it would have been counterproductive for Sha’uwl to reconnect them. The placeholders are only meaningful to those who use them to find Yahowsha’s actual name and His Ma’aseyah title written in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms.

But that is only partially true. The Savior’s name is actually "Yahowah." That is God’s one and only name – the only name He wants to be called, to be known as, and for us to use for all time. Yahowsha’ is an identity designation and a mission statement, telling us that "Yahowah Saves." By saying that He came in His Father’s name, He said that His name is "Yahowah."

Lastly, enduo, scribed as enedusasoe, and rendered "you all clothe or plunge," as a compound of en and duno, literally means: "you all should believe that you have at some point in time really taken a plunge and actually sunk in." That’s insightful, especially considering the leap of faith Sha’uwl is advocating. Duno was most commonly used in reference to the "setting sun." In that Satan’s name is Halal ben Shachar, which conveys "the self-exalting son of the sun," associating the Ma’aseyah with this is a demonic pun. And it’s troubling because the souls of those advocating Sha’uwl’s scheme "sink into" "She’owl – the pit where deceased souls await questioning" and thus judgment.

As has been noted, the verb, enedusasoe, was written in the second person, plural, aorist, middle, indicative. The aorist indicative indicates something which the writer wants his audience to believe has actually happened in the past, but something which was not part of any discernible process or plan. And the middle voice signifies that subjects of this verb will have been affected by their own actions – which is taking the plunge into Pauline mythology. Also since enduo sometimes conveys the idea of "having clothed and dressed oneself," in this way too it would be opposed to having the Set-Apart Spirit adorn us in Her Garment of Light. This may be material because everything up to this point has been decidedly passive, with everything happening to and being done for the faithful, making this change significant. The inference then may be that those who are "immersed into" Sha’uwl’s "faith in Christon (a name which speaks of "the application of drugs") "have taken the plunge and have clothed themselves" in his religion.

Sha’uwl has already disparaged circumcision in this letter, saying that it was not required, only to associate it with the Disciple Shim’own, who he condemned. But he is just getting warmed up. Sha’uwl’s animosity towards circumcision will become the dominant theme in this letter before he is finished. And here, baptism is being positioned as a replacement for circumcision, as the rite of passage into Paul’s Faith. But let us not forget, according to God when He condemned Sha’uwl by name in Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:16, Yahowah warned us, saying that Sha’uwl’s aversion to circumcision would be part of the false prophet’s poisonous brew.

"Woe to the one who provides, causes and allows his neighbors and companions to drink, thereby associating them with this venomous wrath, but also making them drunk for the purpose of observing their genitals.

You will get your fill of shame and infamy instead of honor and glory. Inebriated, in addition, you also show yourself unacceptable, going round about over the lack of circumcision.

Upon you is the binding cup of Yahowah’s right hand (a metaphor for judgment). Therefore, public humiliation and indignity will be your status and reward (or Paulos in Latin)." (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:15-16)

And this was just the conclusion. God told us that Sha’uwl would convey all of these things. Remember...

"Surely, this revelation from God is for the appointed time of the Mow’ed Meetings (in other words when Sha’uwl would have been in Rabbinical school in Yaruwshalaim during Year 4000 Yah (33 CE) while Yahowsha’ was fulfilling the first four Mow’ed). It provides a witness and speaks, pouring out evidence in the end.

Whatever extended period of time is required for this question to be resolved, this shall not be proven false. Expect him in this regard, because indeed, he will absolutely come, neither being delayed nor lingering. (2:3)

Pay attention, he will be puffed up with false pride. His soul, it is not right nor straightforward in him. So, through trust and reliance, by being firmly established and upheld by that which is dependable and truthful, those who are upright and vindicated live. (2:4)

Moreover, because the intoxicating wine and inebriating spirit of the man of deceptive infidelity and treacherous betrayal is a high-minded moral failure, and his is arrogant and meritless presumption, he will not rest, find peace, nor live, whoever is open to the broad path, the duplicitous and improper way, associated with Sha’uwl.

