Questioning Paul
Chapter 1
Part 1
Sha’uwl – Question Him
Are you Aware that God Asked you to Question Paul?
Most Christians believe that Paul, a Jewish rabbi born as Sha’uwl, a man who wrote under the Roman pseudonym, Paulos, was the principal agent chosen by God to communicate the precepts of a religion they believe was founded by "Jesus Christ," a belief system predicated upon faith in the Gospel of Grace. This is surprising since there is only one, albeit inaccurate, citation from "Jesus" and not a single statement from the "Gospels," in the corpus of Paul’s thirteen letters. In spite of this, or unaware of it, these same Christians believe that the lone self-proclaimed Apostle, someone who never walked a step alongside Yahowsha’ (the actual name of the individual errantly called "Jesus"), was authorized to denounce and discard God’s Torah, change His Covenant, dismiss His annual Feasts, and reject His Sabbath—even contradict Yahowsha’ and His Disciples. On the surface, this all seems preposterous, and yet no matter how illogical this may be, it does not seem to matter to believers.
The religious miracle which makes the resulting religion popular is performed in Sha’uwl’s / Paulos’s / Paul’s epistle to the Galatians – which serves as the blueprint for Pauline Doctrine. In its pages a stream of arguments are presented against the Torah and on behalf of faith. But is it realistic to believe that Paul could have annulled and discarded the Torah on God’s authority, as he claims to have done? And if it was somehow possible that God’s initial plan was ineffective, or worse, if it was an enslaving curse, what would make the replacement faith credible, even remotely believable? Therefore, the question before us is whether Christianity was established on the bedrock of Divine revelation or on the shifting sands of one man’s opinions.
In the end it all comes down to Galatians—Paul’s first letter, as evidenced by the epistle itself. It is the first time where the Torah was assailed by someone claiming to speak for God. Without Galatians, there is no credible debate between observing the Torah, which is to examine its teaching, and faith, which is to believe in the unknown or uncertain. So while there are many critical passages in Paul’s other letters, and most especially in Romans, Galatians provides the most methodical approach to obfuscating God’s testimony.
Galatians is one of only two epistles where the Sabbath and Feasts are placed in doubt, the other being Paul’s letter to the Colossians. It is one of only two letters where a replacement Covenant is presented, the other being Paulos’s letter to the Romans. So, without Galatians, there is no justification for rejecting anything Yahowah (God’s one and only name) shared with us.
Galatians is the place where "faith," which has become synonymous with "religion," was first pitted against God’s instructions. This was accomplished by Paul mischaracterizing the Torah’s nature, inferring that to observe was to obey and that to guide was to legislate. As a result, a book filled with Yahowah’s teaching become synonymous with "legalism." Wanting to be free to disregard the Divine directions, Sha’uwl discredits and then discards the Torah in the second and third chapters Galatians, so that in the fourth chapter, he can position his advocacy for an entirely new and different covenant, relegating the one codified by Moses (actually, Moseh, meaning to draw out) on Mount Sinai to being of the flesh, to being an outdated and old-fashioned disciplinarian, which enslaved and condemned everyone.
More than just being ground central for Christianity’s disdain for all things Yahowah—His Name, His Word, His Torah, His Covenant, His Instructions, His Sabbath, His Invitations to Meet, His Land, His Chosen People, His Way, and even His Ma’aseyah, Yahowsha’ – Galatians pits Paul’s new religion against most everything God has revealed. And in the epistle, the Disciple Shim’own / Peter is mercilessly condemned by Paul, and Ya’aqob / James and Yahowchanan / John are dismissed and demeaned.
In this light, Galatians and the book of Acts present conflicting accounts of the Jerusalem Summit – further isolating Paul from Yahowsha’s Disciples. Based upon its timing and content, it is obvious that Galatians was Paul’s response, his rebuttal, to having had his message censured, his authority questioned, and his reputation besmirched, by Yahowsha’s Disciples in Yaruwshalaim (meaning: source from which guidance regarding reconciliation flows). Paul’s summation of this meeting sits in the midst of this epistle, as do both issues which prompted the summit—the purpose of the Torah and the merits of circumcision. These themes dominate Galatians, with Paul’s position consistently running in direct opposition to Yahowah, Yahowsha’, the Disciples, and therefore to the Word of God. In due time we will juxtapose these texts. So do not be concerned if you are currently unaware of this meeting or of the incompatible accounts of it.
