Questioning Paul
Volume 1: The Great Galatians Debate
Chapter 11 part 3
Sha’uwl’s next line is perplexing. Most scholars assume that it means that he has taken the papyrus and quill away from whoever was serving as his amanuensis, and was now writing these words in his own hand. It didn’t help. But it did establish a trademark, and verify that Paul himself composed this epistle. He will repeat this practice in subsequent letters as his way of demonstrating authenticity.
To begin, if we are to prioritize the oldest witness, 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 bona fide Pauline.
"You must look at and become acquainted with (idete – you all are ordered to see, notice, and become familiar with, paying attention to (written in the aorist active imperative as a command)) how old, tall, and great (elikois) to you (umin) the letters (grammasin – written alphabetic characters) I wrote (egrapha – I actually inscribed with pen) with (te) my (emos) hand (cheir)." (Galatians 6:11LEB)
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 Paul establishing the fact that he, himself, was to blame for what we have read.
While the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear 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 social media 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 Yahowsha’s name after the one for the title, Ma’aseyah. And while there is also a conflict regarding the mood of the final verb (indicative as opposed to subjective), "may or might" works better in this context than does "really or 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 clause 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, as far as, or as many as, even to the degree that) they currently desire (thelousin – they actually take pleasure in, propose, and presently enjoy) to make a good showing (euprosopesai – to make a favorable impression) in (en) this (houtos) flesh (sarx) to actually compel and force (anagkazousiv – to obligate and necessitate) you all (umas) to become circumcised (peritemno) merely (monon – only and just) so that (hina to) the cross (στρω / stauro – Divine Placeholder for Upright Pillar indicating that God is the Doorway to Heaven and that He serves as the Upright Pillar of Yahowah’s Tabernacle and Covenant Home (but since Sha’uwl has disassociated God’s symbols from God’s purpose, it is unlikely that he would have made this connection)) of the (tou) Christou Iesou (ΧΥ ΙΥ / Christou Iesou – Divine Placeholders for the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’ (but since the purpose of Galatians has been to disassociate Yahowsha’ from Yahowah and the Ma’aseyah from the Towrah, Sha’uwl most likely wrote the inaccurate Greek name and title)) they presently may not pursue (me dioko – they currently might not follow and strive toward, running after)." (Galatians 6:12LEB)
Since Paul likes to namedrop, the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’ was circumcised. So Paul is saying that Christians shouldn’t follow His example. He is also saying that the sign of Christendom, which is the cross, is nullified by those who accept the sign of the Covenant, which is circumcision. And this means that Paul’s religion and Yahowah’s relationship are in irreconcilable conflict.
What’s particularly sickening about all of this is that Sha’uwl has misappropriated the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’ to appear as if He and Sha’uwl were on the same side, when in fact they are adversarial. And that, more than anything else, is the most beguiling aspect of Paul’s Faith. He has established the illusion that the religion he conceived was founded by "Jesus Christ." And billions of souls have succumb to this deceitful, destructive, deadly, and damning proposition.
The big letters aren’t making a big difference. Sha’uwl’s premise and conclusion are wrong. Moreover, he is a hypocrite many times over. He was circumcised. He circumcised his lover, Timothy. Abraham was circumcised. Yitschaq was circumcised. And Yahowsha’ was circumcised.
By stating his point this way, it’s obvious that "desiring to make 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 Yahowsha’s Passover sacrifice. In other words, Sha’uwl is once again distinguishing between the Towrah and Yahowsha’ as opposed to connecting them.
Second, while "Jews" can be accused of many things, "forcing you all to become circumcised" has never been one of them. Moreover, even if there were such a thing as a "Judaizer," the notion that these mythical people would "obligate and compel" others to become circumcised so that they could avoid pursuing a pagan symbol such as the "cross" is ludicrous. The opposite is true because Yisra’elites observe Passover, which is what the "Christian cross" has obscured.
