Questioning Paul
Chapter 2
part 1
Euangelion – Healing & Beneficial Message
Trust the Torah or Believe the Gospel?
The author of the letter to the Galatians began his landscape-altering treatise by changing his name and then boldly announcing...
"Paulos (Paulos – of Latin origin, meaning lowly and little), an apostle (apostolos – a messenger who is set forth, a prepared delegate who is dispatched; from stello, one who is set, placed, and prepared, and apo, to be separate), not (ouk) from (apo – separating) men (anthropon), not even (oude) by the means of (dia – through, by, or on behalf of) man (anthropou), but to the contrary (alla – certainly and emphatically) on behalf of (dia – through, by, and by means of) Iesou Christou (ΙΝΥ ΧΡΥ – Divine Placeholders for Yahowsha’ and Ma’aseyah, albeit in the wrong order and devoid of the definite article) and (kai) God (ΘΥ – Divine Placeholder for ‘elohym and thus Yahowah), Father (ΠΡΑ – Divine Placeholder for ‘ab – father) of the (tou) one having roused and awakened (egeiromai – having caused to stand, raising; from agora – to assemble people for a public debate, to vote, or to conduct business with) Him (autos) out of (ek – from) a lifeless corpse (nekros – death, a useless, futile, and vain carcass, an ineffective, powerless, and deceased cadaver, a dead body having breathed its last breath; from nekus – a corpse, carcass, or cadaver).” (Galatians 1:1LEB)
It is interesting, indeed telling, that this man born Sha’uwl would choose to rename himself, disgorging his Hebrew heritage in the process. The language of God’s revelation was rejected to select a Latin nom de plume. Sha’uwl, now Paulos, was thereby estranging himself from Yahowah’s testimony while reflecting his allegiance to Rome – to mankind’s most powerful kingdom. There was no place on earth more overtly religious, more aggressively political, more aggressively militaristic, or more wealth driven than Rome. At this moment, no other nation was as morally corrupt or ruthlessly oppressive. This change in identity alone should have been sufficient to motivate readers to "sha’uwl – question him."
This opening line affirms that Paulos, as he now chose to be known, wanted his audience to believe that he was "an Apostle," and thus was on the same footing with Yahowsha’s Disciples. He said that he had been "apostolos – prepared and placed as a delegate and messenger" of "Iesou Christou."
It is interesting, of course, that the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’ said no such thing. The title of "Apostle" was not given to Sha’uwl / Paulos by Yahowah, either. In fact, rather than speaking for God, God said that Sha’uwl / Paulos spoke presumptuously and deceitfully.
Paulos’s claim that his message was unrelated to any man or men is untrue. He, by his own admission, was trained to be a rabbi. And this, like every letter Paulos’s wrote, reads like the Talmud, which is a collection of rabbinical arguments regarding the Torah.
It should also be noted that even if he had correctly written "the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’, in reality the corporeal manifestation of God didn’t speak for Himself. He spoke for Yahowah. So not only does Paulos have His name and title reversed, He has upended Yahowsha’s relationship with Yahowah. And this is no "paulos – small" mistake. Yahowsha’ did not convey His own message. His words were not His own. According to Yahowah, Yahowsha’ is His mouth, the living embodiment of His Word. Yahowsha’ came in Yahowah’s name to communicate and affirm Yahowah’s message. So to invert Yahowsha’s relationship with Yahowah in this way is to circumvent His purpose. But more on all of this, including the Divine Placeholders, in a moment.
God did not die. God cannot die. Yahowsha’ did not fall asleep. And with absolute certainty we know that Yahowsha’s corpse was not resurrected. So all of this is a lie in that it is wholly inconsistent with Yahowah’s teaching and prophecy on the subject.
