Questioning Paul
Chapter 1
Part 5
Further implicating Paulos, while he got his lone prediction wrong when he misrepresented the Taruw’ah Harvest and claimed in his first letter to the Thessalonians that the "harpazo – snatching away, or rapture" would occur during his lifetime (1 Thessalonians 4:17), thereby making him a false prophet by any standard, pseudoprophetes is less about errantly predicting the future than it is indicative of "someone who deliberately deceives by falsely claiming to have been inspired by God." Therefore, because Sha’uwl’s message is consistently deceitful, it is overwhelmingly obvious that he lied about his inspiration.
Also, this admonition was recorded in the present tense, which is to say that the pseudoprophetes was present, currently lurking in their midst. That is relevant because according to Sha’uwl, he was in this very place at this very time, learning to be religious at a school for rabbis. And since the only false prophet of any significance during this time and in this place is also the most significant false prophet of all time, there is no mistaking Sha’uwl as the wolf in sheep’s clothing.
That is not to say that there weren’t other Jews who led people astray in the name of religion. Rabbi Akiba shaped Judaism into the religion which is practiced today, but he never claimed to be a prophet and he lived a full century later. Maimonides, the man who codified Judaism’s thirteen pillars, wasn’t a prophet either, and he wrote over one millennia later in Islamic Egypt, not Yisra’el. Constantine, the warring founder of Roman Catholicism in the early fourth century, could never be mistaken for a lamb. He wasn’t a prophet, and he was neither a Christian nor a Jew, so he too would be disqualified for many reasons. Therefore, who else other than Paulos and his associates meet this criterion?
But there is more. By Yahowah’s definition, Sha’uwl, as a Benjamite, qualified as a wolf. Paulos claimed to be from the tribe of Benjamin in Romans 11:1: For indeed, I am an Israelite, from the seed of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin (Beniamin – a transliteration of the Hebrew Benyamyn)."
And then this heads up from God: "Benjamin is a wolf viciously tearing apart, continually mangling and actually killing, plucking the life out of his victims, in the early part of the day, consistently devouring his prey, and during the dark of night at the end of the day, he divides and destroys, apportioning and distributing that which has been spoiled." (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 49:27)
While there were many Benjamites, there is only one man known to have publicly proclaimed to have been from the tribe of Benjamin who was present in Yaruwshalaim during the time Yahowsha’ delivered His Instruction on the Mount. Beyond this, Sha’uwl, who was learning to be a rabbi at the time, also admitted to faking his true identity, which is the very essence of a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Proof of Paul’s willingness to change his outward appearance to take advantage of an unsuspecting audience is found in this confession...
"And (kai) I became (ginomai) to the (tois) Jews (Ioudaios – a crude transliteration of Yahuwdym, meaning Related to Yahowah) like (hos) Jews (Ioudaios) in order that (hina) I might make a profit by procuring an advantage over (kerdaino) Jews (Ioudaios).
To those (tois) under (hypo) Towrah (nomon), in such a way to show a weak relationship (hos) under (hypo) Towrah (nomon), not being himself (me on autos) under (hypo) Towrah (nomon), for the purpose that (hina) those under (tous hypo) Towrah (nomon) I might make a profit by procuring an advantage over (kerdaino). (1C9:20)
To those (tois) Towrahless and thus without the Towrah (anomois), in such a way to show a weak relationship with (hos) Towrahless (anomois), not being (me on) Towrahless (anomois) of God (theou), to the contrary and making a contrast (alla), in the Torah (ennomos) of Christou (Christou – foolishly transliterated from the Greek as "Christ" and errantly used as if a name; from chrio – which speaks of the application of drugs and medicinal ointments) in order that (hina) I might make a profit by procuring an advantage and winning over (kerdaino) those without the Towrah (tous anomois). (1C9:21)
I came to exist (ginomai) to the (tois) unable and morally weak (asthenes), incapacitated and inadequate (asthenes), in order that (hina) those (tous) impotent and sick (asthenes) I might make a profit by procuring an advantage over (kerdaino).