Third, no one, not Yahowah, not Yahowsha’, not the most fundamentalist Rabbi, nor the most ardent Christian, ever postured the notion that "circumcision" was a substitute for Passover. However, according to God, a man who is not circumcised cannot benefit from Passover. So by avoiding circumcision, the benefit of Pesach, which is eternal life, is forestalled.
Fourth, circumcision is not only the sign of the Covenant, the fifth of five conditions for participating in the Covenant requires parents to see to it that their sons are circumcised. So while circumcision does not in and of itself save, there is no salvation apart from the Covenant. And therefore men and boys who are not circumcised cannot be saved. Not being circumcised prevents us from benefiting from Passover and thus from entering through the Doorway to Life.
And fifth, 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 of the flesh because it encourages circumcision." Sure it’s a weak argument and a flimsy case, but simply misrepresenting one of Yahowah’s symbols while ignoring and rejecting the rest was sufficient to lead billions of souls away from God.
The NAMI, 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.
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 either. 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 Yahowah and Yahowsha’ which was blasphemous according to the Rabbis. At this time, the overwhelming preponderance of the followers of The Way were Yahuwdym, not Gowym—as was reflected in their affinity for the Towrah. And since they were born Jews, circumcision was a given, not something which was compelled later in life.
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 27th Edition. 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 Towrah 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."
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 children. It is made in quiet contemplation as mother and father commit themselves to sharing God’s Covenant within their home.
"For (gar – because then) neither / none of (houte) the ones (oi) already having been circumcised (peritemnomenoi) themselves (autoi) carefully observe (phulasso – focus upon so as to be protected and preserved by) the Towrah (nomon – nourishing allotment which facilitates an inheritance; used throughout the Septuagint to convey "towrah – source of teaching, instruction, direction, and guidance"). To the contrary and nevertheless (alla – but certainly), they presently want and take pleasure in (thelousin – they purpose and desire, even enjoy) you all (umas) becoming circumcised (peritemnesthai) in order that (hina) in (en – with) the flesh (te sarx) of yours (umetera) they may boast (kauchesontai – they might brag and be glorified)." (Galatians 6:13LEB)
Paulos, who was by his own admission so uncontrollably conceited that Satan had to demon possess him to reign him in. The very man who had the audacity to contradict God and start his own religion just called those with the good sense to observe God’s Towrah "boastful." Like most every politician today, Sha’uwl was a complete hypocrite.
Sha’uwl has covered this ground before, so other than to demean the Covenant’s Children in a completely hypocritical fashion, this is redundant. But since he has once again contradicted Yahowah’s testimony, here are the facts: In the Torah, Yahowah asks parents to circumcise our sons on the eighth day as a sign and symbol of our commitment to the Covenant and to raise our children so that they become God’s children. Abraham did as Yahowah requested—and on the very same day that he was asked, circumcised himself and Yitschaq. 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 Yahowah had to say—he trusted God—and as a result, Abraham followed and relied upon Yahowah’s advice. And that is what saved him.
The process of discounting Yahowah’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 Yahowah’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 NAMI 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 Yahowah is the one who is advocating circumcision. It is one of many things He prescribes in the Towrah. So, who are we to suggest that His advice is outdated and passé, or that our advice is better?
