Questioning Paul

Chapter 1

Part 2

The "Christian New Testament" isn’t even remotely reliable. To pretend that it is the inerrant word of God is absurd. There are over 300,000 known differences between the oldest manuscripts and the texts which support legacy and modern translations. No two codices agree on which words were originally written, and that is just the beginning of the problems. No words representing church, cross, holy, saint, Christian, Jesus, Christ, Lord, God, Ghost, Christmas, Easter, communion, Last Supper, Trinity, or Gospel can be found in any ancient manuscript, making all of these things religious corruptions. There are whole sections of books that aren’t attested in the older witnesses, such as the discussion with the adulterous woman in the 8th chapter of Yahowchanan, as well as the concluding chapter of Mark. Neither Mark nor Luke were eyewitnesses, and thus are hearsay. Paul’s thirteen letters, combined with his starring role in Acts, present doctrines which are diametrically opposed to Yahowsha’s words and deeds, and thus cannot have been inspired by the same God. And then we have to confront the issue of invalid, incomplete, and misleading translations, something you will more fully appreciate by the time you have completed this book. So since the Christian religion has deliberately misrepresented this irrefutable and essential fact, what else might be untrue? And now that you know that you cannot rely on the Christian New Testament, where are you going to turn for answers?

According to Yahowsha’s testimony during the Olivet Discourse, Paul could not have seen Him on the road to Damascus. He told us not to believe anyone who made such a claim. So if Sha’uwl saw a light, it was not God’s. Nor is his message. And make no mistake, Paul’s message was his own. He never accurately quotes anything Yahowah or Yahowsha’ said. Moreover, Paul’s preaching was the antithesis of God’s testimony. If one can be relied upon, the other is a liar. You can either believe Paul or trust God, but no one can accept both. By comparing their words, this book will prove this point beyond a reasonable doubt. You will hate Paul before we are through.

As for the rest of the points that have been raised here in hopes of motivating Christians to begin questioning some of the many myths that have been woven into the fabric of their religion, irrefutable evidence to support every conclusion is provided in Yada Yah and in An Introduction to God. But before you consider either, there was a reason for the questions. If you are not going to change your thinking when confronted with evidence that undermines your beliefs, then nothing matters. This book, any book, even God’s book cannot positively influence a closed or irrational mind.

I have not yet responded to Christianity’s most debilitating lie. I understand that Christians, as a direct result of Paul’s letter to the Galatians, have been led to believe that the Torah was written exclusively for Jews, that it was comprised of old-fashioned laws and arcane concepts that are impossible to obey, and that "Jesus" came to free the world from it. But since addressing this position is the purpose of this book, let’s consider the evidence...


While we will analyze every word of Galatians, from Sha’uwl’s greeting to his handwritten closing statement, our review of Christendom’s foundational treatise will commence at the same place Christians begin their assault on the Torah. That occurs in Galatians 3, verses 10 through 14. So, let’s take a moment and consider the King James Version (Christianity’s most influential bible translation) and New Living Translation’s (the religion’s most recent and liberal variation and among the most popular) depictions of these passages, juxtaposed against a literal rendering of the earliest first-century manuscript of Sha’uwl’s letter.

Reason dictates that if the following KJV and NLT translations are accurate, then the "Torah" is God’s way of cursing humankind—not saving us. And if this is true, Yahowah and Yahowsha’ are liars. The King James reads: "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." (3:10)

More clearly presented, albeit less aligned with the Greek text, the New Living Translation published: "But those who depend on the law to make them right with God are under his curse, for the Scriptures say, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the commands that are written in God’s Book of the Law.’ (3:10) If they are correct, God’s Word is God’s curse.

According to the most scholarly and most respected resource, the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear, the statement Paul wrote actually conveys: "For as many as from works of law they are under curse they are. It has been written for (not applicable) curse on all who not stay in all the things having been written in the small book of the law the to do them."