He and his soul are like the plague of death. And so those who are brought together by him, receiving him will never be satisfied. All of the Gentiles will gather together unto him, all of the people from different races and places. (2:5)

But they do not ask questions, any of them, about him. Terse references to the word they lift up as taunts to ridicule, with implied associations that mock, controlling through comparison and counterfeit, along with allusive sayings with derisive words arrogantly conveyed.

There are hard and perplexing questions which need to be asked of him, and double dealings to be known regarding him. So they should say, ‘Woe to the one who claims to be great so as to increase his offspring, acting like a rabbi, when neither apply to him. For how long will they make pledges based upon his significance, becoming burdened by his testimony?’" (2:6)

"You have deliberately decided upon and conspired at the advice of another to promote a shameful plot to confuse those who approach your temple, ruining and reducing many by separating people from different races and places, and in the process losing your soul." (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:10)

Yes, on three occasions now we have had reason to consider Yahowah’s testimony regarding Sha’uwl. And we, no doubt, will do it again. Nothing cuts though the fog of lies better than God’s prophetic testimony. So we will continue to remind ourselves that God despises this man’s hideous ploy.

Ever in the dark, and never recognizing any of Paul’s ploys, the King James Version published: "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." We don’t "wear ‘Christ,’" and common words like "baptizomai" should be translated, not transliterated. But again demonstrating the KJV was a translation of the Roman Catholic Latin text, and not Paul’s Greek, we find the same wording in Jerome’s Vulgate: "For as many of you as have been baptizati/baptized in Christo have become clothed with Christum."

There is no reference to "united" or "new" in the Greek text, and yet the authors of the New Living Translation wrote: "And all who have been united with Christ in baptism have put on Christ, like putting on new clothes." And how did team NLT come up with "new" in the etymology of the verb, enedusasoe?

While we can and should be adorned in the Set-Apart Spirit’s Garment of Light, we can’t and shouldn’t attempt to "put on Christ." As the corporeal manifestation of Yahowah, this would be flesh wearing flesh.

Further, if baptism was essential to salvation, why didn’t Yahowsha’ baptize anyone, including His Disciples? Why isn’t it mentioned anywhere in the Towrah?


No longer surprised, Sha’uwl’s next statement isn’t accurate either. The NA reads: "Not there is Judean but not Greek not there is slave but not free not there is male and female all for you one are in Christ Jesus."

"No longer (ouketi) is there (eni – there exists) Yahuwd (Ioudaios – Jew; a transliteration of the Hebrew name Yahuwd meaning Related to Yahowah) nor (oude) Greek (Hellen), no longer (ouketi) is there (eni – there exists) slave (doulos) nor (oude) free (eleutheros – freeborn), no longer (ouketi) is there (eni – there exists) male (arsen) and (kai) female (thelys), because then (gar) all (pas) of you (sy) exist as (este) one (heis) in (en) Christo (ΧΡΩ – placeholder for the Ma’aseyah (but without the definite article it’s being deployed as a name meaning "drugged")) Iesou (ΙΗΥ – placeholder for Yahowsha’ whom Sha’uwl has disassociated from Yahowah)." (Galatians 3:28)

It is hard not to laugh at Paul’s hypocrisy. He has divided the world between Jew and Greek, claiming all of the Greeks for himself. If they no longer exist as a distinct ethnicity, if there is no difference, what was the point? Likewise, he has wallowed in the myth that faith in the promise frees, while observing the Torah enslaves. But how can that be if no one is a slave and no one is free? And in other letters, he will demean women, subjecting them to be lorded over by men, something that makes no sense in a genderless realm.