Let me explain. Yahowsha’s represented the perfect Passover Lamb. Moments before His physical body was sacrificed on our behalf as the Pesach lamb, Yahowah’s Spirit left Him. That is one of the reasons He cried out "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" The other reason, of course, was to direct our attention to the 22nd Psalm so that we might understand what was occurring. Rather than dying, Yahowsha’s soul descended into She’owl, the place of separation from God, on the Miqra’ of Matsah, or Unleavened Bread, to remove the fungus of sin from our souls. It was the most horrid experience imaginable, and thus hardly a snooze.
At this time His corpse was incinerated, ceasing to exist in harmony with the Towrah’s instructions regarding the Passover lamb. Then on the Miqra’ of Bikuwrym, known as FirstFruits, Yahowsha’s soul was reunited with Yahowah’s Spirit becoming the first-born of the Covenant, thereby fulfilling the Towrah’s promise to adopt us. Further, as evidence that His corpse was not awakened, raised, reanimated, or resurrected, the only common denominator amongst the three eyewitness accounts that same day was that no one recognized Him. Moreover, if He arose from a corpse He would have been disqualified as the Passover Lamb, because according to the Torah (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 12:10LEB), the remainder of the lamb’s body had to be incinerated that evening.
So in his opening statement Paul got everything wrong: his name, his title, his status, his sponsor, Yahowsha’s title and name, as well as the relationship between Yahowah and Yahowsha’, all while promoting the myth that God died, fell asleep on the job, and was bodily resurrected from a corpse. It was not an auspicious beginning.
Whether or not each of the acquisitions that I’ve laid before you all prove to be valid will be determined in due time, as that is the entire purpose of this book. But it is especially telling to note that Sha’uwl didn’t say, at least in his opening line, that he was speaking for "God, the Father." That subtlety is lost on most Christians who have replaced Yahowah with their "Lord Jesus Christ," in effect focusing on the implement as opposed to the One wielding it.
This issue isn’t insignificant. While Yahowsha’ came from Yahowah, they are not equivalent. Yahowsha’ cannot equal Yahowah because Yahowsha’, by His own admission, and by necessity, is the diminished manifestation of Yahowah. All of God cannot fit into a human form, and the undiminished presence of God would consume our planet. This concept was affirmed by Yahowsha’ when He acknowledged: "The Father is greater than I am." (Yahowchanan / Yahowah is Merciful / John 14:28LEB)
This concept is also affirmed by Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2. Since Yahowah is Spirit and describes Himself as Light, He is energy. Yahowsha’ as a man was corporeal, and thus matter. Einstein’s formula reveals that energy and matter are exactly the same thing, but they are not equivalent. He proved that matter is a substantially diminished form of energy.
If the human manifestation of God was equal to God, what’s known as the "Lord’s" prayer would become nonsensical, as it would have Yahowsha’ saying: "Pray to Me who is in heaven, set apart is My name, My kingdom come, My will be done…" So, now with the Son having returned to the Father, it’s curious that Paul saw himself representing the representative.
The express purpose of this introduction from Sha’uwl’s perspective was conveyed by the unification of the first two words, the amalgamation of his new name and the title "Apostle." It is a distinction he bequeathed upon himself because Yahowsha’s Disciples refused to convey it to him. For Paulos, it was essential that he be seen as Yahowsha’s Apostle, even though it was a title he did not earn and was never given.
The Greek word that we transliterate "Apostle," apostolos, when used correctly is extraordinarily important. It means "to be set apart, prepared, and equipped." While Paulos was a misguided soul, even today far too many individuals go off as witnesses without first studying the Torah and Prophets. As a result, those who are inadequately and improperly enlightened all too often do more harm than good.
By changing his name and then misappropriating the title, the opening line of Sha’uwl’s first letter became inaccurate in multiple ways. Those who knew Yahowah, and thus Yahowsha’, recognized that Sha’uwl was not an Apostle, and that there would never be a Roman in this role. Every one of Yahowah’s prophets was a direct descendent of Abraham who were introduced to us using their Hebrew names. Further, Sha’uwl did not walk in Yahowsha’s footsteps, nor personally witness His fulfillment of Passover, Unleavened Bread, FirstFruits, or Seven Sabbaths. He was not there in person in the upper room when the Set-Apart Spirit descended upon those Yahowsha’ had Called Out on the Miqra’ of Shabuwa.