Based upon the words Sha’uwl selected, the following is an even more complete and accurate depiction of his pronouncement: "Because (gar – for) to the degree that (hosos – as many and as far as) out of (ek) tasks and activities of (ergon – works or actions associated with) the Towrah (nomou – the means to being nourished by that which is bestowed to become heirs, precepts which were apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper and approved, and prescriptions for an inheritance; from nemo – that which is provided, assigned, and distributed to heirs to nourish them (singular genitive, and thus a specific characterization)) they are and they exist (eisin eisin) under (hupo – by way of) a curse (katara – that which a supernatural power deploys when he wishes to invoke harm by promoting evil, that which is accursed, denounced and detested), for (gar – because indeed) it has been written (grapho) that (hoti): ‘To become accursed (epikataratos – to be exposed, abhorrent, and repugnant, slanderous, hateful, and malicious (to become is a product of the nominative case)) everyone (pas – all and completely) who (hos) not (ou) remains in (emmeno – stays and continues in, perseveres with) all (pas) that (tois) having been written (grapho) in (en) the scroll (to biblion – the book or documented written record typically on papyrus) of the (tou) Towrah (nomou – the allotment which is parceled out, the inheritance which is given, the nourishment which is bestowed to be possessed and used to grow, the precepts which are apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper and to be approved, and the prescription to become an heir (singular genitive, and thus restricted to a singular specific and unique characterization)), the of (tou) to do (poieomai – to make, produce, or perform) them (autos).’" (Galatians 3:10)

Trimmed to its essentials, the statement reads: "Because to the degree that out of tasks and activities of the Towrah they exist under a curse which a supernatural power deploys when he wishes to invoke harm by promoting evil, doing what is accursed, denounced and detested, for it has been written that: ‘To become accursed, to become abhorrent, and repugnant, everyone who not remains in all that having been written in the scroll of the Towrah, to do them.’" (Galatians 3:10) Recognizing that the preceding translation is a literal rendering of Papyrus 46, the oldest extant manuscript of Sha’uwl’s letter (dated to the late first or early second century), it’s hard to explain the KJV’s and NLT’s considerable variation from it.

One of our questions has already been resolved. While we will diligently research every discernible connotation of "nomos," not just once but multiple times, Sha’uwl has clearly acknowledged what you will come to know. He is using nomou to describe the "Torah," as if nomos and towrah were synonymous. We know this because in the attempt to prove this point he translated the Hebrew word "towrah" into Greek as "nomou." As a result, a Pauline apologist cannot say that Paul was condemning Rabbinic Law instead of the Towrah without contradicting Paul’s own translation. Paul is, therefore, calling the Word of God, Yahowah’s foundational testimony, a curse.

Beyond emphatically demonstrating that Sha’uwl was using variations of nomos to convey "Torah" throughout his letters, by rendering towrah as nomou, to be intellectually honest, the meaning of towrah in Hebrew which is "teaching, instruction, direction, and guidance," must prevail over "law." Therefore, not only is Paul implicating himself by disparaging the Word of God, those who publish Christian bibles are universally guilty of misrepresenting one of the most important words ever written when they render towrah via nomos as "law."

But there is more: Paul misquoted the Towrah. The passage he cited in the context of the discussion in Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 27:26 conveys a message which is diametrically opposed to the point Paul was making. How then can his point be valid if he had to misrepresent God’s position?

The Towrah reads: "Invoking harm upon oneself is whoever relationally and beneficially is not established, restored, and supported by the words of this Towrah, approaching by engaging through them. And then the entire family responded, ‘This is true, acceptable, and reliable.’" (Dabarym 27:26)

But let’s not be superficial. Since it is in your interest to verify every word of both statements for yourself, here again, more fully amplified, is God’s testimony: "Invoking harm upon oneself (‘arar – cursing oneself by making oneself undesirable) is whoever relationally and beneficially (‘asher) is not (lo’) established (quwm – restored, supported, encouraged, lifted up and caused to stand, confirmed, and enabled to endure) by (‘eth – with and through) the words (dabar – message and accounts) of this (ha zo’th) Towrah (towrah – source of guidance, direction, teaching, and instruction), approaching (la) by engaging through them (‘asah ‘eth – by acting upon them and doing productive things according to them, celebrating and profiting with them). And then (wa) the entire (kol) family (‘am – people and nation) responded (‘amar – answered, promised, and declared), ‘This is true, acceptable, and reliable (‘aman – this is affirming, supportive, verifiable, and dependable).’" (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 27:26)