Especially relevant to this discussion is Shim’own’s (He Listens, but errantly called Peter’s) overall evaluation of Paul, and especially his Galatians letter, in Second Shim’own. In the midst of bluntly criticizing their content and style, we are confronted with a statement, which at least when mistranslated and removed from its context, is often used to assert that Paul’s epistles should be afforded Scriptural status. But if this lone dubious "endorsement" falters, if it isn’t credible in context, or if this isn’t what Shim’own actually wrote, then the idea of a "New Testament," comprised mostly of Paul’s letters, being considered "Scripture," in the sense of having been "inspired by God," vanishes. Evidence for such a position would be relegated to the murk of myth and to the realm of human tradition. So we will dissect Sha’uwl’s overt condemnation of Shim’own, just as we will study Shim’own’s direct and unabashed response to Sha’uwl under a linguistic microscope, contemplating the Disciple’s view of the self-proclaimed Apostle’s message and letters.
Christian theologians, of course, unanimously side with Paul over Peter with regard to the Great Galatians Debate. In so doing, they have established their religion in opposition to Yahowah, Yahowsha’, the Disciples, and to the Word of God. In their view, Paul was right to associate the Torah with bondage, Yahowah’s Feasts with Judaism, circumcision with the flesh, and God’s conditions with legalism. For Christians, as a result of Paul announcing his new covenant theory in the fourth chapter of Galatians, it is appropriate to divide the "Bible" into two "Testaments" – one "Old" and the other "New," one failed and counterproductive with the other providing the hope of salvation by rejecting the old plan and placing one’s faith in a new promise. For Christians, solely as a result of Paul’s epistles, hell awaits everyone who clings to the past by observing the Torah, while heaven embraces all those who place their faith in Paul’s Gospel of Grace.
With the stakes this high, with the credibility of the religion of Christianity resting upon one man’s letter, with the salvation of billions of souls at stake, few things could be as important as considering the possibility that Paulos’s epistle to the Galatians might not be trustworthy if he openly contradicted the God he purported to represent. But if this world-renowned individual pulled off this feat, if he managed to supersede something as famous as the Torah, and if he supplanted it with something as nebulous as faith, and convinced the world that he had done so without contradicting God, even with God’s blessing, Galatians would have to be the most brilliantly written thesis of all time.
To determine if Sha’uwl changed everything, including our understanding of God and Scripture, even the means to salvation, we are going to examine his words under the lens of the world’s most acclaimed lexicons while referencing the oldest extant manuscripts. Paul’s thoughts will be scrutinized by juxtaposing each proposal he makes against Yahowah’s position on the same topic. We will leave nothing to chance or supposition. And while we are cognizant that billions of religious individuals believe that Galatians is Scripture, we will be honest, even if the result is judgmental and thus deemed offensive. Regardless of how many religious preconceptions succumb to the evidence, this pursuit of the truth will be relentlessly rational.
For those who have not read the Letter to the Reader, you should know that at the onset of this study, I was inclined to think that Paul did no such thing. At the beginning of what would become an extraordinarily comprehensive evaluation of Paul’s veracity, I was predisposed to believe that scribal error, misleading translations, unsupported interpretations, confusion over which "nomos" Paul was assailing, and an overall ignorance of the Torah’s purpose, had collectively conspired to conceive religious teachings which were inconsistent with Paul’s intended message. And yet, it will be Sha’uwl’s words, not my preconceived notions, which will determine whether or not the most influential man in human history became such because he had the audacity to contradict God, to undermine His testimony, and to establish a "New Testament" in place of the one he sought to annul. If he did, and if he made his case, then Christianity might be on solid footing. But if it wasn’t appropriate to demean and dissolve the Torah, if faith isn’t the answer, billions have been tragically misled, their souls extinguished as a consequence.
As a result, it is instructive to reinforce the fact that Paul’s given name was Sha’uwl. It is of Hebrew origin, and it means "he questions" or "question him" depending upon how the pronoun is accommodated. And "questioning him" as a result of what "he questioned" is precisely what we are going to do. And in this vein, you should also know that the name, Sha’uwl, is indistinguishable in Hebrew from She’owl, meaning "the grave," "the pit," and the "realm of the dead." Also relevant, Sha’uwl has become known as "Paul" only because he chose to speak and write under the Latin name, Paulos. It means "little and lowly," something which will loom large before we are finished.