To everyone (tois pasin) I have become (ginomai) every kind of thing (panta) in order that (hina) surely by all means (pantos) some (tinas) I might save (sozo)." (1 Corinthians 9:20-22)
Even Machiavelli, the man who postured the immoral notion that the end justifies the means, wasn’t this belligerent. And you’ll notice, Paulos is asserting that he is the savior, able to save anyone and everyone. This, of course, would be in direct conflict with God, in tactics, capability, and numbers.
While the combination of God’s warnings and Paul’s admissions are devastating, leaving Sha’uwl and his associates as the only viable and known potential culprits, there was a subtlety in Yahowsha’s depiction of the wolf. He described the predator using a derivative of the same term Paulos selected to present his "harpazo – rapture." It was such an odd choice for Paul, especially considering its negative connotations that by being translated using it in His public declaration, God gave us yet another clue regarding the identity of this wolf in sheep’s clothing.
I don’t suppose that Yahowsha’ could have made His message any clearer for us. He told us we could rely upon the Towrah and then He told us whom we should not trust, revealing that a self-serving insider would feign an alliance with Him so that he could more easily snatch souls away from God. He, of course, was speaking about Paul—and those who have allied themselves with him.
This is especially poignant, because on another occasion Yahowsha’ spoke of the comparative influence He would have versus Paulos. God’s statement is one of the reasons that I consider Paul to be the most influential (albeit not in a positive way) man who ever lived. Yahowsha’ revealed: "I (ego), Myself, have come (erchomai – I have shown Myself, appearing and becoming manifest) in the name (en to onoma – with the one and only name belonging to the person and reputation (dative singular)) of the Father (tou pater – the masculine archetype parent of the family) of Mine (mou), and yet (kai) you do not receive Me (ou lambano me – you do not actually accept Me nor grasp hold of Me, you do not choose or prefer Me, and thus you do not take hold of My hand nor take advantage of and experience Me). But when (ean – on the condition whenever) another (allos – completely different individual and entity) comes (erchomai – might appear, showing himself, and coming forth, presenting himself) in his own name (en to onoma to idio – with his own individual, unique, and distinctive, private, and personal name), that individual (ekeinos – that lone and specific man, him, then and there (the demonstrative singles out the individual, the accusative associates this man and name, while the singular masculine limits this to a single male individual)) you all will actually receive (lambano – you will all accept, choose, and prefer)." (Yahowchanan / Yah is Merciful / John 5:43)
Considering how often the founder of the Christian religion wrote: "but I Paulos say...", it’s a wonder more people don’t recognize him as the one who not only came in his own name, one that he actually chose for himself, but also as the one so many would receive. Paulos even said "imitate me." He wrote: "if someone teaches in opposition to what I say let him be accursed." He was not only fixated on himself, he claimed the entire world for himself. And today, the vast preponderance of Christian bible studies, sermons, and quotations are based upon Paul’s letters rather than Yahowsha’s pronouncements – and almost never upon His Sermon on the Mount.
But for those looking for it, second only to Yahowah’s Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, Yahowsha’s testimony is true. He went on to say...
"From (apo) their (autos) fruit (karpos – that which they produce), by conducting a careful, thorough, and competent inquiry in the future, you all will be able to use evidence and reason to genuinely comprehend (epiginosko – by closely examining and carefully considering, and by processing and evaluating everything logically, every one of you will be able to actually learn, completely understand, and without reservation recognize and acknowledge; epiginosko is to know for certain and to understand to the point of being completely convince as a result of diligent observation and thoughtful comprehension (translated in the future tense revealing that while the wolf was currently among them, he had not yet revealed his fruit, which is to say some time would pass before Sha’uwl became Paulos and he and his followers wrote their letters, then in the middle voice we learn that those who are observant and circumspect will benefit from what they discover regarding these evil men, and finally in the indicative mood, Yahowsha’ is telling us that while the example is metaphorical, such deceivers are very real)) them (autos).