If there is no longer Yahuwdym, why has Yahowah promised in Yirmayah / Jeremiah 31 to reconcile Yahuwdah and Yisra’el when He returns to restore His Covenant on Yowm Kippurym – the Day of Reconciliations in Year 6000 Yah (2033 CE)? And if gender was irrelevant, why does Yahowsha’ present Yahowah as our Heavenly Father? Why also is the Ruwach Qodesh – Set-Apart Spirit depicted as Maternal? Why are we encouraged to value our Father and Mother as the Second Instruction on the Second of Two Tablets Yahowah etched in stone? How does a family like the Covenant materialize and grow without a Mother and Father? How can there be a Son of God without gender? Why did Yahowah tell us that He created us "male and female?" Why does He disapprove of sex between men?

While our Heavenly Father has but one family, and while we can become His children whether we are natural-born Yahuwdym or adopted Gowym, there is still a very significant difference from Yahowah’s perspective between Yahuwdym and Gowym, and between Yisra’el and the rest of the world. Most unfulfilled prophecy deals with the reconciliation of Yahuwdym and Yisra’el with Yahowah.

So just because something rolls off the tongue and sounds accepting and tolerant, doesn’t make it so. Yahowah said no such thing, and in fact, He says the opposite.

Paul composed this verse to undermine the value of Yahuwdym and Yisra’el in Yahowah’s ongoing story. He may also have wanted to demean the role our Heavenly Father and Spiritual Mother play in the Familial Covenant. And he never knew the love of a woman, preferring Timothy’s adoration, so it is easy to see why he promoted this peculiar perspective on sexual orientation.

Ironically, in the next chapter, Sha’uwl will contradict himself and say that those who observe the Torah are still enslaved by it – especially those associated with the Torah’s Covenant. And as I’ve mentioned, all of the chauvinism found in the "New Testament" hails from Paul’s poison pen, where women are inferior to men. And if that were not enough, he introduces himself as "Paulos, a slave of Christ" in his letter to the Romans.

The familiar prose of the King James Bible has come to resonate in religious circles: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." But to the contrary, according to Scripture, there are still Yahuwdym, Yisra’el endures, there continue to be male and female individuals, and thanks to what Yahowsha’ has done, there are those of us who have been freed from man’s religious schemes, setting us apart and distinguishing us from those who have not been liberated.

Jerome’s Latin Vulgate reads similarly: "There is neither Iudæus nor Græcus; there is neither servant nor free; there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christo Iesu." Recognizing the popularity of Paul’s prose are promoted by the King James, and knowing that familiarity sells, even the adventurous New Living Translation left the lie alone: "There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus." Yet, to their credit, apart from butchering the Savior’s name and title, all three translations accurately presented the words Paul wrote. Now if only Paul’s words were accurate.

Some may think that I’m being too critical here, and that Paul’s last statement was just a figure of speech, a bit of soaring oratory. And this perspective would be valid if Paul were a politician, and if Galatians was part of an election campaign rather than a treatise on a new faith-based religion.

Moving from a lack of discernment to a lack of consistency, Sha’uwl concludes this line of "reasoning" by contradicting his initial point. If you recall, previously he said that "seed was singular" because it spoke not of Abraham’s descendants (those pesky Jews), but instead just of Iesou Christou (who was Jewish until Paulos gave him a Greek name). But now, according to Sha’uwl, we "all exist as Abraham’s seed." This is not something to be dismissed. The singular nature of the seed became the seed of Paulos’ faith-based religion. The singular connotation of one seed at the absolute exclusion of many descendants is how this all began. It was how Paul differentiated between the "promise / promises" and the Torah. So while his reasoning has been flawed from the beginning, even if it was valid, he is about to harpoon his own rationale.

His initial clause obviously needs a verb, but the Nestle-Aland was not inclined to speculate on the kind of action Sha’uwl was recommending: "If but you of Christ then of the Abram seed you are by promise inheritors."