To arrive at the truth, we, like those who have gone before us, must resolve which "nomos" Paul was attacking: Rabbinic Law or Yahowah’s Towrah – which actually means "Teaching and Guidance." We will have to closely compare the oldest textual witnesses to more modern-Greek manuscripts to determine if Paul’s words have been affected by scribal error, attributing things to Sha’uwl that he did not actually say. And after presenting Paulos’s letter in English, rendering it as accurately and completely as possible from the oldest manuscripts, we will have to compare our findings to other renderings to ascertain whether or not translational errors have artificially altered our impression of his purpose in writing this particular document. Fortunately, each of these questions can be emphatically resolved.
One of the surprising obstacles we will have to overcome along the way will become obvious in short order. Paul’s letter to the Galatians is poorly written; reflecting the worst writing quality found anywhere in texts comprising the "Christian New Testament." We will encounter a steady diet of inappropriate words and worse. Many of Paul’s sentences are incomprehensible. The fact that the resulting literacy is well beneath the dignity of God is something we will wrestle with, even though this doesn’t seem to matter to a religion hell bent on distancing itself from Yahowah, from His Covenant, from His Torah, from the first four Statements He etched in stone, or from six of His seven Feasts (Hebrew: Miqra’ey – Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God).
Before we embark on this journey, there is something else you should know. There are a handful of individuals who would like others to believe that Paulos did not write Galatians. They use pedantic ploys to infer that this epistle, along with Second Corinthians, First Thessalonians, Ephesians, and both personal letters to Timothy, were foisted as a clever fraud, and then later attributed to Paul. In support of this argument, there is phraseology prevalent in Galatians that appears less frequently in the subsequent epistles claimed by this man – perhaps the most influential individual in human history.
In support of Galatians being from Paul, we must recognize that the book of Acts reveals that he had the kind of contentious relationship with the Galatians which is actually reflected in the epistle. We are told that the Galatians went from believing that Paulos was the incarnation of a Greek god to wanting to stone him for his caustic rhetoric.
Second, Shim’own / Peter, in his second letter, evaluates an epistle Paul had written expressly to this particular audience—one that we learn from his greeting in First Peter has to be Galatia, because it is the only place where the addressees overlap. Therefore, based upon the Disciple’s letter, we know that Paul wrote an epistle to the Galatians. And if not this letter, then the authentic document has been lost. But more than that, the language Shim’own (He Listens) uses to describe Galatians precisely reflects the contents we find in the surviving copy.
Third, the issues raised at the Yaruwshalaim ("Jerusalem") Summit serve as the centerpiece of this epistle. After reading Luke’s (from the Latin Lucas) testimony in Acts, it becomes clear that Galatians was Paulos’s response to his critics at this meeting. Status was paramount to Sha’uwl, and therefore, Galatians chronicles his desire to position himself as favorably as possible, especially vis a vis Yahowsha’s Disciples whom he routinely slights.
Additionally, based upon the disparaging language, it appears that the letter was written immediately after that meeting, long before tempers cooled. And that means that Paulos would have had twelve subsequent opportunities to distance himself from the letter scribed to the Galatians had it been a fraud because his open letters to the Thessalonians, Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, and Philippians, as well as the personal notes to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon all came later – as did most of his testimony in Acts. Never once is he heard denouncing the authenticity of his epistle to the Galatians, but is instead found building his case against the Towrah and its Covenant upon the foundation he laid therein.
Fourth, Galatians is all about Sha’uwl becoming Paulos, about his childhood, his religious education, his questionable call, his self-proclaimed mission, his adversarial preaching, his suspect credibility, and his personal trials and tribulations. Within its text, we find Paul referring to himself as the parent of his faithful children, as the perfect example to follow, as a person who can do no wrong, and as someone who cannot lie. So if Paul didn’t write it, Galatians was either scribed by his publicist, or by someone who spent the better part of their life polishing Paul’s sandals.
Fifth, the oldest extant codex containing Paul’s epistles, Papyrus 46, places Galatians in the midst of the other letters claimed by and attributed to Paulos. In order of their appearance in the codex, these epistles include: Romans, Hebrews, 1st and 2nd Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1st Thessalonians. And since P46 is dated between 85 and 125 CE, we know that one of the earliest collectors of Greek manuscripts believed that Paul had penned this letter. As did Marcion in the second century, a man who looms large in this saga.
