Questioning Paul

Chapter 10

part 5

And lastly, Sha’uwl neglected: "You should never respond and testify (lo’ ‘anah – you should not ever question, answer, or make a declaration) against (ba) your neighbor (rea’ – countryman, friend, companion, or associate) as a deceptive or misleading (seqer – false, conniving, clever, mistaken, vain, or unreliable) witness (‘ed – source of evidence by way of testimony)." (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 20:16) Sha’uwl was the most dishonest and deceptive witness in human history. It’s little wonder he skipped over the sixth of the seven Instructions on the second of two tablets.

So that was telling. Paul’s preaching was overtly hostile to six of Yahowah’s ten most essential statements. But that’s not even the end of the bad news. He committed adultery by entering into a covenant with Satan. His preaching and letters are responsible for the death of over a billion souls. By dispensing with the Towrah he stole the most valuable thing in the universe: the hope of salvation. And that leaves "coveting," which is what made Sha’uwl susceptible to Satan in the first place. But even if we were to replace God’s list with Paul’s, the Devil’s Advocate not only didn’t love his neighbors, he attacked them savagely and wanted the best of them mutilated.

Returning to Galatians 5:14, here is what the English translations had to say. The Catholic Vulgate published: "For all the law is fulfilled in one word: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." In the Protestant King James we find: "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." And the New Living Translation proposed: "For the whole law can be summed up in this one command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself,’" They were all wrong, because Paul was wrong.

But alas, we have returned to incomprehensible. The words actually read: "But (de) if (ei) each other (allelon – one another) you all bite (dakno – you chomp on with your teeth, you harm and lacerate, wounding and irritating) and (kai) you eat up (katesthio – you all devour and consume, you exploit and destroy), you see (blepo – you all watch out) not (me) under (hypo) one another (allelon – each other) you might be consumed (analoo – you may be destroyed and eaten up)." (Galatians 5:15)

And yet, don’t take my word on the fact that his diatribe isn’t Scripture. The Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear published: "If but one another you bite and you eat up see not by one another you might be consumed." Nearly 1,700 years ago, Jerome blended a host of Old Latin texts together to render: "But if you bite and devour one another: take heed you be not consumed one of another." The Protestant Christians composing the KJV could do no better, so they promoted: "But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another." This pearl of wisdom was then buffed and polished by the NLT to say: "But if you are always biting and devouring one another, watch out! Beware of destroying one another."

Since commenting on this cannibalistic drivel would be a waste of time, let’s simply summarize this interlude in Sha’uwl’s ongoing assault on God’s Word:

"But now, I, brothers, if conditionally circumcision nevertheless still I preach, why and for what further besides am I pursued and persecuted, made to flee timid and fearful at the commands of another? As a result, therefore perhaps it is possible, invalidated and annulled this offending trap and stumbling block which ensnares and is offensive of the crucifixion. (5:11)

And also how I wish and pray for a malicious curse, that they might castrate and emasculate themselves, suffering amputation of their penis and testicles, those troublemakers among you who stir you up to rebel by disseminating religious error and political seditions. (5:12)

For you upon freedom you all were named and were called brothers. Only not in the liberty to the point of the starting point of the original violent attack of the flesh. To the contrary, by of the love you all are slaves of each other. (5:13) Because of this then all the Towrah in one word has come to an end and is finished in the you loving of the nearby neighbor as yourself. (5:14) But if each other you all bite and you devour, you all watch out, not under one another you might be consumed." (5:15)



As we move past mutilation and cannibalism into the second half of the fifth chapter of Paul’s epistle to the Galatians, we find our wannabe apostle differentiating between the "flesh" and the "spirit." This will become a major theme in his letters, one designed to further demean the sign of the Covenant.

Thankfully, the wording gradually improves. Regrettably, the message does not. And that is because the source of Sha’uwl’s inspiration remains the same. This begins with Paul acknowledging that he was conveying his opinions.