"But (de – then and now) if (ei – conditionally) you all (sy) Christou (ΧΡΥ), then (ara – consequently) of the (tou) Abram (Abraam – transliteration of the name ‘Abram, meaning Enriching Father) seed (sperma – descendant or offspring) you exist (este – you all are) with respect to (kata – down from, against, or according to) promise (epaggelia – agreement and announcement (singular)) heirs (kleronomos – receives of an inheritance)." (Galatians 3:29)

As we have already discovered, kleronomos, translated "heirs," is a compound of kleros and nomos, therefore affirming that the "nomos – Towrah" is where we find "the allotment which is parceled out to bestow an inheritance." I say this because kleros, speaks of a game of chance. It refers to "a lot or stone with a person’s name inscribed on it, which along with other names on other stones, was tossed into a jar, shaken, and then selected purely by random as a result of which stone fell to the ground first." So, once again, the addition of kleros corrupts the realization that our adoption into Yahowah’s Covenant family is predicated upon our choice to respond and not random chance. God’s family is not selected by casting of lots, which is akin to divination, something Yahowah says is an abomination.

But the problem is actually much bigger. Since the crux of Paul’s argument continues to be a contrived, contrast between the Towrah and the promise made to Abram, selecting a word for "heir" based upon nomos defeats the purpose and demonstrates a complete disregard for the intelligence of his audience.

The KJV managed to turn a statement into a question: "And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise?" Jerome was a smart fellow, so I’m convinced that he recognized that Paul had just contradicted himself. LV: "And if you are Christi, then are you the offspring of Abraham, heirs according to the promise."

There is nothing akin to "and now that you belong to" in the Greek text, so why is it in the NLT: "And now that you belong to Christ, you are the true children of Abraham. You are his heirs, and God's promise to Abraham belongs to you." In addition, there is also no justification for "the, true, children, of, you, are, his, and, God’s, to, (the second) Abraham, belongs, to, or you."

At this point, the second codicil of Pauline Doctrine is in the books. Combined with Sha’uwl’s first plank, it is presented here for your convenience and consideration. However, since this is redundant and repulsive, you may want to jump down to the chapter summary and then pick up Paul’s trail again as he opens the fourth chapter of Galatians.

"We are Jews by nature and are not from the social outcasts of sinful and heathen races, (2:15) having come to realize without evidence, that by no means whatsoever is man vindicated or made righteous by means of activities associated with the Towrah, if not by faith in Iesou Christou. And we on Christon Iesoun, ourselves, believed in order for us to have become righteous out of faith in Christou, and not by means of acting upon the Towrah, because by means of engaging in the Towrah not any flesh will be acquitted, vindicated, nor made righteous. (2:16)

But if seeking to be made righteous and innocent in Christo, we were found also ourselves social outcasts and sinners, shouldn’t we be anxious that Christos becomes a guilty, errant, and misled, servant of sin? Not may it exist, (2:17) because if that which I have actually torn down, dissolved, and dismantled, invalidated and abolished, subverted and discarded, this on the other hand I restore or reconstruct, promoting this edifice, I myself bring into existence and recommend transgression and disobedience. (2:18) I then, because of and by the Towrah’s ‘law,’ myself, actually died and was separated in order that to god I might currently live. Together with Christo, I have actually been crucified. (2:19)

I live, but no longer I. He lives then in me, Christos. This because now I live in the flesh, in faith I live of the god and Christou, the one having loved me and surrendered, entrusting authority to control, influence, instruct, and to betray exclusively and especially of himself for the sake of and because of me. (2:20) I do not reject or disregard the Charity / Grace of the god if because then by the Torah, righteousness as a result Christos undeservedly, for no reason or cause, without benefit, for naught, and in vain, died. (2:21)

O ignorant and irrational, unintelligent and unreasonable, Galatians. To whom were you bewitched, deceived, slandered, and seduced? (3:1) This alone I want to learn from you: out of accomplishments of the Towrah the spirit you received or alternatively out of hearing of belief? (3:2) In this way, you are ignorant and irrational, lacking in knowledge and unable to think logically. Having begun with spirit, now in flesh you are completing? (3:3) So much and for so long these things you suffered. You were affected and you were vexed, annoyed, and angry, without reason or result, if indeed, really without result. (3:4)