Sixth, Paulos had a propensity to sign his letters so that his audience would have some assurance that he was the author. But with Galatians, he did more than just sign his name. He personally attests to have written the conclusion with his own hand using really big letters.
And seventh, Paul’s signature term is charis, the name of the Greek goddesses of hospitality and merriment. Their name was transliterated into English as "Grace" as a result of the Roman moniker for these same goddesses, the Gratia. Apart from Paulos’s letters, the use of charis can only be attested in one other place in an ancient Greek manuscript. Therefore, the frequency of deploying the name of the Greek goddesses of charity and licentiousness in all of these letters strongly suggests that this troubling and pagan aspect of Christianity came from Paul as did Galatians.
I suppose that this may leave us with a third, albeit highly unlikely alternative, that Paul was the author, but that he never intended this letter to be circulated, much less to be considered Scripture. He was clearly angry, and may well have dashed off an emotional response that, from a more sober perspective, he would have wadded up and thrown away. Most of us have written letters like this; and many have had the good sense to hold on to them long enough to soften them once our passions have subsided. But if this is the case, what does it say about the credibility of the rest of the testimony this man also claims was inspired by God, indeed, what does it suggest about the veracity of the Christian New Testament as a whole?
The only benefit of distancing this epistle from Paul is that it would not tarnish the remainder of the letters attributed to him. But even then, the potential benefit would be fraught with peril, in that it would open the floodgates to questioning the appropriateness of everything originally written in Greek and not Hebrew. Christianity’s entire foundation would be torn asunder. Worse, because the Galatians epistle was written in first person, and because it is based upon the life of the self-proclaimed Apostle Paulos, if it is a counterfeit, not only does the authority of more than half of the "Christian New Testament" become suspect, the religion is deprived of doctrine.
In reality, as we will discover throughout this review, in substance, there is very little difference between Galatians and the rest of Paul’s letters. It is readily apparent that the same individual wrote them, one that was promoting his own unique message in his own unique way.
Ultimately, however, the only question which really matters is whether or not Galatians is true. Is it the inspired Word of God, and thus Scripture, or not? If it is valid, so is Christianity. But if it is invalid, the world’s most popular religion is brought down with it.
This conclusion is inescapable because Galatians, even more than Paul’s other letters, is devoted to systematically demeaning, dismantling, and demoting the Torah and its Covenant. So, without Galatians, there is no way to justify Christianity’s violation of the first four Statements Yahowah etched in stone—as they would still stand. This would include the recognition that Yahowah is God’s only name, that Yahowah, Himself, is our Savior, and that the Sabbath remains set apart. Without Galatians, there would be no way to explain Christianity’s opposition to Yahowah’s seven Miqra’ey – Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God – as they would still delineate the path to eternal life, to salvation, adoption, enrichment, empowerment, and reconciliation, leading to living with God as His children. Without Galatians, Romans, and Hebrews, there would only be one Covenant, a familial accord which has yet to be renewed. There would be no room for a "New Testament," a "Gospel of Grace," or a faith-based religion.
Without Galatians, Yahowah’s Torah, as is affirmed throughout the Psalms and Prophets, remains the sole means to liberate humankind from religious and political oppression. But with Galatians, the Torah is mankind’s greatest foe, the path to enslavement and condemnation.
Without Galatians, the "Gospel of Grace" would be stillborn, invalidated by the promise of the Torah with its entirely different healing and beneficial message. Without Galatians, our association with God would be based exclusively upon the Torah’s everlasting Covenant, upon knowing Yahowah and relying upon God’s Guidance, not Paul’s. Without Galatians, admission to heaven would be predicated upon responding to Yahowah’s Invitations to Meet with Him as this seven-step path is articulated in the Torah and affirmed by Yahowsha’. Without Galatians, "faith" becomes irrelevant, as does the religion of Christianity, because the God who authored the Torah can be known.
In this regard, you should know that faith is the opposite of trust. Trust emerges from a discerning evaluation of the evidence, while faith thrives in the absence of information and reason.