So what now? Assuming that you found a Greek and Hebrew interlinear on your shelf or online, and that you referenced a lexicon or two, looking up each word to verify what you have just read, how are you going to deal with this? The answer to this question may determine the fate of your soul, especially if you have believed Paul up to this point.

While we could, we are not going to stop here. Before we are finished, several hundred more nails will be driven into Paul’s coffin. But if we are seeking to know whether or not Galatians was inspired by God and is trustworthy, we already have our answer. A person who deliberately misquotes God, to promote the inverse of what God is saying, cannot be telling the truth when he claims to be inspired by that same God. It is impossible.

Yahowah just said that we harm ourselves when we are not established and restored by the words which comprise His Towrah, approaching Him by acting upon them. Christianity is torn asunder by this statement, a position which cannot be refuted without calling God, Himself, a liar. The very statement Paul misquoted to establish his religion destroys it.

The Towrah verse Sha’uwl mangled in Galatians undermines the most fundamental aspect of the Christian religion, of faith in its Gospel of Grace, as well as Paulos’s own position, because it obliterates the idea that the Torah is passé. But even if observing the Torah wasn’t presented as the lone means to becoming restored and established, as God has just stated, if the Almighty was actually a capricious prankster, and if His Torah was really a curse as Paul and others have claimed, then citing it as evidence would be irrational, because nothing God said could be trusted.

Christian apologists, steeped as they are in Pauline Doctrine, will say that the Torah isn’t a pick and choose sort of thing, and that to be redeemed and righteous, a person would have to do everything the Torah requires all of the time, or else they would be cursed by it – judged and condemned. But that is not the message conveyed in this Dabarym passage—nor the message conveyed by Yahowsha’. God knows that we are not perfect, which is why He provided the means to perfect us in the heart of His Torah.

And yet, since Paul has attempted to neuter the Torah, and to sever the relationship between God’s testimony and the Ma’aseyah, rejecting the Torah’s Covenant and plan of salvation, most Christians are unaware of the Torah’s redemptive properties.

As a result of Paul’s epistles, Christians don’t realize that when Yahowsha’ said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life," that His "Way" and His definition of the "Truth" were both found in His Torah. And that is why, in the midst of His Instruction on the Mount, He called the Torah "the narrow way to Life." It was by fulfilling Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits, that Yahowsha’ honored the promises Yahowah had made in His Torah to make us immortal on Pesach / Passover and perfect us on Matsah / Un-Yeasted Bread so that He could adopt us into His family the next day during Bikuwrym / FirstFruits But by severing this connection, by disassociating Yahowsha’ from Yahowah’s Word, the Ma’aseyah’s life, His testimony, and His sacrifices become as meaningless as the faith Christians place in them.

Moving on to Sha’uwl’s next thought, as it is found in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear: "But that in law no one is made right along the God clear because the right from trust will live." Amplified, and with the Greek text highlighted for your consideration, we find: "But (de – it follows, moreover, and namely) because (oti) with (en – inside and with regard to) the Torah (nomothe allotment which is parceled out, the inheritance which is given, and the prescription to become an heir) absolutely no one (oudeis – nothing, nobody, and not one; from oude heis – not even one) is vindicated or justified (dikaioo – made or shown to be correct, proper, or right, acquitted or declared righteous) by (para – with and in the opinion of) the God (to ΘΩ) becomes evident (delos – becomes clear and is made plain (scribed in the nominative, where an adjective is presented influencing the subject, God, in this case, renaming Him)) because (oti – namely and for this reason): ‘Those who are correct, righteous, and proper (o dikaios – those who are right, upright, virtuous, and guiltless) out of (ek) faith (pistis – originally meant trust but evolved to faith or belief as a result of Sha’uwl’s usage in these letters) will live (zao – will be alive).’" (Galatians 3:11)