Although that is not entirely accurate. What follows would have resonated with the Greeks in Paulos’ audience because it reflects the Platonic and Socratic spiritual mysticism of Gnosticism. They believed that the material world, which they referred to as "the cosmos" or "the flesh," was created by the Demiurge, a "practitioner of public works" who fashioned the evil associated with the physical universe. Paul’s association of "stoicheion kosmosthe rudimentary principles representing the basic elements of the universe in the world’s religious mythology" with the Author of the Towrah was evidence that he was headed in this direction. His contrasting presentation of "the flesh" versus "the spirit" is proof, as is his fixation on "enslavement" versus "liberation."

In the Gnostic faith, the Demiurge was malevolent and enslaving – just as Paul has been seen depicting the God of the Torah. Growing out of the consciousness of man, "the One" who was Spirit usurped the power and authority of the Demiurge. This "Monad," using Plato’s terminology, represented "the Good Spirit" who came to rein above the original, but now old and arcane, Demiurge. The "Spiritual One," consistent with Paul’s presentation, is the "dunamis – power" which is found through contemplation, is revealed through rhetoric, and is accepted through faith.

As a result, in Gnosticism, just as is the case in Paulos’ letters, the Creator should be shunned so that the spiritual world of "the One God" can be embraced, enlightening, emancipating, and saving all those who believe, achieving a oneness with the Deity. Personal poverty (achieved by donating one’s wealth to the cult’s spiritual guides), sexual abstinence (as opposed to marriage and family), and helping other initiates (being slaves to one another in Paul’s words) were hallmarks of the Gnostic religion.

Believers were told that the flesh was evil and that the one true God had no association with the physical world. So when the secret knowledge of the spiritual realm was revealed and accepted, the faithful could rise up, transformed by believing the promises made by the One’s messengers.

It is interesting to note that the English word "demiurge" is from a Latin transliteration of the Greek word demiourgos, meaning "public worker," which is manifest in Paul’s "works of the Torah" theme. Also revealing, the oldest known pictorial depiction of a Gnostic deity is a lion-faced serpent whose head was superimposed on the sun, and who was flanked by images of the moon and stars. Making matters worse, not only was this depiction found in Mithraic literature, the body of the snake superimposed on the sun forms an inverted cross. It is from a similar image that Constantine, an initiate in the cult of Mithras, created Roman Catholicism.

In Gnosticism, mystical experiences led the faithful to direct participation with the divine. Sufficient for salvation was an acquaintance with the One through spiritual doctrine presented in the faith’s scriptures...

"But (de) I say (lego – I speak, I narrate, and I tell the story, I communicate, providing meaning, I report, I convey, I imply, and I infer (the present tense portrays the narrative as current and ongoing, the active voice makes Paulos responsible for the implications of his words, and the indicative mood reveals that the writer wants the reader to accept the assertion as true)) in spirit (ΠΝΙ / pneumati – the Divine Placeholder is a symbol for the ruwach (however, since Sha’uwl’s spirit bears no resemblance to the Ruwach Qodesh of Yahowah, the lowercase spirit is appropriate)) you are all commanded to advance (peripateisoe – you must go about and regulate the conduct of your life; from "peri – concerning" and "pateo – advancing" (with the imperfect tense [from P46] Paulos is portraying the process as a state of being which began in the past without any assessment of its completion, the active voice reveals that the subject is advancing, while the imperative mood expresses a command)).

And so (kai – also) the desire and passion of lustful craving (epithymia – the forbidden strong impulse, longing, and evil coveting) of the flesh (sarx – physical body) deny (ou – negating a proposition), lest (me – if not) you may come to an end (teleo – you might be finished, reaching a terminus or conclusion (the aorist tense conveys at some time, the active voice reveals that this conclusion is a result of the readers actions, and the subjunctive mood expresses a mere possibility))." (Galatians 5:16)

This is a perfect presentation of Gnosticism. Paul finally got something right. Too bad he was advocating on behalf of a false religion.