There were twelve Apostles by this definition, all chosen by Yahowsha’. All twelve lived with Him and witnessed His every word and deed. And that is why He referred to them as "disciples," meaning "those who learn." But from this introduction, as well as from the introductions Paulos wrote to the Corinthians, Romans, Colossians, and Ephesians, we know that Sha’uwl coveted the title the actual Apostles were unwilling to give him. And yet so all-consuming was his craving to be seen as important and credible, he arrogantly and presumptuously overstepped his bounds. He knew that every word of this was a lie – one he would repeat many times.
Additionally, one of the reasons we know that Paulos intended to convey "Apostle" as a title, rather than use apostolos as a descriptive term, is that in his letters to Rome and Corinth, he writes "Paulos, called an Apostle." The men and women he fooled called him by the title he craved.
In that Paul claimed to speak in the title and name of the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’, even though he reversed them, making it seem like Iesou’s last name was Christou, we are compelled to consider his statements in light of the Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 13 and 18 tests established by God to evaluate the consequence of such assertions. So while we will delve into both in the third and twelfth chapters of this book, suffice it to say for now, in the first of these criterion Yahowah reveals that the best way to know who isn’t speaking for Him is to know what He has said. Yahowah wants us to closely examine and carefully consider every word of His Towrah. He says that knowing and understanding that His Towrah is a source of instruction comes first. Acting upon His guidance and engaging in His Covenant Relationship is next. Then He says that no one has been or will be authorized to add to or subtract from His Towrah. So if we witness the Towrah’s role in our lives being diminished by someone or if we find a writer adding something new, like a new covenant, we should be careful because such a person isn’t speaking for God.
In Dabarym 13, Yahowah reveals that if the prophet stands up and establishes himself, as Paulos has done, he is a false prophet. If he claims to have performed miracles, as Paulos will do, he is a false prophet. If he encourages his audience to go after other gods by other names, like the Roman Gratia or Greek Charis, whom Paulos sponsored, he is a false prophet. If he promotes religious worship, which has become the result of Paulos’s letters, he is a false prophet. If his writings don’t affirm our love of Yahowah, recognizing that Paulos calls Yahowah incompetent, impotent, and worse, he is a false prophet. If he directs us to disregard the terms and conditions of the Covenant or the Path Yahowah has provided for our salvation, he is a false prophet. And of such prophets, God says that they are in opposition to Him, both ruinous and deadly, so we should completely remove their disagreeable, displeasing, and evil corruptions from our midst.
Then in Dabarym 18, Yahowah delineated the six signs of a false prophet: they speak in His name, they are arrogant, overstepping their bounds, their words are inconsistent with the Torah’s instructions, they recite the names of foreign gods, their historical presentations are inaccurate, and their prophetic promises fail to materialize. All of these concerns scream "Paulos" as well.
In his opening salvo, Sha’uwl says that he did not represent any man or any human institution, and that would of course include the ekklesia, the Greek term most similar to the Hebrew Miqra’ey – Called-out Assembly. And that’s a bit of a problem because the Miqra’ey provide the lone path to Yahowah, and Yahowsha’ established the ekklesia. And that would make Sha’uwl a freelance operator and an independent contractor. Moreover, Paulos will contradict himself and refer to the ekklesia as his own.
The flip side of this admission is problematic. If Sha’uwl didn’t write on behalf of what he learned from men in Rabbinical school, then his ubiquitous references to the "nomos" must denote the Torah as opposed to Rabbinical Law. This being the case, the principle methodology used by those who are Torah observant to reconcile Paul’s epistles with Yahowah’s Word was torn asunder by the wannabe "Apostle’s" opening statement. The facts are evident and undeniable. There is no getting around the realization that the "nomos" is an object of scorn and ridicule in this epistle. And at no time does Sha’uwl associate the "nomos" with Rabbinical Law, by citing Talmudic sources. Not once – ever. To the contrary, his examples and citations are all from the Torah, clearly identifying the document he is assailing.