Is it even rationally possible (meti – introducing a rhetorical question where the answer is always no) to collect (syllego – to pick) a bunch of grapes (staphyle) from (apo) a thorn (akantha – something sharp an pointed often found on a thorny bramble or brier), or from (e apo) a thistle (tribolos – a three-pronged thorny and prickly invasive wild plant that is injurious to other plants), figs (suka)?" (Mattanyah / Yah’s Gift / Matthew 7:16)
Just as we can delight in the subtlety of Yahowsha’s use of a "harpazo – rapture" derivative to direct our attention to Paul’s false prophecy, akantha, translated "thorn" in verse 16, is from akmen, which means "point." God is thereby directing our attention to the most incriminating statements. Remember: "And of the superiority of the exaggerated, magnificent, and awe-inspiring aspects of the overstated revelations, therefore, it should be self-evident, in order to not become overly proud, exalting myself beyond what would be justified, there was given to me a sharp goad (skolops – a troubling thorn at the end of a pointed stick used to control dumb animals) in the body, a messenger of Satan, in order to strike and restrain me." (2 Corinthians 12:7)
And then..."I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Sha’uwl, Sha’uwl, Why are you actually pursuing me, following me, and really striving with such intense effort to reach me? It’s hard, demanding, difficult, and intolerable for you to resist against the goad (kentron – a pointed sharp stick used to prick and prod and thus control animals, making resistance vain or perilous)." (Acts 26:14) Having come to know Yahowah, and thus Yahowsha’, I have come to recognize that while religious deception is something God abhors, He has a sense of humor.
The tribolos suka comparison is also delightful. Tribolos is from treis, meaning "three" and belos, which speaks of "darts being thrown." Interestingly, belos is derived from ballo, "to thrust aside and toss away, to scatter, giving over to the care of another with an uncertain result."
That got me to thinking. What are Paul’s most lethal three prongs? And I thought, perhaps: 1) His claim that he was an apostle speaking for God beguiling people into believing that his letters should be considered the Word of God. 2) His claim that the Towrah was an incompetent curse and that it had been annulled in favor of salvation through faith in the gospel of grace. And 3) His claim that his new covenant replaced the enslaving old covenant, when there is only one Covenant and it represents the lone means to engage in a relationship with God. And then, of course, there is the even more infamous trio, the Christian Trinity, the Babylonian myth which was incorporated into Christianity as a result of Paul’s moronic "the fullness of the godhead resided upon him bodily."
But there is more. You see, a tribolos, as a thorny and prickly wild plant, is injurious to other plants. And in this example, the plant the thorny, prickly, invasive, and insidious Sha’uwl would injure was the fig tree, which like the grape vine, is Yahowah’s symbol for Yisra’el. Largely as a result of Paulos’s rampant anti-Semitism first expressed in Galatians, and then elevated to a reprehensible rant in Thessalonians, Jews would become the enemies of Christians, who would ultimately claim what they renamed "Palestine" and the "Holy Land" as their own. So for God’s Chosen People, it would be 1900 years from exile to return, a prophecy Yahowsha’ pronounced by referencing the fig tree. It was a parable designed to reveal that Yisra’el would blossom again, with Yahuwdym causing the Land to grow again after centuries of neglect. And their return would occur less than a generation prior to His return. "So then from the fig tree (suke) be instructed and learn from this symbolic illustration. No matter how long it takes, when a young and tender shoot is ready to sprout and its leaves grow, producing foliage, you know that summer is near. And in this way, whenever you may see all of this, you should understand that it is near, at the door. Truly I say to you that there is no chance whatsoever that this generation will perish before all of these things come to exist." (Mattanyah / Yahowah’s Gift / Matthew 24:30-34) The pervasive influence of Paul’s letters continue to be a thorn in Yisra’el’s side.
Also interesting, in the accusative plural neuter, "sukon – fig" is pronounced suka, which is a transliteration of Sukah, the seventh and final Invitation to be Called Out and Meet with God. So while this statement was not delivered in Greek, the transliteration of the Hebrew term may be relevant because it is symbolic of camping out with God in the Promised Land – a place and time devoid of thistles.
If Yahowsha’s next statement is true, a comprehensive examination of Paul’s words should be sufficient to determine whether his message is "kalos – genuine, approved, and commendable" or "sapros – corrupt, rotten and harmful," even "poneros – seriously flawed, annoying, and worthless."
"In this way (houto – thusly, it follows, in like manner), every (pas) good and useful (agathos – valuable, beneficial, and generous, appropriate, and pleasant) fruit tree (dendron) produces (poieomai – creates, makes, and furnishes) exceptionally suitable and commendable (kalos – genuine, approved, magnificent, admirable, advantageous, superior, attractive, fitting, valuable, highly beneficial, and proper) fruit (karpos – production and results).