Since the oldest extant copy of Galatians was written by a professional scribe in Alexandria, Egypt, we know that he would have been schooled in the application of Divine Placeholders from having read and made copies of Yahowchanan’s and Mattanyah’s eyewitness testimony (by far the most popular Greek texts). It is therefore likely that the scribe of Papyrus 46, written thirty-five to eighty years or more after Galatians was originally penned by Sha’uwl, replaced his Greek words with these Divine Placeholders so that his letters would harmonize with the revered eyewitness accounts. Harmonization, which is the process of creating consistency in the presence of diversity in style and substance, was the most common way scribes intervened in the text. And while Divine Placeholders were ubiquitous, since Ruwach Qodesh is the Torah’s terminology, it would have been an abomination to Sha’uwl. Moreover, because Sha’uwl’s Gnostic spirit is the antithesis of Yahowah’s Spirit, it would be inappropriate to dignify his spirit with an uppercase "S."

The Nestle Aland McReynolds Interlinear published the following rendition of Paulos’ Gnostic inspiration: "I say but in spirit walk around and desire of flesh not not you might complete." Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, like the more recent Nestle Aland 27th Edition, correctly renders pneumati in lowercase: "I say then: Walk in the spirit: and you shall not fulfill the lusts of the flesh." Adlibbing a bit, the KJV wrote: "This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh." Authoring their own epistle, the Greek "scholars" working on behest of the New Living Translation imagined that Paul meant to say: "So I say, let the Holy Spirit guide your lives. Then you won’t be doing what your sinful nature craves." I suspect that these Christian institutions were all desirous of hiding the Gnostic leanings of their religion’s founder.

That leads to this, another referendum on Gnosticism:

"For indeed (gar – because then), the (e) flesh’s (sarx – the physical nature of the body’s) desires and passions against (epithumeo kata – forbidden impulses, evil longings and impulsive lusts are in opposition to) the spirit (tou ΠΝΣ / pneumatos – Divine Placeholder for the Ruwach (however, since Sha’uwl’s Gnostic spirit bears no resemblance to the Ruwach Qodesh – Set-Apart Spirit of Yahowah, the lowercase spirit is appropriate)), and so then (de) the spirit (to ΠΝA / pneuma) in opposition to (kata – against) the flesh (tes sarx – that which is physical), because (gar – for) of these (houtos) one another (allelon) it is hostile and adversarial (antikeimai – it is opposed and adverse) in order to (hina – as a result) negate (me) what (hos) conditionally (ean – when) you might presently propose and want (thelo – you all may currently desire and enjoy, taking pleasure in the opinions of what) of these (houtos) to possibly behave and do (poieomai – you all might perform an assigned task)." (Galatians 5:17)

If you are wondering if Paul could have been this blatant regarding his endorsement of Gnosticism over the Towrah, the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear isn’t any more forgiving: "The for flesh desires against the spirit the but spirit against the flesh these for one another lie against that not what if you might want these you might do."

But we can always rely on the King James to dignify Paul: "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would." Not a word of this is true. God did not make our bodies to be opposed to the Set-Apart Spirit, but instead designed us so that we could accept the Ruwach Qodesh. As such, body, soul, and Spirit are complementary, celebrating life in harmony with Yahowah’s design. And God never negates His purpose by interfering with freewill. Christians treating Paul’s letters as if they were Scripture is proof of this. Therefore, the Authorized King James Version is wholly errant.

For consistency sake, here is the Latin Vulgate’s take on this passage: "For the flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh: For these are contrary one to another: so that you do not the things that you would." It’s strikingly similar to the KJV, which is telling considering the incomprehensible nature of Paul’s Greek.

Turning a convoluted sentence into a mini drama, the NLT authored the following theory: "The sinful nature wants to do evil, which is just the opposite of what the Spirit wants. And the Spirit gives us desires that are the opposite of what the sinful nature desires. These two forces are constantly fighting each other, so you are not free to carry out your good intentions." I suppose you’d have to ask them what they meant by us "not being free to carry out our good intentions." After all, I had thought that Paul had meant to say that our intentions were of the flesh, and thus both bad, and in opposition to the spirit.