Buffed up a bit in the King James, he sounds a bit more eloquent, albeit no more rational: "But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, ‘The just shall live by faith.’" Updated for modern sensibilities, the New Living Translation passage reads: "So it is clear that no one can be made right with God by trying to keep the law. For the Scriptures say, ‘It is through faith that a righteous person has life.’" (3:11) And yet Paul’s first point was anything but "clear," because he cited a passage which contradicted his premise. But more telling still, the Scriptures don’t actually say anything about "faith," much less that one’s beliefs lead to being "just" or "righteous."

Therefore, both positions are illogical. Even if no one was justified by the Torah that would still not infer that the just or righteous shall live by faith. Rather than cause and consequence, these ideas are unrelated. It is like saying: red wagons don’t work so it is evident we should put our faith in blue tricycles. More to the point, if God’s Torah cannot be relied upon, in whom are we to express our "faith?"

As I previously mentioned, "the Scriptures" do not "say, ‘It is through faith that a righteous person has life.’" The passage Sha’uwl truncated actually reads: "Pay attention, he will be puffed up with false pride. His soul, it is not right nor straightforward in him. So, through trust and reliance, by being firmly established and upheld by that which is dependable and truthful, those who are upright and vindicated live." (Chabaquwq / Habakkuk 2:4)

This is almost breathtaking in its audacity. And this time the biggest issue isn’t just the inaccurate or inappropriate nature of Paul’s citation, where he has once again misrepresented Yahowah’s intent by removing and twisting a snippet of what God said. What’s amazing is that Yahowah is specifically warning us about Sha’uwl in this passage. So by quoting it, Paul is taunting his audience, arrogantly inferring that those foolish enough to fall for rhetoric aren’t sufficiently resourceful or rational to realize that God is telling us to trust Him, not Sha’uwl.

In the third chapter, I’ll amplify the entirety of God’s indictment regarding Sha’uwl, but for now ponder these highlights...

"Upon My requirements and responsibilities, I have decided I will continually stand. I will choose to stand up, providing affirmation and validation for that which protects and fortifies. So I will be on the lookout in order to see what he will say about Me, observing how he will question Me. So then, how can I be expected to change My attitude, My thinking, or My response concerning My disapproving rebuke? (2:1)

Then Yahowah responded to me, and He said, ‘Write this revelation and expound on it using letters upon writing tablets so that by reciting this, he might run away. (2:2)

Still surely, this revelation from God is for the appointed time of the Mow’ed Meetings. It provides a witness and speaks, pouring out evidence in the end. Whatever extended period of time is required for this question to be resolved, this shall not be proven false. Expect him in this regard, because indeed, he will absolutely come, neither being delayed nor lingering. (2:3)

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence does not get any more compelling or relevant than this. Sha’uwl took us directly to a prophecy that God had used to encourage us to "Sha’uwl – Question Him."

Therefore, Yahowah revealed that a man named, "Sha’uwl," coterminous with the time He would fulfill His Mow’ed – Appointed Meetings (during Yahowsha’s participation in Mow’ed Miqra’ey of Pesach, Matsah, Bikuwrym, and Shabuw’ah in 33 CE when Sha’uwl was studying to become a Rabbi in Yaruwshalaim) would inappropriately attempt to convince people from different races that he was authorized to replace God’s existing standard with a new and different set of requirements. Further, as if He was reading Galatians, God told us that Sha’uwl would be arrogant, circuitous, duplicitous, intoxicating, deceptive, treacherous, and presumptuous. We were warned that this pseudo-rabbi’s way would be improper, akin to a plague of death. And yet, according to God, Sha’uwl’s broad, and therefore accommodating, path would become especially popular with Gentiles because too few of them would actually question his allusive sayings, his derisive words, his comparisons and counterfeits, which would all be ripe with taunts and ridicule.