But (de) a tree (dendron) which is corrupt, rotten, and harmful (sapros – bad, decayed, putrefied, unfit, unprofitable, unsuitable, unusable, and destructive) bears (poieomai – produces, creates, makes and provides) diseased and worthless (poneros – seriously flawed and faulty, annoying and perilous, malicious, troubling, and painful) fruit (karpos – production and results)." (Mattanyah / Yah’s Gift / Matthew 7:17)
With the test so simple, with the evidence so plentiful, with the stakes so high, why do you suppose so few people have deployed this criterion to evaluate the fruit of Paul’s pen? Equally troubling, with God being so definitive, expressly saying that cherry picking snippets from a rotten source isn’t acceptable, why are so many Christians willing to exonerate Paul because they rather like some of what he has to say?
"It is not possible (ou dynamai – it is never within its capability nor capacity) for a good and useful (agathos – for a valuable, beneficial, and appropriate) fruit tree (dendron) to produce (poieomai – to create, make, provide, or furnish) seriously flawed or disadvantageous (poneros – diseased, faulty, annoying perilous, troubling, counterproductive, or evil) fruit (karpos – production and results), nor (oude) a tree (dendron) which is corrupt, rotten, and harmful (sapros – bad, decayed, putrefied, unfit, unprofitable, unsuitable, unusable, and destructive) to make (poieomai – to create, produce, or provide) suitable or commendable (kalos – genuine, approved, admirable, advantageous, fitting, valuable, beneficial, or proper) fruit (karpos – production and results)." (Mattanyah / Yah’s Gift / Matthew 7:18)
God is not talking about fruit trees. He is not trying to get you to show a preference for apricots over apples or pears over plums. A bad tree can on occasion produce something edible. But such is not the case with a rotten prophet. So the moral of the story is that if a person is speaking for Yahowah, everything they write and say is beneficial and reliable. With His prophets, because He is directing them, there are no mistakes and no misleading statements. But if there is a single error, one putrid statement, the smallest corruption, in someone’s testimony who claims his words have been nurtured by God, we must reject that source entirely. Therefore, any one of the statements we have considered thus far from Paul individually are sufficient in themselves to reject the entire callosum of his letters – rejecting them as harmful. And that is because, according to God, good never produces something which is inappropriate and the product of evil is always poisonous. So even that which may appear appropriate in an inappropriate source must be rejected, because that appearance only serves to make the venom more enticing to ingest. It is all or nothing.
When it comes to providing the proper perspective, there are few insights more important than recognizing that Satan and his messengers make their nauseating fruit appear delectable by coloring it with strokes from God’s brush. These resulting counterfeits fool the unsuspecting, the unobservant, and the indiscriminate into believing that a message crafted by the Adversary will lead them to paradise. But just as a counterfeit bill is completely worthless even when ninety-nine percent of its strokes are genuine, the more a false prophet says which is true, the more deadly he becomes. And that is because by making his words appear godly, they become more seductive and beguiling. Credibility is Yahowah’s strong suit, which is why deceivers like Paul misappropriate it to make their lies appear credible. Paul has fooled five billion souls deploying this strategy. And Satan, with the assistance of Paul, Akiba, Muhammad, and Wieshaupt, has deceived ten billion souls, beginning long ago with Adam and Chawah.
"Any and every (pas) tree (dendron) not (me) producing (poieomai – creating or providing) suitable, fitting, genuine, approved, commendable, and advantageous (kalos – valuable, beneficial, and proper) fruit (karpos – production and results) shall actually be cut off and done away with (ekkopto – shall find themselves reliably cut down, removed, and eliminated (present passive indicative)) and toward (kai eis) the fire (pyr – a metaphor for judgment), it is thrown (ballo – he shall find himself moved, propelled, and cast, being nudged he will fall (present passive indicative))." (Mattanyah / Yah’s Gift / Matthew 7:19)
Fire is symbolic of divine judgment, where Yah’s light and energy are used to refine and separate good while devouring that which is bad. Fire is not, however, found in She’owl, because the Judge is never present in the place of separation. Moreover, without Yahowah, She’owl is a dark and lightless place, precluding the existence of fire.