So, while there may be some lingering debate among a few individuals regarding the authenticity of this epistle, we will proceed as if Galatians is genuine. After all, billions of people the world over accept it as having been written by Paul, a man they believe was inspired by God. But is that possible? Could the God who created the universe, who conceived life, who authored the Torah, who nurtured the Covenant, who freed a nation from slavery, and who enlightened the world while proving His existence and verifying His witness through prophecy, have contributed to a book which presents Him as incompetent and impotent? Fortunately, that question can be answered. So long as you are willing to invest the time to consider the evidence with an open mind, so long as you are willing evaluate the facts rationally, not religiously, together we will determine with absolute certainty whether or not Galatians, indeed the whole corpus of Pauline literature, was inspired by God. If it was, it is trustworthy. If not, it isn’t reliable. And in the end, that is all this study portends to determine.
But there are far reaching implications associated with that determination. And that is because the religion of Christianity was established as an extension of the paradigm Paulos first proposed in his epistle to the Galatians. As a result of this book, Yahowsha’ would be renamed and then recast from someone who could be known into an object of faith – reduced to a caricature that would become exceedingly easy to manipulate. As a result, the Pauline "Jesus Christ" was touted as a new and improved, more tolerant and accepting, nicer and loving, version of the jealous and wrathful God of the old-fashioned Law, a God out of touch with modern sensibilities. The perception of Yahowsha’ as the diminished corporeal manifestation of Yahowah, set apart from God, would be lost in the fog of myth. The realization that Yahowsha’ was Towrah observant would be convoluted, twisted and inverted, with Christians, as a direct result of this letter, believing that their "Jesus" had come to annul the old god’s arcane and dreadful Law, freeing them from its judgmental nature.
With Yahowsha’s name forgotten and replaced, the Savior would become "Jesus Christ" and no longer Yahowah, Himself. In this way, the entirety of Yahowah’s testimony, His role as Creator, Father, and Savior, even as God, would be discounted then dismissed, as would be His Torah and His Covenant. Christians wouldn’t speak of Him or pray to Him, preferring to focus on their religious caricature. The Pauline "Jesus Christ" would become an object to be painted with the impressions and opinions of believers, His own words and life ignored because most everything He said and did was now in conflict with the belief system Paul was foisting on an accepting world. Therefore, as a result of what this new paradigm wrought, should Paul’s epistle to the Galatians prove to be unreliable for any reason, to be in conflict with Yahowah or Yahowsha’, the foundational assumptions of the Christian religion fall apart with it, as they could neither be inspired nor be accurate. It is that simple, that clear cut. The fate of your soul rests in the balance, as does every Christian’s.
I understand that Christians believe that "Jesus Christ" was the founder of their religion, but that is not possible. I understand that Christians believe that it is appropriate to address God as "the Lord," but that is not possible. I understand that Christians believe that the "Jesus" is the second person of a Trinity, and represented the totality of God, but that is not possible.
I understand that Christians believe that God died for their sins, but that is not possible. I understand that Christians believe that God’s purpose is to save us, but that is not possible. I understand that Christians believe that salvation requires nothing of them and that it is a product of faith, but that is not possible. I understand that Christians believe that all souls go either to heaven or to hell, but that is not possible.
I understand that Christians believe that "Jesus" was born on Christmas Day, but that is not possible. I understand that Christians believe that Easter commemorates God’s bodily resurrection from death, but that is not possible. I understand that Christians believe that the Covenant’s renewal is depicted in their "New Testament," making it possible to ignore everything in the Torah, but that is not possible. I understand that Christians believe that their "Bible" is the inerrant Word of God, but that is not possible.
I understand that Christians believe that Paul met with "Jesus" on the road to Damascus, that he had a conversion experience, that he was transformed from being a murderer to serving as an apostle, someone chosen and inspired by God to share the Gospel of Grace with the world, but that is not possible. I understand that Christians believe that the Torah was written exclusively for Jews, that it was comprised of old-fashioned laws that no one can obey, and that "Jesus" came to free us from that Law, but that is not possible.
Therefore, most everything Christians believe is untrue. And faith in something which is invalid is unreliable.
It is an irrefutable fact that no one named "Jesus Christ" lived in the first-century of the Common Era. The name "Jesus" was initially conceived in the 17th Century, shortly after the letter "J" was invented. The actual individual was not Greek, and therefore, He did not have a Greek name. "Jesus" is not an accurate transliteration of Iesou, Iesous, or Iesoun. More incriminating still, these Greek corruptions of His name were never written on any page of any pre-Constantine codex of the so-called "Christian New Testament." Following the example of the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Hebrew Torah, Prophets, and Psalms), a Divine Placeholder was universally deployed to represent "Yahowsha’." Further, Yahowsha’, which is affirmed over 200 times in the Torah and Prophets, means "Yahowah Saves." This that means that "Jesus" cannot be the "Savior." Moreover, "Jesus" could not have come in His Father’s name. But Yahowsha’ could and did. So since the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, and can’t even get His name right, what else might be untrue? And now that you know that "Jesus" isn’t accurate, are you going to start using His actual name?