The Torah is Yahowah’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 Yahowah "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 Yahowah’s family by following His instructions. Yahowah’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 Yahowah 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 following "may it not become" to make it "not boasting" in this next statement. Therefore, the ultimate hypocrite and demagogue wrote:
"But (de) for me (emoi), may it not become (me genoito) not boasting (me 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 Life and to Heaven (but since Sha’uwl has negated the purpose of Passover, the symbolism is inconsistent with his letter)) of the (tou) 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)) of ours (emon), Christou Iesou (ΧΡΥ ΙΗΥ / Christou ‘Iesou – Divine Placeholders for the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’ (but since the purpose of Galatians has been to demean the Work of Yahowah and to deny that "Yahowah Saves," Sha’uwl would have used the corrupted Greek name and title)), by (dia) whom (ou) my (emoi) world (kosmos – universe, earth, or world system) has been actually crucified (ΕΣτρΑΙ / estaurotai – Divine Placeholder for being affixed to the Upright Pillar, identifying the Door to Life and the Way to Heaven with Yahowah (something Sha’uwl has sought to negate)) and likewise, I (kago) to world (kosmo)." (Galatians 6:14LEB)
For those of you who needed proof that Sha’uwl did not include the Divine Placeholders in his autographs of his letters, you have it now. The στρω placeholder was designed to convey the "Upright One" and the "Upright Pillar" upon which He hung, fulfilling Passover, thereby denoting the Doorway to Life as being Divine. But Sha’uwl has negated the purpose of Passover, and he never refers to it as the Doorway to Life or to God’s Home. Also, KY is a Divine Placeholder for the "Upright One" who is the "Foundation and Upright Pillar of the Tabernacle," concepts that are only understood based upon the deployment of ‘edon throughout the Towrah – a book Sha’uwl has relentlessly demeaned. But beyond this, by juxtaposing them in this way, if they were rendered appropriately, Sha’uwl would have said: "in the Upright Pillar of the Upright Pillar of ours."
It saddens me to realize that Christians believe that the man who routinely contradicted Yahowsha’ and demeaned Yahowah’s Word "bragged in the cross," rather than in his own perverted message, or that he was somehow "crucified" with the Ma’aseyah 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 someone else other than Paul wrote the first several chapters of this letter, as they were crafted to defend and glorify Paul. If the self-proclaimed messenger of God was focused exclusively on what happened on Passover, his personal reputation, status, and authority would have been irrelevant. All that would have mattered was presenting Yahowsha’ as the diminished corporeal manifestation of Yahowah fulfilling the Towrah’s promises on behalf of the Covenant’s children on the Miqra’ey of Pesach, Matsah, Bikuwrym, and Shabuw’ah. But that is the antithesis of what we have endured throughout Galatians.
Further, there is no connection between Sha’uwl and Yahowsha’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 present himself as if he was a co-savior. Paul was not crucified, not on this day or any day. And since he was Towrahless, if he had been crucified a billion times over, it would not have benefited anyone. And even if he had correctly represented Yahowsha’s name and title, lying in God’s name is far worse than lying in one’s own name.
The NAMI 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 found 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 habit that won’t go away...
"But (gar – because then) neither (oute) circumcision (peritome) someone (ti) is (estin) nor (oute) uncircumcised (akrobystia), on the contrary (alla – but yet nevertheless certainly) a new (kaine – previously unknown) creation (ktisis)." (Galatians 6:15LEB)
Just a moment ago, Sha’uwl claimed that those who were circumcised negated their salvation, but now it does not matter. For those who prefer honesty and consistency, this is known as an internal contradiction.
The only thing which has been "newly created" is Pauline Christianity. And it is "alla – contrary" to Yahowah’s guidance on everything from circumcision to salvation. Moreover, circumcision, itself, isn’t the means to our renewal or restoration. It is simply a condition to participating in the Covenant.
Had Paul wanted to be helpful here, as opposed to contradictory and argumentative, he would have said: By closely observing the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, we can know Yahowah and come to understand how and why Yahowsha’ came to fulfill our Heavenly Father’s promise to make us immortal and perfected children of 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 find ourselves enriched and empowered by God.
When we are born spiritually into Yahowah’s family on "Bikuwrym – First-Born Children," we are renewed by God, but that is not to say that "we become a new creation." We aren’t recreated but instead our souls are "restored."
It has become increasingly obvious that Paul required the "new creation," one that became known as the "New Testament," because he opposed the existing Covenant. But how can his new creation be valid if its premise contradicts the testimony of God?
As we have learned, Galatians was written as a rebuttal to the dressing down Sha’uwl received as a result of being called to Yaruwshalaim to confront Yahowsha’s Disciples. They were concerned about him because he was denouncing circumcision, the Covenant, and the Towrah. And now you know Sha’uwl’s reply. Rather than align his pronouncements so that they were consistent with God’s teachings, Sha’uwl not only invented his own religion, he demeaned everything associated with Yahowah in the process.