It is therefore instructive to know that sources which are not consistently and entirely "kalos – valuable, beneficial, and proper, suitable, fitting, and genuine, approved, commendable, and advantageous," are "ekkopto – cut off," which means "removed" from Yahowah. Moreover, they are "ekkopto – done away with and tossed aside" following judgment.
Also, please note that judgment is something rotten sources of information regarding God endure. Yah’s Covenant children will witness trials for clerics and kings in addition to spectacular trials for the likes of Paul, Akiba, Constantine, Muhammad, Maimonides, and Wieshaupt. God’s children, however, as a result of the Towrah’s provisions, will not be judged. Therefore, the sole purpose of judgment is to determine which souls will spend eternity separated from God, as opposed to those souls which will simply cease to exist. The former is a penalty, justly earned for leading others away from God. The latter is a consequence of being misled.
"So then indeed (ara ge – as a result and in reality), by (apo) their (autos) fruit (karpos – production), you will be able through careful observation and studious contemplation to actually know and understand them (epiginosko autos – by conducting a careful, thorough, and competent inquiry in the future you all will be able to use evidence and reason to genuinely comprehend them, by closely examining and carefully considering, and by processing and evaluating everything logically, every one of you will be able to actually learn, completely understand, and without reservation recognize and acknowledge them; (translated in the future tense revealing that since the rotten fruit had not yet been produced, diagnosing the disease would have to wait, and in the middle voice we learn that those who are observant and circumspect will benefit from what they discover regarding the illegitimate tree and its deadly fruit, and finally in the indicative mood, Yahowsha’ is telling us that while trees and fruit serve as metaphors, deceivers actually exist and the consequence is real))." (Mattanyah / Yah’s Gift / Matthew 7:20)
Since epiginosko speaks of that which can be known for certain based upon a close examination and careful evaluation of the available evidence, this concept is being presented as the antithesis of, and thus as the alternative to, faith. Therefore, to the degree that Yahowsha’s statement was accurately translated, this is especially relevant. And that is because faith is Paul’s lone alternative to observing the Towrah.
It is surprising, but nonetheless true, that God and man differ dramatically on the concept which has become synonymous with religion. God, rather than asking us to blindly believe Him, wants us to read His testimony so that we come to know Him. That is why the Towrah and Prophets were written and given to us. And this voyage of discovery which leads to knowing Yahowah is vastly superior to believing that He exists. Similarly, actually engaging in His Covenant is better than believing that you have a relationship with God.
The reason this particular instruction from God is being shared in the opening chapter of this book, one devoted to examining and evaluating the merits of Paul’s letters, is because we are doing exactly what Yahowsha’ asked of us. So if you are a Christian, you now have a trio of choices. You can continue reading Questioning Paul, you can dedicate the time to do a similar study on your own, or you can continue to live a lie, pretending to follow someone whose words you are prone to ignore.
And speaking of ignoring, if you are an agnostic, you’d be better served to set this book aside temporarily and read An Introduction to God or Yada Yah. And that is because you are fortunate. Unlike those whose religious beliefs are crafted to repel everything that is adverse to their faith, and especially God’s own testimony, being an agnostic your mind isn’t a house of cards which must be brought down before something sensible can be established in its place. For you, there is no clutter to clear away, no religious mythology which has to be rejected or defended. Nothing has to be exorcised prior to considering Yahowah’s testimony.
As an agnostic, your mind is already open. You are keenly aware of the merits of evidence and reason. So you are prepared to consider God’s testimony on its own merits. For you, it is just a matter of wielding evidence and applying reason in a different venue, and perhaps for the first time observing the Creator rather than His creation. But then once you have come to know Yahowah as He revealed Himself, once you understand what He is offering, once you respond to Him rationally and engage in His Covenant, you will want to return to this book. And that is because once you have come to know Yah, you will want to share what you have learned, especially with those who have been misled, especially with Christians.
That is not to say, however, that this book won’t appeal to agnostics. By reading Questioning Paul, you will find comfort in the wisdom of rejecting the Christian religion. By coming to understand where and how Christians were misled, you will discover that your aversion to religion is something God shares.