"Christ" is not a last name, as in "Jesus Christ." Further, since He was not Greek, it would be silly to ascribe a Greek title to Him. A title should never follow a name, but instead precede it. And when a title is conveyed, it should be accompanied by the definite article. "Christos," the alleged basis of "Christ," speaks of the "application of drugs," and is therefore an inaccurate translation of Ma’aseyah, which means "the Work of Yahowah." Divine Placeholders were exclusively used to present Yahowsha’s Hebrew title on every page of every Greek manuscript scribed in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and early 4th centuries CE. Also, a thorough investigation of the historical evidence demonstrates that the placeholders for Ma’aseyah were based upon Chrestus, not Christos, with the former meaning "Useful Implement." Since the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, and can’t even get the title which became the name of their religion right, what else might be untrue? And now that you know that "Christ" isn’t remotely accurate, are you going to start using His actual title?
The Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’ emphatically stated that He did not come to replace or to annul any aspect of the Torah, but instead to be the living embodiment of it. Therefore, by upholding the existing standard, He could not be the founder of a new religion. Yahowsha’ was without exception, Torah observant. His every word and deed affirmed this, as did His participation in Passover, Unleavened Bread, FirstFruits, and Seven Sabbaths. It would be impossible as a result to follow Yahowsha’ without embracing the Torah. And the moment a person becomes Torah observant, they cease to be a Christian, which is why believers ignore almost everything Yahowsha’ did and said. So since the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And now that you know that Yahowsha’ was Torah observant, are you going to follow His example?
Throughout the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, God ascribes the title "Lord" to Satan. The Adversary is called "ha Ba’al – the Lord," because he wants to control the beneficiaries of freewill. The Adversary’s prime objective is for mankind to bow down to him, worshipping him as if the Lord was God. But the actual God has a name, and He has no interest in control or desire to be worshipped. His name, Yahowah, is pronounced as readily as any of the many thousands of other words and names written throughout His witness. Based upon the Hebrew verb, "hayah," "to exist," Yahowah is found 7000 times in His Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. He not only encouraged us to use this name, but said that replacing of His name with the title, "Lord," was the most devastating thing humankind has ever done. It opens the door to mischaracterizing His nature and to the acceptance of false gods by any other name. Further, learning someone’s name is the first step in initiating a relationship. And Yahowah wants us to relate to Him as children would to a father. The proper perspective is to see our Heavenly Father on His knees, offering to lift us up. And as the Author of freewill, God is opposed to lording over anyone. So since the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And now that you know that God’s name is pronounced "Yahowah," are you going to use it instead of Lord?
The Trinity is a Babylonian religious concept. This notion was part and parcel of the pagan mythology of the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans as well. Yahowah never once mentions anything even remotely akin to a Trinity. He not only says that He is one, but expressly asks us not to accept religious customs such as this. Yahowsha’ is the diminished corporeal manifestation of Yahowah, set apart from Him to serve us. He is, therefore, an aspect of God, not all of God. The entirety of God would not fit into our solar system, much less into the body of a physical being. And part of God does not make a second God. The Spirit is also set apart. Her title, in fact, is the Ruwach Qodesh, which means "Set-Apart Spirit." Representing the Maternal aspects of Yahowah’s nature, She serves as our Spiritual Mother, thereby completing the symbolism of the Covenant Family – the very family we are invited to join. Since the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And now that you know that God is one, are you going to start focusing your attention on getting to know Yahowah instead of "Jesus"?