If this is what Paul scribed with his own hand, he shouldn’t have bothered. NAMI: "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 Towrah observant, Yahowsha’ was circumcised. And paraphrased in Elizabethan English, Yahowah said that "uncircumcised not availeth," in that uncircumcised men are explicitly excluded from participating in Passover and His Covenant, and thus expressly excluded from eternal life as part of Yahowah’s Family and in His Home.
Speaking for themselves and Paul, but most certainly not Yahowah or Yahowsha’, 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 Yahowah and Yahowsha’ 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 Yahowsha’ because that would cause them to be Torah observant. In fact, Paul has assailed, belittled, convoluted, and concealed the path the Ma’aseyah followed as it is laid out in the Torah.
"And (kai) as many and whoever (osoi) in this (to touto) rule, principle, and standard (kanoni – measuring rod) might imitate, marching in conformity by following along (stoicheosin – will proceed arranged in military ranks, and may walk compliantly in someone’s footsteps, harmoniously imitating (as in "onward Christian soldiers")), 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 Engage and Endure with God") of the (tou) God (ΘΥ)." (Galatians 6:16LEB)
If "this rule" is defined by his previous statements, that circumcision is either condemning or irrelevant, then Paul is asking believers to fall in line and consider Yahowah’s Word meaningless.
We first encountered "stoicheion – initial teachings and basic elements of the physical world which were improperly formed and underdeveloped, representing the first step in the worldly system of pagan mythology" in Galatians 4:3LEB, 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 Yahowah’s depiction of His "mal’ak – 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 orders 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: believe what I say. According to the Devil’s Advocate: "eleos – mercy" is afforded those who accept his standard which requires rejecting Yahowah’s standard.
And truthfully, there is only one "rule," one "measure," one "standard" which matters according to Yahowah—His Towrah. Even Yahowsha’ was measured and found perfect by this standard. That is why when our "sin was associated with Him," in accordance with Second Samuel 7, Yahowah "did not spare the rod." It is the reason Yahowsha’ endured Passover and Unleavened Bread. It is how He prevailed on our behalf.
And yet Paul has said that Christians should measure truth by the standard born out of his duplicitous and irrational rhetoric. So 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 the 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 Towrah, and his "new creation"—the Christian Church. And that is why a distinction had to be made between Yisra’el and his Faith. It was the seed of what would become known as "replacement theology."
And speaking of provocative, by writing the Greek word "eleos – mercy" at the end of a letter in which a new religion was established based upon the Greek goddesses Charis – Charities, known as Gratia or Graces in Latin and English, Paul proved conclusively that his elevation of the pagan goddesses to Christian legend was deliberate. While "eleos – mercy, compassion, affection, loving kindness, and clemency" was the perfect word to convey the nature of Yahowah’s "merciful" gift, the man who listened to and heeded the words of Dionysus during his conversion promoted the pagan god’s daughters to receptive Greek and Roman ears. In so doing, especially while simultaneously blending in a hefty dose of Gnosticism, Paul established the religious model Catholicism would follow. The Roman Catholic Church, by its own admission, was able to assimilate cultures en masse into their religion because clerics were always willing to incorporate pagan gods, rites, and holidays into the faith. This is a devastating blow to those who promote: "Grace alone."
As we conclude our review of this statement, you’ll notice that the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear acknowledged the existence of "tou – of the, or of 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 in removing "Yisra’el"? Do you suppose they replaced Yisra’el because they believe that they have become "God’s new people?" Have they not proved my point – that this was intended to promote replacement theology whereby Pauline Christians became the recipients of all of the promises made to Yisra’el? But if so, why do Christians universally ignore the basis of those promises: the Towrah?
The same Sha’uwl who went out of his way to antagonize and harass his foes (who just happen to be Yahowsha’s Disciples), who made a career out of abusing members of Yahowah’s family, who demeaned his audience, calling them moronic, like all insecure individuals, had chronically thin skin and would not tolerate reprisals. This next statement is a command.