Also convicting, if Paulos was speaking for Yahowsha’, why didn’t he quote Him? If he was Yahowah’s messenger, why is Yahowah’s Word discounted and never cited accurately? Why, if Paulos was speaking for God, is his most repeated line, "But I Paulos say...." If Sha’uwl was Yahowsha’s or Yahowah’s apostle, why do his letters contradict God?
Sha’uwl / Paulos / Paul proved that he was out of touch with the truth, and therefore with Yahowah and Yahowsha’, by his insistence that the Torah is a set of binding laws and strict rules. This was the position held by the religious rulers of the day—the Pharisees—whom Yahowsha’ spent a good deal of His time refuting and rebuking. So whether he was referring to the Oral Laws of the rabbis or to the Torah, itself, his conclusions were all wrong – especially since he has told us that he isn’t speaking based upon what he learned while training to be a rabbi.
Based upon his opening stanza, Paul has positioned himself as an authority on God, as someone who spoke for God, but not ostensibly as the founder of a religion—albeit that is what he has become. His greeting displays neither religious qualifications nor an overt religious agenda. In fact, Sha’uwl only used the word religion twice, and both times it was to condemn the institution. That is a sobering thought if you are a "Christian."
Paul would, however, contradict himself and establish all of the trappings for a new religion, replete with a paid and empowered clergy and a plethora of personal edicts – all of which he said had to be obeyed. And he perverted Scripture to make his assertions appear both reasonable and divine. (Read 1 Timothy 5:17-18, 1 Corinthians 9:1-11, and then 16:1-3 for evidence of this.)
I am aware that Christians have been led to believe that "Jesus Christ was the founder of the religion of Christianity," and that "Paul spoke for Him," but those conclusions aren’t supportable. The institution of Christianity is founded on Paul’s writings, not Yahowsha’s words or deeds. After all, Yahowsha’ was Torah observant. Every minute aspect of His life and His teachings were derived from and inspired by the Torah. Therefore, to follow Him, the devotee would have to become Torah observant. And in so doing, he or she would cease to be a Christian.
To his credit, or shame, Sha’uwl was telling the truth up to a point. He wasn’t inspired by men. In his second letter to the Corinthians, as we have already read, he claimed to be demon-possessed, guided and controlled by one of Satan’s messengers.
But that is not to say that everything Paulos wrote was inaccurate. He correctly referred to God as the Father. But this statement of fact in a sea of lies only serves to make his deceptions appear credible. Far too many people have been beguiled into believing that everything Satan says is a lie. They even believe that in a satanic religion, Satan is worshiped as himself. But this is not how he or his associates deceive and this is not what he wants. Satan usurps Yahowah’s credibility to fool the unsuspecting to worship him, not as the Adversary, but as if he was God. Satan wants to be known by the title Yahowah gave him: "Lord." It illicits bowing, control, servitude, ownership, and worship.
Our Heavenly Father is the one who enabled Yahowsha’ to fulfill Bikuwrym by reuniting Yahowsha’s soul with His Spirit. And while it may not mean much to many, since nekros is based upon nekus, meaning "corpse," the end of the verse actually reads as I have rendered it: "and God, Father of the one having roused and awakened, having caused to stand, raising Him out of being a lifeless corpse (nekros – death, a useless, futile, and vain carcass, an ineffective, powerless, and deceased cadaver, a dead body having breathed its last breath)." So while "raising Him from the dead" sounds familiar to Christian ears, only Yahowsha’s physical body suffered the indignity of death, not His soul, nor His Spirit. Further, He was not asleep and His corpse did not rise.