Since it is apparent that Sha’uwl is pitting "the spirit" against "the flesh" in pristine Gnostic fashion, I’d like to point out a hole in his reasoning. According to Yahowchanan, Yahowsha’ is "the Word (logos) made flesh (sarx)." And may I remind you, there is a "spirit" opposed to God’s Word (and thus His Towrah) and to Yahowsha’: Satan. With this in mind, and from this perspective, let’s consider the Devil’s Advocate’s case in favor of his "spirit," and against Demiurge represented by the Towrah.

"But (de) if (ei – on the condition) in spirit (ΠΝI / pneumati) you all are not guided (ou ago – you are not led and carried), you are (eimi – you exist) under the control of (hypo – subject to) the Towrah (nomon – nourishing allotment which facilitates an inheritance)." (Galatians 5:18)

The circle is complete. According to Sha’uwl his spirit’s guidance is good and liberating while the Towrah is of the flesh and is controlling. But at least by putting his spirit in opposition to the Word of God, we now know for certain that Paul’s spirit is demonic.

The facts in this case are clear. Our Spiritual Mother is introduced early in the Towrah, initially in Bare’syth / Genesis one. She plays a starring role throughout God’s testimony. The "Ruwach – Spirit," as Her title affirms, is "Qodesh – Set-Apart" from Yahowah. That means the "Ruwach Qodesh – Set-Apart Spirit" is part of the Author of the Towrah. The Spirit and Yahowah can, therefore, never be in opposition because the Spirit and Yahowah are one and the same.

Therefore, in his continued hatred of God’s Word, Paul wants Christians to believe that the only way to walk in the spirit is to walk away from the Towrah – when the opposite is true. And Paul also wants Christians to associate "the flesh" with "the Towrah" and "the spirit" with "his Faith."

Therefore, all of the comparisons between "the flesh" and "the spirit" which follow are specifically designed to read like a campaign speech. Sha’uwl’s wants Christians to view his rival’s Torah from the bleakest and most derogatory perspective while considering his advocacy for "change we can believe in" through the rose-colored glasses of faith. And as is the case with politicians, Sha’uwl will not only lie with most every stroke of his poisonous pen and movement of his putrid lips, but as a hypocrite, he, himself, is opposed to the position he extols.

Since Jerome was familiar with the fact that the Septuagint universally translated "towrah – teaching and guidance" using nomos, his rendering of this statement was contrived to support of Paul’s assault on God’s Word: "But if you are led by the spirit, you are not under the law." Not surprisingly, the KJV played along: "But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law." The Christian NAMI knows better, but it did not seem to matter: "If but in spirit you are led not you are under law." And from this the NLT extrapolated: "But when you are directed by the Spirit, you are not under obligation to the law of Moses." It is no wonder Christians are lost souls.

Because we cannot remove the following list from this context, where God’s Towrah is presented as being of the flesh, the most impoverished qualities attributable to the human experience are now being associated with the Torah by its Adversary. And you’ll notice, this continues to read like Gnostic scripture...

"But now (de) evident, clearly seen, and widely known (phaneros – manifest and apparent) are (eimi) the works and assigned tasks (ta ergon – the job and result) of the flesh (tes sarx – of the physical realm (now being used as a metaphor for the Towrah)) which indeed (hostis – whatever) exist as (eimi) sexual promiscuity (porneia – immoral fornication), impure materiality (akatharsia – decayed flesh which is filthy, unclean, and worthless and wasteful), sensuality (aselgeia – licentiousness and lewdness, unrestrained lust and debauchery),…" (Galatians 5:19)

The only reason this Pauline list of things associated with the flesh was "phaneros – clearly evident and widely known" is because this audience was far more familiar with Gnosticism than they were with the Towrah. And here, "ta ergon tes sarx – the works of the flesh" is being presented in parallel with "ta ergon tes nomos – the assigned tasks of the Towrah."