This would also hold true for the many agnostic Yahuwdym. Three of the earliest beneficiaries of the initial edition of Questioning Paul were Jews, a computer engineer, a pulmonary surgeon, and a leader in the Messianic movement. By seeing Yahowsha’ stripped of his Hellenistic and Pauline, thus Christian, garb, and with the foolishness of religion no longer associated with Him, the diminished corporeal manifestation of Yahowah suddenly became credible.
Now returning to His Instruction on the Mount, from the beginning Yahowsha’ has been resolute and precise. There has been no equivocation whatsoever. For example, we were told that not so much as a single one of the smallest of strokes of the individual letters comprising any of the words of the Towrah would be negated or annulled. Equally uncompromising, He has said that a rotten tree never produces good fruit and similarly that a sound tree is always beneficial. So with this in mind, as we approach His next statement, to be consistent, the negation provided by ou when applied to pas must be rendered "not any" rather than "not all." The former is absolute and the latter is equivocal. Beyond this, with pas scribed in the singular rather than plural, "any," is a far better fit than "all." Also, in the nominative form and negated, "not any" serves as the subject of the verb, "saying," written legon, the present, active, and singular form of lego.
The reason this is important is because a criterion is being established which is excluding either some or all who refer to God as "Lord" from heaven. Seeking some wiggle room, bibles published by Christian organizations prefer "not all," but there is no reason to suspect that God is changing course and is being the least bit uncertain here, making "not any" a far better fit in this presentation.
Since context is the life’s blood of understanding, and consistency is God’s hallmark, one cannot responsibly translate God’s testimony by taking Him out of character or context. Therefore, recognizing Yahowah’s overt animosity toward being called "Lord," since it is the derogatory title He uses to describe Satan, and since as our "Heavenly Father" He cannot be our Lord, and since knowing His name is essential to our salvation, we have to either translate the singular pas as "any or anyone" or change God’s nature, plan, and testimony.
In this light, you should know that Yahowsha’ delivered His Instruction on the Mount in either Hebrew or in Aramaic, but not in Greek. There is no evidence that He ever spoke Greek. Moreover, every report we have from this time regarding Mattanyah affirms that the Disciple initially presented his eyewitness testimony in Hebrew. So at the very least, the text we are evaluating was translated out of Hebrew and into Greek one hundred years removed and one thousand miles away from where this was spoken. Then adding yet another layer of concern, not only were the scribes who copied these manuscripts in Egypt less than meticulous, they were actually encouraged to harmonize texts so that the result would better mesh with the proclivities of those paying the bills – all too typically a religious institution. This free hand explains why there are over three-hundred thousand known discrepancies between ancient and modern manuscripts. Therefore, when conveying the proper meaning of any word God, Himself, has spoken or is translated as having conveyed, the best rendering is one which is consistent with the word’s meaning, with the grammar of the sentence, with the context of the discussion, and which does not require us to alter God’s nature or message.
That is what I’ve done here, but since pas is more often rendered "all" than it is "any" or "anyone," the selection of other than a primary definition isn’t one I am comfortable making without full disclosure – without you knowing why – especially since our salvation is riding upon presenting God’s words correctly.
"Not (ou – absolutely never under any circumstances shall) any (pas – anyone (scribed as an adjective in the nominative case in the singular masculine)) one saying (legon – one speaking, calling, or implying (scribed in the present tense active voice participle form in the singular nominative masculine)) to Me (moi), ‘Lord (kyrie – master, owner, one who rules over, controls, or enslaves) Lord (kyrie – master, owner, one who rules over, controls, or enslaves),’ will actually as a result enter into (eiserchomai eis – will in the future, and based upon how this influences the speaker, move inside or genuinely experience (scribed in the future tense, middle voice which signifies that those calling Yahowsha’ "Lord" are affected by this decision, and in the indicative mood which means that this statement is describing reality, and in the third person singular)) the kingdom of the heavens (ten basileian ton ouranon – the spiritual realm and abode of God), but by contrast (alla – rather certainly and emphatically) the one presently acting upon (o poieomai – the one currently and actively engaging in (scribed in the present active participle singular nominative masculine)) the purpose and desire (thelema – the will and mindset, the design and determination, the resolve and intent) of (tou) My (mou) Father (patros), the One (tou) in the heavens (en tois ouranois – in the spiritual realm)." (Mattanyah / Yah’s Gift / Matthew 7:21)
If you do not know Yahowsha’s name, you do not know Him – nor do you know the Father who sent Him. His name defines who He is, from whom and why He came. When it is changed, the result is no longer God. And when the object of one’s belief ceases to be credible, their faith is in vain.