Sha’uwl has hung himself with these words, twisting the knot which would become his noose. His statement is not only the antithesis of God’s instructions, he has exposed us to Yahowah’s ridicule of him. Moreover, and apart from the prophecy, if Paul was right in disavowing Yahowah’s standard, it would be equivalent of God saying: "I will save those who contradict Me and justify those who negate and belittle the plan I have established." And yet, Yahowah introduced His Habakkuk prophecy, affirming that He was not about to change.

Continuing to mislead by way of senseless and duplicitous prose, the KJV renders Paul’s next statement: "And the law is not of faith: but, the man that doeth them shall live in them." Deploying a different tactic, the NLT authored something which could only be considered appropriate in the context of religion. "This way of faith is very different from the way of law, which says, ‘It is through obeying the law that a person has life.’" (3:12)

Should the translation team deployed by Tyndale House Publishers, Incorporated have meant that "the way of the Christian faith is very different than the way of the Torah," then they would be right. But "can that ‘way of faith’ be right" is the multi-billion soul question. Can Paul’s thesis, his faith, his religion, be "very different from the way" delineated by God in the Torah and still reconcile fallen man into a relationship with that same God? Has God endorsed a revised plan which is counter to the one He originally authored? And if He did such a thing, wouldn’t it make Him untrustworthy and unreliable?

Irrespective of the fact that Yahowah has provided the answer, at least the battle lines have been drawn. According to the most popular modern translation, it is now the Torah vs. Christianity. So let the Great Galatians Debate begin: are we to trust Yahowah’s Torah or put our faith in Sha’uwl / Paulos / Paul?

Amplified, and with the words Sha’uwl selected on display, the man God just told us to question, wrote: "But (de) the Towrah (nomou – the allotment which is parceled out, the inheritance which is given, the nourishment which is bestowed to be used to grow, the precepts which are apportioned, established, and received as a means to be proper and approved, and the prescription to become an heir) exists (eimi – is) not (ouk) out of (ek) faith or belief (pistis), but to the contrary (alla – making an emphatic contrast with an adversarial implication), ‘The one having done (o poieomai – the one having made and performed as such becoming) them (autos) will live (zao) with (en – in and by) them (autos).’" (Galatians 3:12)

Recognizing that Paul didn’t express this thought very well, principally because the Towrah passage he cited didn’t fit his conclusion, in context we are led to believe that Sha’uwl was suggesting that if an individual was to choose the Towrah over faith, that they would have to live with the consequence. He is inferring that the only way to live with the Towrah would be to do everything it requires. So since he tried to usurp God’s credibility to prove his point, we must turn to the passage he referenced to ascertain whether or not Yahowah’s Towrah actually said what Sha’uwl was asserting.

Opening Yahowah’s Torah to Qara’ / Called Out / Leviticus, we find God imparting guidance, whereby we are advised to avoid the kinds of religious myths and practices which comprise Christianity:

"Speak (dabar – communicate using words) to (‘el) the Children of Yisra’el (beny Yisra’el – children who engage and endure with God), and (wa) say (‘amar – affirm) to them (‘el), ‘I am (‘anky) Yahowah (efei), your God (‘elohym). (18:1-2)

With regard to things which could be considered similar to (ka – as with and like) the practices (ma’aseh – the pattern of behavior, the work, the things done, undertakings, and pursuits) of the realm (‘erets – land) of the Crucible of Egypt (Mitsraym – crucibles of religious, political, military, and economic oppression) where (‘asher) you dwelt (yashab), you should not engage in or act upon (lo’ ‘asah – you should not celebrate or profit from) similar (ka) pursuits (ma’aseh – patterns of behavior, things done, undertakings, and practices) in the land (ba ‘erets) of Kana’any (Kana’any – Zealousness which subdues, bringing people into subjection; commonly transliterated Canaan) which beneficially as a result of the relationship (‘asher), I am (‘anky) bringing you (bow’ ‘esh). There (sham), you should not act upon or engage in (lo’ ‘asah) their decrees or customs (chuqah – their prescriptions for living and their traditions and statutes), never walking in or following them (lo’ halak – never patterning your life after them). (18:3)