If you recall, in his first reference to the "Old System" in Galatians 1:4, Paulos used poneros, instead of the closely related, porneia, to demean Yahowah’s Towrah, writing: "He might possibly gouge or tear out (exaireo) us (emas) from (ek) the (tou) past inflexible and unrelenting circumstances of the old system (aionos – the previous era, the long period of time in history operating as a universal or worldly system; from aei – circumstances which are incessant, unremitting, relentless, invariable, and inflexible) which (tou) had been in place in the past (enistamai) which is disadvantageous and harmful (poneros – which is wicked and worthless, evil and faulty, immoral and corrupt, annoying and mischievous, laborious and criminal, unprofitable and useless, unserviceable and malicious, malevolent and malignant) down from and in opposition to (kata) the desire, will, and intent (to thelema) of the (tou) God (ΘΥ)."

In this case, "the God" is "the One" of Gnosticism, and the "laborious, disadvantageous, and harmful" "Old System" is from its Demiurge. Therefore, we should not be surprised to see porneia appear first in Paul’s list because the most prevailing trait of the Gnostics was their disdain for sexual impropriety.

While akatharsia is often translated "immorality," that is not what the word actually means. It is a far more Gnostic than that, because as a derivative of akathartos, it is a compound of a, serving as a negation of "kathairo – being clean and pure." It speaks of the "worthlessness of that which is material," and most dramatically of "decaying flesh."

Even aselgeia, rendered "sensuality," has deeper Pauline overtones. In that he is associating the Towrah with the flesh because of circumcision, note that based upon its etymology, aselgeia literally means "incontinent."

Ever the hypocrite, Paul wallowed in his personal lasciviousness in chapter 7 of Romans. Further, by his own admission, he knew nothing of the love of a woman, much less the beauty of loving and romantic sensuality between husband and wife. Further, anyone who has ever read the Song of Solomon knows that God isn’t opposed to sensuality. After all, He designed the object of our affection and brought us together for this purpose.

As we are beginning to witness, Pauline Doctrine is overly fixated on the avoidance of sexuality, as opposed to relational fidelity. Yahowah doesn’t want us to commit adultery, because it corrupts the exclusive nature of His Covenant. Paul simply wants Christians to abstain from the loving marriage it was predicated upon.

Additionally, Sha’uwl has obscured the role of "Qodesh – Set-Apart, Purifying, and Cleansing" Ruwach – Spirit in Yahowah’s redemptive process. She is the Torah’s remedy for our immorality. Moreover, the most immoral thing a person can do is what Paul has done: deceive others in the name of God.

These renderings are somewhat consistent, save the wide variations in definitions. NAMI: "Evident but are the works of the flesh which is sexual immorality, uncleanness, debauchery,…" LV: "Now the works of the flesh are manifest: which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury," KJV: "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness," NLT: "When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, the results are very clear: sexual immorality, impurity, lustful pleasures,"

Considering Paul’s devotion to the Greek and Roman goddesses of Charity and Grace, his condemnation of Shim’own, his enmity toward the Disciples Yahowchanan and Ya’aqob, his hostility toward the Covenant, his animosity toward Yahowah’s Towrah, his desire to mutilate his rivals, his opposition to marriage, and his willingness to contradict the Word of God, this also oozes hypocrisy:

"…the likeness manifesting what can be observed (eidololatria – typically rendered idolatry and worship of idols, but based upon its etymology, it is an "eidolon – image or likeness" "eidos – representing the external and outward appearance or manifestation" of eido – that which can be seen, perceived, discerned, and observed"), the use and administering of drugs (pharmakeia – use of medicines, poisons, sorcery, witchcraft, black magic, and seductive deceptions), hatred and hostile antagonism (echthra – enmity toward one’s foes or opposition, discord and feuds, animosity), strife and dissension (eris – conflict, contentious variance, discord, arguing, debate, wrangling, and quarrelling), deep devotion and jealousy (zelos – earnest concern, enthusiastic zeal, warm support expressed through emotional feelings, ardor, the excitement of the mind, and indignation), the desire to make sacrifices (thumos – that vital source which moves us which wells up from within, boiling with passion and intense desire, which can lead to anger, rage, or wrath; from thuo – to make a sacrifice), selfish ambitions (eritheia – hostile rivalries, specifically electioneering while running for office), discord and division (dichostasia – standing apart, taking another stand, dissension and disunity; from "dis – a second" "stasis – stand"), the freedom to choose for oneself (hairesis – the option to chose or hold a divergent opinion, separatist teaching, factions and diversity, selecting a religion using heretical tenants; from "haireomai – to prefer, choose and accept for oneself, to vote or elect"),…" (Galatians 5:20)