Yahowah is immortal. He cannot die. Man cannot kill God. Therefore, God could not die for your sins. Yahowah and Yahowsha’ explained this, but Christians seldom listen to Him. As the Passover Lamb, Yahowsha’ cited the opening line of the 22nd Psalm, telling us that the Spirit of God departed, allowing His physical body to die while His soul went to She’owl to redeem us on Unleavened Bread. The Psalm explains all of this, including the service His soul provided for us on the Sabbath of Matsah. Therefore, according to God, God did not die. As for His physical body, it was incinerated that same night in accordance with the Torah’s instructions. So there was no physical resurrection. And that explains why, in all three encounters on FirstFruits, no one recognized Him. He was the same soul, and now reunited with the same Spirit, but He was only partly corporeal. Recognizing the relationship between energy and matter, one realizes that being corporeal would be a liability, which is why there is no such thing as bodily resurrection into the spiritual realm. So since the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And now that you know that God could not die for your sins, are you going to follow His example and celebrate Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits with Him?
Speaking of the first three Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God, they collectively depict the Way Yahowah has provided to perfect us. But saving us isn’t His priority. Yahowah is committed to His Covenant. Salvation is only afforded to its children. It would be irrational for Yahowah to save souls who don’t know Him, who don’t care what He had to say, who don’t appreciate what He is offering, and who have worshipped a god of man’s making. Therefore, before a soul can be saved, that individual must first come to know, understand, accept, and then engage in the Covenant based upon the conditions articulated in the Towrah. The first of these is to walk away from religion and politics, from all things associated with Babylon. We are encouraged to rely on Yahowah instead, walking along a path which makes us immortal and perfect children who are prepared to be adopted into our Heavenly Father’s family, enabling His Spirit to enrich us and empower us. Therefore, while salvation is a gift, it is the byproduct of participating in the Covenant. So since the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And now that you know that God has established a handful of conditions that must be met to participate in this relationship, are you going to seek to understand these things and then respond to God based upon what He is actually offering?
If God said, "Love me or I will send you to hell to be tortured," He would not only be unlovable, He would be sadistic. Because of this scenario, there is a serious problem with the Christian god. However, the real God, Yahowah, said no such thing. According to His testimony, most souls simply cease to exist upon their mortal demise. They do not know God. God does not know them. There is nothing more. No reward. No punishment. Yahowah provided each of us with the gift of a soul so that we could be observant, giving us freewill so that we could choose to know, ignore, or reject Him, and the benefit of a conscience so that we could exercise good judgment during our lives. The relatively few souls who use these gifts and get to know Yahowah as He revealed Himself in His Towrah, who understand and accept the conditions of His Covenant, and who answer the Invitations to walk to Him, live forever with God in His home. Those souls who are beguiled by religion, or who just have no interest in God, cease to exist. And those who oppose Yahowah, promoting anything which leads others away from God, His Towrah or His Covenant, will spend eternity incarcerated in She’owl, something akin to a black hole. So since the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And now that you know that most souls don’t end up in heaven or hell, are you going to start questioning those who have tried to deceive you, promising heaven to you if you place your faith in them and their religion?
God is immortal. He was not born on any day, much less on the Winter Solstice, Christmas Day, when the Son of the Sun was born in virtually every pagan religion – nine months, of course, after the celebration of Easter. Yahowah consistently asks us to reject the religious mythology of pagan cultures, and yet Christians incorporated Babylon’s two holiest days into their faith. This does not please God; it angers Him, especially since Christians celebrate these pagan holidays while ignoring, even rejecting, every one of His Meetings. This is especially disappointing because Yahowsha’s purpose was to enable the promises Yahowah had made regarding Passover, Unleavened Bread, FirstFruits, and Seven Sabbaths. And after the Trumpets Harvest, He will fulfill Reconciliations and Shelters upon His return. So since the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And now that you know that God hates Christmas and Easter, are you going to answer His Invitations on the days He designated?
The lone presentation of the Covenant’s renewal is detailed in Yirmayah 31. And there, Yahowah reveals that this still future restoration of His relationship will be with Yahuwdah and Yisra’el, not with a Gentile church. In the same discussion, He reveals that the only difference between the existing Covenant and its reaffirmation is that upon His return He will personally place a complete copy of His Towrah – Guidance inside of us. This is significant because God would not have created a New Testament repudiating His Torah, only to return to the original plan. And with the Towrah woven into the very fabric of our nature, there will come a time when Yahowah’s Instructions can no longer be corrupted or rejected. All memory of Paul, his letters, and his religion will be wiped out as a result. So since the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And now that you know that God has only one Covenant, that it has not yet been renewed, and that its restoration is predicated upon the incorporation of His Towrah into our lives, are you going to consider reading it and integrating its guidance into your life?