This isn’t a small technical point. Passover is the lone means to eternal life. Unleavened Bread alone perfects us. FirstFruits is the only way to be adopted into our Heavenly Father’s Covenant family. If Yahowsha’ didn’t enable these promises perfectly, if He slept on the job, if He was ineffective, then we all die estranged from God.
And while Passover is essential, Unleavened Bread is vastly more important. That is why suggesting that nothing happened on Matsah, and that Yahowsha’ slept though the Shabat, completely negates Yahowah’s plan of salvation.
Moreover, FirstFruits is symbolic of our souls being reborn Spiritually into our Heavenly Father’s Family. And as I’ve previously mentioned, the Torah says the following regarding the body of the Passover Lamb: "And do not leave it until morning, and what remains of it before morning, you are to burn with fire." (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 12:10)
Moving on to the deployment of the Divine Placeholders, they are often overlooked. Not one Christian in a million knows of their existence. And yet four of the most common names and titles for God were used in this greeting. The ΙΝΥ, ΧΡΥ, ΘΥ, and ΠΡΑ represent: “Yahowsha’” meaning “Yahowah Saves,” “Ma’aseyah” conveying the “Work of Yahowah,” “‘elohym” the “Almighty,” and Yahowah’s favorite title, “‘ab” which means “Father,” based upon the first word comprised of the first two letters in the Hebrew lexicon and alphabet.
Examples of placeholders not used in this particular statement, but ubiquitous throughout the rest of the Greek texts, and universally found in every first-, second-, third-, and early fourth-century manuscript, describe the "Ruwach – Spirit," the "’Edon – Upright One," who is the "Upright Pillar," as well as "Mother" and "Son," when used in reference to God.
While codices dating to the first three centuries differ considerably among themselves, and differ substantially from those composed after the influence of General Constantine, the use of Divine Placeholders is the lone exception to scribal variation among the early manuscripts. These symbols for God’s name and titles are universally found on every page of every extant codex written within 300 years of Yahowsha’s mission, and without exception. But, nonetheless, they are universally ignored by Christian translators, writers, and preachers. By including them here in the text, as all of the Disciples themselves did, it is incumbent upon us to expose and condemn 1,700 years of religious tampering and corruption.
The very fact that these placeholders are found on all of the more than one-hundred manuscripts unearthed prior to the mid fourth-century tells us that it wasn’t a regional or scribal choice. Instead, they convey something so profoundly important that they were purposefully inscribed throughout the original autographs—in the texts penned by the authors of these Greek texts. The same technique was used in the Septuagint, first penned hundreds of years before any of these documents were written.
And so while these manuscripts all differ from one another with regard to their wording, the only constant is the one thing every translator has ignored. There isn’t even a footnote in any of our English translations indicating that these Divine Placeholders were universally depicted in all of the oldest manuscripts, including the codices, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. As a result, Christians do not know that these symbols existed, much less that they were later replaced by translators substituting the very names and titles which would have been written out by the original authors had they been intended. (For those interested in a comprehensive presentation and analysis of the use and significance of the Divine Placeholders, study the "His Name" Volume of An Introduction to God (www.IntroToGod.org).)
Kappa Sigma and Kappa Upsilon, in capital letters with a line over them, were used to convey Yahowah’s name and Yahowsha’s "Upright One" title, even though every English bible replaces these symbols with "the Lord," which according to God, is Satan’s title. The fact Kappa Sigma conveys "Yahowah," the preponderance of the time it is used, is something I discovered when translating Greek quotations of Hebrew passages cited by Yahowsha’ and His Disciples.
This obvious conclusion has been reaffirmed recently by the publication of early Septuagint manuscripts. In them we find a transition from writing Yahowah’s name in paleo-Hebrew in the midst of the Greek text throughout the first and second centuries, to using the symbolism of Kappa Sigma to represent Yahowah’s name beginning in the third-century. So, we now know for certain, what seemed perfectly obvious before: the Divine Placeholders ΚΣ and ΚΥ were used to designate Yahowah’s name in a language whose alphabet could not replicate its pronunciation.