"Furthermore, from now on (tou loipos – for the remainder of time, henceforth), do not let anyone continue to (medeis parecho – allow no one to cause (present active imperative) cause trouble or difficulty (kopous – bothersome hardships and laborious toils, exhausting tasks and wearisome works; from "kopos – sorrowful beatings as a source of troubles") for me (moi), for I (ego), indeed (gar – because), the scars and brands (ta stigma – the tattoos demarking a slave owned by a particular master, a soldier controlled by a general, or a religious devotee) of the (tou) Iesou (ΙΗΥ / ‘Iesou – Divine Placeholder for Yahowsha’, meaning "Yahowah Saves" (which was most likely added by a second century scribe because Sha’uwl’s letter disassociates Yahowsha’ from Yahowah), in (en) the (to) body (soma) of me (mou), I actually bear (bastazo – I genuinely and presently carry, endure, remove, provide, and undergo)." (Galatians 6:17LEB)
In this vast swamp of delusional megalomania, this may be the most egotistical and depraved statement Sha’uwl has yet postured. Not only can’t he be bothered, the Galatians have been ordered to prevent anyone from giving Satan’s Messiah any trouble, now and forever. And this is because he personally claims that he actually bears the scars and brands of "Iesou," an individual he never so much as even met. As lies go, this one is as egotistical and psychotic as they come.
Sha’uwl is presenting himself as Yahowsha’s savior, the one bearing his burdens. But unlike Yahowsha’, who willingly labored on our behalf, Sha’uwl does not want to be troubled.
Incidentally, when "loipos – furthermore, from now on, and for the remainder of time" was used in the context of Shim’own / Peter’s evaluation of Paul’s epistles, it was convoluted to mean "other" by most every English translation. And that was to infer that all of Paul’s 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.
NAMI: "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."
This wannabe "Apostle" clearly needs an attitude adjustment. Can you imagine Yahowsha’ telling Shim’own, 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.
Since Sha’uwl has raised the specter of brands cut or tattooed into the skin, by virtue of Qara’ / Called Out / Leviticus 19:28LEB, we know that Yahowah is opposed to both. So it is interesting that the man who has preached against God’s instructions to cut one’s foreskin as a sign of the Covenant has now proclaimed that he bears a stigma in his body, all 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 – in his case, a hairy mole..
Christian apologists will no doubt capitulate that a stigma 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" – but that is only as a result of cutting the brand into the skin. Disregarding this fact, they will say that Paul was actually claiming that he bore scars on his body because he spoke on behalf of "Jesus Christ." But Paul never actually spoke on behalf of the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’ (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.)
But there is good news. We have finally reached the end of Galatians. Unfortunately, Paul’s concluding comments contain the names of three false gods, five if you consider the Greek or English corruptions of the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’. The first of these is especially incriminating, because just a couple of statements ago the Devil’s Advocate acknowledged that he was aware of a perfect Greek alternative to "Grace," that being: "eleos – mercy." Disregarding it, and promoting the pagan goddess yet again, Sha’uwl wrote the following on behalf of his Lord:
"Becoming the (‘H) Grace (Charis – Charities; the name of the Greek goddesses of lovemaking and licentiousness, from who the Roman Gratia, or Graces, were named) of the (tou) Lord (ΚΥ / Kuriou – Master who possesses, owns, and controls slaves), our (emon) Iesou Christou (ΙΗΥ ΧΡΥ / ‘Iesou Christou – Divine Placeholders for "Yahowsha’ – Yahowah Saves" and "Ma’aseyah – Implement Doing the Work of Yahowah" (however, Sha’uwl almost 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 (however, Sha’uwl’s spirit (a.k.a. the Lord) bears no resemblance to the Set-Apart Spirit)) of you (umon) brothers (adelpoi). Amen (Amen – the name of the Egyptian sun god, as reflected in Amen Ra and Tutankhamen)." (Galatians 6:18LEB)
End of part 3