The one, therefore, then supplying you the spirit and causing it to function, operating powerfully in you, out of acting upon the Torah or out of hearing faith? (3:5) Just as Abram believed and had faith in the God so it was reasoned and accounted to Him as righteousness. (3:6) You know, as a result, the ones out of faith, these are Abram’s sons. (3:7)

Having seen beforehand then by contrast the writing, that because out of faith makes the people from different races and places right, God, He, before the beneficial messenger acted for Abram, that they would in time be spoken of favorably in you to all the ethnicities and nations. (3:8) As a result, the ones out of faith, we are spoken of favorably, even praised together with the faithful Abram. (3:9)

For as long as they exist by means of doing the assigned tasks of the Torah, they are under a curse, because it is written that ‘All are accursed who do not remain alive, persevering with all that is written in the scroll of the Torah, doing it.’ (3:10) So with that Torah, absolutely no one is vindicated or justified alongside God. It becomes evident: ‘Those who are justified and righteous, out of faith will live.’ (3:11) But the Towrah exists not out of faith, but to the contrary, ‘The one having done and preformed them will live in them.’ (3:12)

Christos bought us back from the evil and hateful curse of the Towrah, having become for our sake a maligning and malicious curse, because it has been written: ‘A vengeful curse on all those having hung on wood.’ (3:13) As a result, to the people from different races, the beneficial word of Abram might become in Christo Iesou that the promise of the spirit we might take hold, being possessed through faith. (3:14)

Brothers, according to man I say nevertheless a man having been validated with an agreement; no one rejects or actually accepts added provisions. (3:15) But to Abram these promises were said, ‘And to the offspring of him.’ It does not say: ‘And to the seeds,’ like upon many. But to the contrary, as upon one, and to the seed of you which is Christos. (3:16) But this I say, ‘A promised covenant agreement having been ratified beforehand by the God, this after four-hundred and thirty years, having become Towrah does not revokes it so as to invalidate the promise.’ (3:17)

Because if out of the Towrah, the inheritance is no longer from promise, but to the Abram by promise of God, He has forgiven and pleasured. (3:18) Then, therefore, why the Towrah? Of the transgressions of violations and overstepping, because of the favor and pleasure, it was continued and added to Until the seed which might come to whom it has been promised having been commanded by spiritual messengers in the hand and control of a mediator or middleman. (3:19) But now, the mediator, he is not of one, but the god, he is one. (3:20)

Indeed, consequently, the Torah accordingly is against the promises of the god. Not may it become (although it might be, even though I don’t want it to be). For if, per chance, had been given the Torah the power and ability, the capacity and resources, to impart life, certainly in the Torah would be the righteous and vindicated. (3:21) But to the contrary, the writing imposed restrictions, completely shutting the door on heaven, imprisoning everything under error and evil in order that the promise out of the Faith of Iesou Christou might be given to believers. (3:22) But before the arrival of the Faith, under the control of the Towrah, we were actually being held in custody as prisoners, restricted and trapped like fish in a net, to the bringing about of the Faith was revealed. (3:23)

As a result, the Towrah has come to exist as our disciplinarian using dogmatic old-fashioned methods extending until Christon in order that by means of the Faith we might, at some point in time, while doing nothing ourselves, be justified. (3:24) But now having come the Faith, no longer do we exist under an old fashioned and strict disciplinarian. (3:25) For all sons of God, you all exist by way of the Faith in Christo Iesou. (3:26) Because as many as to Christon, you all were actually at some point baptized, Christon you all clothe or plunge. (3:27)

No longer is there Jew nor Greek, no longer is there slave nor free, no longer is there male and female, because then all of you exist as one in Christo Iesou. (3:28) But if you all are Christou, then you are of Abram’s seed with respect to the promise heirs." (Galatians 3:29)


While there have been a few isolated moments of lucidity, confusion has been more prevalent. While we have read things which have not been totally wrong, most of what we have read has been misleading.

In order to set all of this in perspective, based upon Yahowah’s own presentation of His nature, His purpose and plan in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, here is how I would categorize the first seventy-four Galatians verses.