Also, by finding "Yahowah" written in paleo-Hebrew in the oldest Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures, especially in those dating to the first and second centuries BCE and into the first two centuries CE, we have an interesting affirmation that my initial rationale regarding the Divine Placeholders was accurate. Yahowah’s name can’t be accurately transliterated using the Greek alphabet, so to avoid a mispronunciation, the Hebrew alphabet was used. Then after Hebrew became less familiar, due in large part to the Romans murdering, enslaving, and exiling most Jews, Greek symbolism was substituted.
Moving on, the placeholders Iota Epsilon (ΙΗ), Iota Epsilon Nu (ΙΗΝ), Iota Sigma (ΙΣ), Iota Epsilon Sigma (ΙΗΣ), Iota Upsilon (ΙΥ), and Iota Nu (ΙΝ) were used to convey Yahowsha’s name every time it is found in the Greek manuscripts. And that means that there is absolutely no basis whatsoever for the 17th-century corruption written as “Jesus.” Beyond the fact that there was no “J” sound or letter in English prior to the 17th century, and never in the Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, or Latin languages, “Jesus” isn’t an accurate transliteration of Iesou, Iesous, or Iesoun—which were conceived as a result of Greek gender and grammar rules. But most importantly, none of these names was ever written in the original Greek texts—not once, not ever. It is therefore inappropriate to transliterate something (to reproduce the pronunciation in the alphabet of a different language) which isn’t actually present. So the name “Jesus” is a colossal fraud purposely promoted by religious leaders desirous of separating Yahowsha’ from Yahowah.
The title "Ma’aseyah" was represented by Chi Rho (ΧΡ), Chi Rho Sigma (ΧΡΣ), Chi Sigma (ΧΣ), Chi Upsilon (ΧΥ), Chi Rho Upsilon (ΧΡΥ), Chi Omega (ΧΩ), Chi Rho Omega (ΧΡΩ), and Chi Nu (ΧΝ). More on these Divine Placeholders in a moment.
The Hebrew ‘el and ‘elohym, meaning "Almighty," but most often translated "God," were conveyed using the placeholders Theta Sigma (ΘΣ), Theta Upsilon (ΘΥ), Theta Omega (ΘΩ), and Theta Nu (ΘΝ). And while God’s name and title are not interchangeable, there are times when these placeholders represent “Yahowah” instead of His title, “God.”
Ruwach is the feminine Hebrew noun for "Spirit." Without exception, the Set-Apart Spirit’s title throughout the Greek historical and eyewitness writings was conveyed using the placeholders Pi Nu Alpha (ΠΝΑ), Pi Nu Sigma (ΠΝΣ), and Pi Nu Iota (ΠΝΙ). Just as Yahowah is our Heavenly Father, the Ruwach Qodesh is our Spiritual Mother.
In addition to these two names and three titles, the noun and verb forms of "upright pole," and "to affix to an upright pillar," were rendered Sigma Rho Omega Sigma and Sigma Rho Omega followed by Mu Alpha Iota to indicate the verb—both with a line over them to signify divinity. Making sure that we wouldn’t miss the Divine connection between the "upright pole" and the "Upright One" (the ‘edon of the Torah), stauros was never written out in the Greek text. But this connection between God and the Doorway to salvation was lost when the Roman Catholic Church ignored the placeholder and then changed the reference to suggest that it signified a pagan "cross." And this is indicting, because it means that the Church ignored what was actually written and then deliberately and knowingly changed the meaning of what had been conveyed.
The cross was a common religious symbol used throughout antiquity in Babylon, Egypt, Greece, and Rome to signify the intersection of the constellation Taurus (the Bull which represented their god) with the sun during the Vernal Equinox. The closest "Sun"-day to this event was called Easter by these pagans who believed that the Sun impregnated Mother Earth on this day, giving birth nine months later on the Winter Solstice (then December 25th) to the Son of the Sun. Solar worship, known as Sol Ivictus (the Unconquerable Son) was thereby incorporated into Constantine’s new religion – where it remains to this day. This process began with his vision of a flaming cross superimposed on the sun, which was his god, along with the edict: "Under this sign conquer."