With (‘eth) My means to exercise good judgment regarding the resolution of disputes (mishpat – My means to decide regarding justice and judgment), you should continually engage and genuinely act (‘asah). With (‘eth) My prescriptions for living (chuqah – My inscribed recommendations which cut you into the relationship), you should consistently examine and carefully consider (shamar – you should make a habit of consistently and actually observing) for the purpose of approaching by (la) walking in them (halak ba). I am (‘anky) Yahowah, your God (‘elohym)." (Qara’ / Called Out / Leviticus 18:4)

This admonition against religion, politics, and societal customs, was followed by the statement Paul sought to usurp to prove his point. It reads:

"And so (wa) you should choose of your own volition to actually and completely observe (shamar – under the auspices of freewill, you should consider choosing to carefully and completely examine (qal perfect consecutive)) accordingly (‘eth) My prescriptions for living (chuqah – My inscribed (and thus written) instructions which cut you into a relationship (and thus into the Covenant) with Me) and also (wa) My means to resolve disputes (mishpat – My means to exercise good judgment regarding redemption (thereby directing our attention to His seven Invitations to Meet).

Whoever (‘asher – relationally and beneficially) over time and as an ongoing process acts upon and engages (‘asah – consistently endeavors to genuinely celebrate and continually benefit (qal imperfect)) with them (‘eth), that man (ha ‘adam – that individual and person) indeed (wa – emphasizing this) is actually and completely restored to life as a result of this desire and his decision, living forever (wa chayah – he is literally revived, perfectly renewed, actually nurtured, completely spared, and kept alive into perpetuity through this exercise of freewill, raised, preserved, and allowed to flourish (qal perfect consecutive)) through them (ba – with and by them). I am (‘any) Yahowah (efei)." (Qara’ / Called Out / Leviticus 18:5)

Yahowah is telling all who would listen that if a person wants to live, they should pay attention to what He has to say and then act upon His offer. And let us not forget, everything He had to say, everything He had to offer, was contained in its entirety in the very book He was reciting: His Towrah!

Therefore, Paul has once again deliberately abbreviated and misappropriated a passage which is inconsistent with his own message, perhaps hoping that the use of some common words would be sufficient to convince his audience that God supports his position.

But in the quoted verse, God absolutely and unequivocally did not say that the "law is very different than faith," that "through faith a person has life," or even "through obeying the law a person has life," or anything remotely similar to these propositions. There isn’t even a Hebrew word for "obey." To "shamar – observe" is to "examine and consider," not "keep." And to "‘asah – to act and engage" is to respond to what we have learned – a concept light-years removed from "obey." Moreover, neither "chuqah – prescriptions for living" or "mishpat – means offered to resolve disputes" are "laws." These things represent the Way Yahowah’s Towrah "chayah – restores and renews our lives," at least for those who consider them and act upon them.

Yahowah, speaking in first person, said that a close examination and careful consideration of His prescriptions for living and His means to exercise good judgment regarding His means to resolve disputes enable those to live who respond to what He is offering. This is, of course, the antithesis of the Christian position.

While we are making such distinctions, it is important to realize that it is grotesquely inappropriate to refer to Yahowah’s Torah as "law," as Paul does throughout his letters. The Hebrew word towrah means "source from which teaching, instruction, direction, and guidance flow." His presentation is educational. His witness is enlightening. He is offering guidance which we are free to embrace or reject, so He is not controlling. Moreover, His way is not restrictive but instead liberating.

Rabbis, like Paul (who was trained to be a Pharisee), deliberately perverted Yah’s testimony to validate their own set of laws – a set of religious arguments recorded principally in the Talmud. So by referring to the Towrah as nomos, should he have intended for it to infer "law," Paul, who was educated in Hebrew, demonstrated that he should not be trusted.