Completely Accurate: 0. (0 @ 0%)

Irrelevant: 1.2, 1.13, 1.14, 1.19, 1.21, 2.15. (6 @ 8%)

Insufficient: 1.18, 3.1. (2 @ 3%)

Half Truth: 3.8, 3.16, 3.17, 3.26. (4 @ 5%)

Unintelligible: 1.7, 2.14, 3.20, 3.29. (4 @ 5%)

Inaccurate: 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, 1.15, 1.16, 1.17, 1.20, 1.22, 1.23, 1.24, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 2.16, 2.17, 2.18, 2.19, 2.20, 2.21, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15, 3.18, 3.19, 3.21, 3.22, 3.23, 3.24, 3.25, 3.27, 3.28. (58 @ 78%)

Therefore, not one of the seventy-four passages presented in the first half of Galatians represents a completely accurate depiction of our potential to form a relationship with God or to be saved by Him. And just 5% were partly accurate, but not necessarily sufficient to advance understanding. So it would be fair to say that nothing that Paul has written thus far in Galatians has been helpful.

While 6% of all verses were unrelated to our relationship with Yahowah, that’s only a problem in that Paul has been overly concerned about promoting himself, and on establishing his unassailable credentials as an Apostle. And while a partially accurate statement is acceptable in an ordinary letter, it isn’t in Scripture, and there are seven of them in the first half of Galatians.

Prior to having scrutinized Paul’s every word, I was inclined to believe that most of the difficult issues associated with Galatians were the result of an inadequate resolution between the Towrah and Rabbinical Law. But upon closer and contextual evaluation, there can be no doubt that Sha’uwl’s intent has been to dissolve and dismantle Yahowah’s Torah. He has left no other option in this regard.

I was surprised to find that so much of Galatians was unintelligible. Either the words in the text were insufficient to register a cogent thought, or the point being made was incomprehensible.

But the fact that 58 of the 74 passages, more than three out of every four statements, fully 78% are wrong (that is to say they are in conflict with Yahowah’s Word and Yahowsha’s testimony) is devastating to Paul’s credibility and to the veracity of his foundational epistle.

And when it comes to evaluating the credibility of a letter considered to be "Scripture" by billions, we must also add incomprehensible, insufficient, and irrelevant to this total, increasing that which is unintelligible or useless to 18% of the total.

But in this case, we cannot pin the blame on scribal error or careless transmission. There are no older or more reliable Greek manuscripts than Papyrus 46, in which we find copies of Paul’s epistles, including Galatians. Recovered alongside the oldest manuscript copy of Mattanyah, Mark, Luke, Yahowchanan, in addition to Acts in Papyrus 45, both codices are the product of careful and professional scribes. And the most comprehensive dating evaluation concluded that P46 may have been scribed as early as 85 CE, with the most pessimistic evaluations placing it in the early second century.

Moreover, Papyrus 46 is remarkably consistent with modern manuscripts which are based upon majority texts. At least apart from the absence of placeholders in younger manuscripts, as well as in the Nestle-Aland, Papyrus 46 corresponds to the NA27 (Nestle-Aland 27th Edition) almost 95% of the time. So, if we cannot trust the textual accuracy of Galatians, the rest of the "New Testament" becomes highly suspect.

Based upon the evidence before us, and recognizing that we are still in the midst of Paul’s letter, we are in a position to make some preliminary conclusions about the epistle to the Galatians. It would be fair to say that nothing Paul has written in Galatians has been completely accurate or useful, and thus it has added nothing to our understanding of Yahowah’s Covenant or His plan of salvation. Fully 96% of what we have read has been inaccurate, incomprehensible, or irrelevant.

But to be fair, Galatians is widely considered to be Paul’s worst letter. (Although I don’t think that is so. There are others which are considerably more deplorable.) So if it were not for the fact that it has been used to say that we should no longer observe the Torah, but instead believe this man’s faith-based religion, it probably would have vanished along with Paul’s letter to the Laodiceans. If only…