Beyond these seven universal placeholders, we find Father, when used in reference to our Heavenly Father, Mother, when used in reference to our Spiritual Mother, and Son, when designating Yahowsha’, rendered in the same format in most of the earliest manuscripts. And what I find especially affirming about this is that the title "Mother" was designated by a Divine Placeholder in the Codex Sinaiticus when Yahowsha’ discussed the real meaning of the Second of Seven Instructions He etched on the Second of Two Tablets.
Now, returning to "Christ," and the improper title’s appearance in English translations of the Galatians 1:1 passage, it turns out that the over-scored Greek symbols Chi Rho (ΧΡ), Chi Rho Sigma (ΧΡΣ), Chi Sigma (ΧΣ), Chi Upsilon (ΧΥ), Chi Rho Upsilon (ΧΡΥ), Chi Omega (ΧΩ), Chi Rho Omega (ΧΡΩ), and Chi Nu (ΧΝ), weren’t based upon Christos, Christou, Christo, or Christon, but instead upon Chrestus—an entirely different word.
Christos means "drugged." As proof, the one time it was actually written out in the Greek text, it was used to say that the Laodicean assembly applied a man-made drug, an ointment in this case, to their eyes. Chrestus on the other hand means "useful implement," and "upright servant," as well as "merciful one," and it was used to "depict the good and beneficial work of a moral servant." This is quite similar to the implications of Ma’aseyah, which is the Implement Doing the Work of Yahowah. As such, it is useful for you to know that "ha mashyach – the Mashiach" was never written as a title. Daniel used mashyach as an adjective to convey the realization that Yahowah’s messenger would "be prepared and set apart to serve" as a messenger. Further, as a name, "Ma’aseyah," was written over twenty times in the Hebrew Scriptures, telling us that Yahowsha’ would be the "Implement Doing the Work of Yahowah."
In this regard, it is not likely that Yahowah would miss this opportunity to associate His Work with His name. Likewise, it is unlikely that Rabbis, who are adverse to Yahowah’s name and authority, would miss an opportunity to substitute an errant title, especially one without Yahowah’s name, thereby disassociating their Mashyach from Yahowah’s Ma’aseyah. Therefore, as a result of this evidence I’m not advocating the use of "Chrestus," but instead "Ma’aseyah—Implement Doing the Work of Yahowah." Chrestus is nothing more than an affirmation of this important symbolism.
The realization that Yahowsha’s Disciples selected Chrestus, not Christos, as the closest Greek allegory to Ma’aseyah, can’t be distinguished from the first, second, third, or early fourth-century Greek placeholders for Ma’aseyah, because Chi Rho, Chi Rho Sigma, and Chi Sigma, represent both words equally well. But, that isn’t to say that there isn’t a textual affirmation for Chrestus; there is. In all three depictions of the epithet used to depict the first followers of The Way, in Acts 11:26, 26:28, and in 1 Shim’own (Peter) 4:16, the Codex Sinaiticus reveals that Crestuaneos was penned initially, not Christianous. The same is true with the Codex Vaticanus. Then, after Constantine in the 4th century, Crestuaneos, meaning "useful tools and upright servants," was replaced by Christianous, transliterated as "Christian" today, but literally meaning "those who are drugged." If you are a Christian reading this, please take the time to not only verify the accuracy of this realization, but also to consider its implications.
But there is more. The Nestle-Aland 27th Edition Greek New Testament reveals that Chrestus (χρηστὸς) was scribed in 1 Shim’own (Peter) 2:3, not Christos. Their references for this include Papyrus 72 and the Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest extant witnesses of Peter’s (actually of Shim’own Kephas’) letter.