Similarly, if you do not know Yahowah’s name, you do not know God. If you do not know God, He does not know you. If He does not know you, you can neither be in a relationship with Him nor be saved by Him. This is why those who call Yahowah and Yahowsha’ "Lord" are excluded from heaven.
If you are still among those referring to God by Satan’s title, then you are unaware of Yahowah’s will – which is to serve His Covenant children as their Father. Lord and father are mutually exclusive concepts. God cannot be your Father if he is your Lord.
Since all God wants, the only reason He created the universe, conceived life, engaged in our lives, and provided His guidance was so that we would be able to choose to engage in His family-oriented Covenant relationship, by mischaracterizing God’s nature and purpose in this way, those who refer to God as "the Lord" are negating our Heavenly Father’s terms and provisions. This then bars entry into heaven. And that is because salvation is a byproduct or benefit of the Covenant. It is yet another thing Christians have reversed. And few things are as revealing in this regard as the misrepresentation of Yahowah’s nature from Father to Lord. It is why referring to God as "Lord" was used as a litmus test to identify those who would be excluded from heaven. And it is why Yahowsha’ spoke of the purpose and desire of "My Father" in heaven. The contrast is between man’s view where their god is a "Lord," and God’s view where He is our "Father." This is the very essence of the Covenant and thus of the Towrah. It is why Yahowah chose to rename the first child of the Covenant "Abraham – Merciful and Enriching Father."
And should you be clinging to the myth that God is referred to as "the Lord" throughout Scripture, the truth is just the opposite. God spoke or wrote His name, Yahowah, exactly 7000 times in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. Religious rabbis and Christians then copyedited God, substituting "Lord" for His name.
Equally instructive, if one must act upon the purpose and desire of our Heavenly Father to enter heaven, then salvation does not come by way of faith as Paul asserts. To respond to God’s will, His intent, we must first come to know what He is offering and what He wants. And that brings us right back to the Towrah, to the one place Yahowah introduces His purpose and plan.
Since this comes as a shock to those lost in religion, as believers almost universally refer to their god as "Lord," especially Christians, Yahowsha’ completely destroyed their every illusion.
"Many (polys – a very great number and the preponderance of people) will say (erousin – will in the future actually and actively communicate (lego scribed in the future active indicative third person plural)) to Me (moi) in that specific day (en ekeinos te hemera – in this relatively distant period of time), ‘Lord (kyrie – master, owner, one who rules over, controls, or enslaves) Lord (kyrie – master, owner, one who rules over, controls, or enslaves), not (ou) in Your (to so) name (onoma – persona and reputation), we actively spoke genuinely inspired utterances (propheteuo – we prophesy, at some point in time actually making your thoughts known beforehand (aorist active indicative first person plural)), and (kai) in Your (to so) name (onoma – persona and reputation), we drove out (ekballo – we sent and threw out, we expelled and sent forth (aorist active indicative first person plural)) demons (daimonion – evil spirits and devils, or inferior gods, minor divinities, and pagan goddesses), and (kai) in Your (to so) name (onoma – persona and reputation), many mighty and miraculous things (pollas dynamis – with great supernatural power extensive political and religious institutions), we made and did (poieomai – we engaged in, performed, worked, and profited from (aorist active indicative first person plural))." (Mattanyah / Yah’s Gift / Matthew 7:22)
While it requires a considerable reorganization of the Greek, thereby moving the negation of ou past the dative article, "the," past the possessive pronoun, "Your," and past the dative noun, "name," since the third definition of ou depicts a question in which the speaker expects a resounding "yes" to be the answer, one might assume that Christians, having not listened to what Yahowsha’ just said, might ask:
"Lord, Lord, didn’t we speak inspired utterances in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and establish mighty political and religious institutions in Your name?"
But the answer to that question is a resounding "no!" Not one Christian in a million knows or uses Yahowsha’s name. In fact, once a person comes to know His name and understand what it means, he or she can no longer be a Christian. And that is because Yahowsha’s name means "Yahowah Saves." And that means that the means to salvation is found in the Towrah rather than in the "New Testament."