Those who would argue that Yahowsha’ refers to the Towrah as "nomos" in His Teaching on the Mount would be inaccurate. Yahowsha’ spoke Hebrew and Aramaic, never Greek. And the Disciple Mattanyah, who was an eyewitness to Yahowsha’s initial and longest public declaration, wrote his biographical account in Hebrew. Someone, perhaps a century later, translated the Mattanyah’s declaration into Greek. Moreover, as we shall soon discover, the etymological history of nomos is actually harmonious with the Towrah’s purpose, which is "to parcel out an allotment and to bestow an inheritance, providing prescriptions regarding how to become an heir."

Paul, however, cannot be afforded any excuse. And that is because all of Paul’s letters, including Galatians, were originally written in Greek, and there is no mistaking the fact that he was mischaracterizing the Towrah, presenting it as a punitive set of "laws." Further, he did so in full accord with rabbinical Judaism – a religious proposition Yahowsha’ thoroughly rebuked.

These things known, there is much more to nomos than meets the eye of the casual observer. The word is based upon "nemo – to provide, assign, and distribute an inheritance and to nourish heirs." It is "an allotment which is bestowed and parceled out for the purpose of feeding hungry sheep." Metaphorically then, a nomos is "a prescription for living which is given to us by God so that we might live with Him as His children, be fed and grow, inheriting all that is His to give." So in this regard, properly defined, nomos actually provides a fitting depiction of Yahowah’s "Towrah – teaching, guidance, direction, and instruction" on how to participate in His Covenant Family.

Moving on to the next statement as it is presented in the Nestle-Aland, King James Version, and New Living Translation, we find: NA: "Christ us brought out from the curse of the law having become on behalf of us a curse because it has been written, ‘curse on all the one having hung on wood.’" KJV: "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:" (3:13)

If either the Nestle-Aland Interlinear or the King James Version has accurately reflected Paul’s thought then, according to Sha’uwl, the Torah is a curse. For this interpretation of Paul’s statement to be correct, rather than fulfilling the Torah, Yahowsha’ liberated us from its clutches. It also means that Yahowsha’, rather than being the perfect Lamb of God as a result of always observing the Towrah, embodied all of the Torah’s negativity.

Absolving Paul of the untenable position he has been placed in by his own testimony, as reflected in the Nestle-Aland Interlinear and the King James Version, the New Living Translation twists the text to convey a different perspective: "But Christ has rescued us from the curse pronounced by the law. When he was hung on the cross, he took upon himself the curse for our wrongdoing. For it is written in the Scriptures, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.’" (3:13)

To the New Living Translation’s shame, there is no reference to a "cross" anywhere in the Greek texts, much less in this passage. To Sha’uwl’s shame, the Torah’s position should not have been abridged, misappropriated, nor misquoted. While the Torah’s prediction is profoundly accurate, and stunningly prophetic, its merit was mitigated by the way Paul truncated it.

But first things first: here is how the Greek text of Sha’uwl’s letter reads: "Christos (ΧΡΣ – placeholder for Ma’aseyah [but it is unlikely in this context and with this audience that Sha’uwl would have associated the Ma’aseyah with Yahowah]) us (ego) bought back (exagorazomai – worked to atone and purchase; from ek, out of, and agarazo, doing business in the marketplace where (agora) people assemble for a public debate, to buy, sell, and vote) from (ek) the curse (katara – from the evil, hateful, abhorrent, loathsome, maligning, and malicious influence) of the (tov) Towrah (nomou – the means to being nourished by that which is bestowed to become heirs, precepts which were apportioned, established, and received as a means to proper and be approved, and prescriptions for an inheritance; from nemo – that which is provided, assigned, and distributed to heirs to nourish them (singular genitive, and thus a specific characterization)), having become (ginomai – having existed as) for our sake (hyper ego) a curse (katara – a repugnant prayer, invoking the power to harm others by wishing evil upon them, maligning and malicious), because (hoti) it has been written (grapho – inscribed): ‘A curse on (epikataratos – being exposed to divine slander and vengeance) all (pas) the one (o) having hung (kremamai – suspended) on (epi) wood (xylon).’" (Galatians 3:13)