In 1 Shim’own, which was attested by both ancient manuscripts, Yahowsha’s Disciple tells us: "As a newborn child, true to our real nature (logikos – be genuine, reasonable, rational, and sensible), earnestly desire and lovingly pursue (epipotheo – long for and crave, showing great affection while yearning for) the pure and unadulterated (adolos – that which is completely devoid of dishonest intent, deceit, or deception) milk in order to grow in respect to salvation, since we have experienced (geuomai – partaken and tasted, have been nourished by and perceived) Yahowah (ΚΣ) as the Useful Implement and Upright Servant (Chrestus – the Upright One who is a superior, merciful, gracious, kind, and good tool).” (1 Shim’own / He Listens / Peter 2:2-3)
With the realization that we find Chrestus written in the Codex Sinaiticus, and the placeholder ΧΡΣ written in P72 in the same place in this passage, we have an early and irrefutable affirmation that the Divine Placeholder representing the title “Ma’aseyah” was based upon the Greek Chrestus.
The related Greek term, chrestos, means: "kind," "good," "useful," "benevolent," "virtuous," and "moral," as in the sense of "being upright." Words directly related to chrestos and chrestus speak of "integrity" in the sense of being trustworthy and reliable, "receiving the benefit of a payment," as in providing recompense and restitution, of "fulfilling one’s duty," as in being a loyal servant, "doing what is beneficial" in the sense of healing us, "transacting business," as in fulfilling one’s mission, "providing a Divine message and response," in the sense of being the Word made flesh and Savior, "being fit for use," as in being Yahowah’s Implement, and "conveying a beneficial and trustworthy message which produces a good result," which is synonymous with "euangelizo—which is to convey the healing and beneficial message" of Yahowah.
Writing about the great fire of Rome circa 64 CE, the revered Roman historian Tacitus (the classical world’s most authoritative voice regarding this time and place) in Annals 15.44.2-8, wrote: "All human efforts…and propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the fire was the result of an order [from Nero]. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Chrestuaneos by the populous. Chrestus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate."
Also, the Roman historian Suetonius (69 to 122 CE) makes reference to Chrestus in his Lives of the Twelve Caesars. A statement in Divus Claudius 25 reads: "He expelled from Rome the Iudaeos / Yahuwdym constantly making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus." And then in summary, he wrote: "Since the Iudaeos constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome." This event is dated by Suetonius to 49 CE. The historian also wrote in Nero 16: "Nero issued a public order calling for the punishment of Chrestuaneos in the year of the Great Fire of Rome due to the superstition associated with Chrestus."
These two highly credible secular sources, in addition to Pliny, who used the same spelling, provide additional and convincing evidence in favor of Chrestus over Christos, of "the Useful and Merciful Servant," over "the Drugged One," and Chrestuaneos over Christianios, "those who are useful and merciful servants," over "those who are drugged."
The placeholders are errantly called "nomina sacra" by theologians, which is Latin for "sacred names." This moniker is wrong on three accounts. First, only two of the ten placeholders designate a name, while seven convey titles. One represents a thing, in this case the "Upright Pole," and the other speaks of how the Upright Pillar became the Doorway to Haven.
Second, there is nothing "sacred" in Scripture, only individuals and things which are set apart. The human term "sacred" is religious (meaning "devoted to the worship of a deity in a religious service and worthy of religious veneration"), while the divine designation "set apart" is relational. It explains the association between Yahowah and the Set-Apart Spirit, for example.
Third, the Greek text is already a translation of Aramaic and Hebrew conversations, as well as Hebrew Scriptural citations. Therefore, adding the Latin nomina sacra designation is another step in the wrong direction.
Christian scholars use the same hypocritical sleight of hand to explain the universal presence of the placeholders in the Greek texts that Rabbis have deployed to justify their removal of Yahowah’s and Yahowsha’s name from the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. They suggest that the "names were considered too sacred to write." But if that were true, if the Disciples thought that these ten names and titles were "too sacred to write," then why are they written today? If it was wrong then, it cannot be right now.