I continue to be fascinated by etymological investigation. And here we find pure gold in eidololatria because it is based upon "eidolon – image or likeness," which in turn is derived from "eidos – representing the external and outward appearance or manifestation," of which "eido – that which can be seen, perceived, discerned, and observed" provides the basic meaning. Yahowah created humankind "in His image, in His likeness." And therefore, God can be perceived through the image and likeness of man. Further, Yahowsha’ is the external and physical, and therefore corporeal manifestation or appearance of Yahowah. We can observe Him, discern His nature, and see His purpose by closely examining and carefully considering the Towrah. Therefore, "the likeness manifesting what can be observed" is from the Towrah and thus evil according to Sha’uwl.

And even if we buy into the commonly rendered religious connotation of "eidololatria – idolatry," we find Paul’s faith based upon "Faith in the Gospel of Grace," noting that the Charis, known as the Gratia in Rome, were the Greek goddesses of licentiousness. So while Yahowah is unabashedly opposed to all forms of idolatry, including the memorialization of the names of false gods, Paul has based his religion on "Grace," a transliteration of the Roman Gratia.

Moving on to the second term in this the second installment of derogatory concepts Paul is associating with Yahowah’s Towrah, we find pharmakeia, from which we get the English word "pharmacy." Its primary meaning is "to administer drugs," and "to provide medicines." Since there is no reason to believe that the Spirit is opposed to medicine, we must assume that Paul meant "the use of illicit, mind-altering drugs, or that he was against the use of potions in the practice of magic. And yet, he has told us that he was demon-possessed and Yahowah revealed that Sha’uwl "would cause his companions to drink, thereby associating them with his poisonous antagonism and wrath" in Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:15, because of Sha’uwl’s fixation on "observing the male genitalia."

Third, Yahowsha’ was extraordinarily "echthra – hostile" to the government and religious leaders of His day, so being "antagonistic" and "indignant" towards clerics and their false teachings cannot be inappropriate. But it is the epitome of hypocrisy for Sha’uwl of all people to criticize displaying "enmity toward one’s foes" or "engaging in feuds." He has picked a fight Yahowah, Yahowsha’, and His Disciples. Apart from the Qur’an, it would be hard to find a religious text filled with so much "animosity."

And fourth, speaking of the Qur’an, Paul’s Galatian epistle, is similarly "eris – quarrelsome and divisive." So if "arguing, discord, and contentious variances" are wrong, so is Paul.

Fifth, zelos is most often used in a positive sense. It defines the "fervor and passion" Yahowsha’ desired, but found lacking in the Laodicean Assembly—the very people who lacked the Spirit. Zelos speaks of "pursuing a mission with great zeal and to warmly embrace a loved one." So, since Yahowsha’ considers zelos to be a good thing, methinks Paul was adlibbing here. Moreover, Yahowah expressly states on the first of the two tablets He etched in stone that He is "jealous." So if Paul’s right, God is wrong.

Sixth, and along these lines, like zelos, thumos, which speaks of "that which motivates us from within," also supports a dichotomy of connotations. But when we examine its root, thuo, which means "to make sacrifices," an etymological investigation leads us to the realization that Sha’uwl was opposed to Yahowah’s "desire to make the sacrifices" needed to fulfill His Towrah promises.

Seventh, Muhammad was the only person in all of human history who rivaled Paul in his pursuit of "eritheia – selfish ambitions which led to hostile rivalries." Sha’uwl, in particular, spent much of his time campaigning against Yahowsha’s Disciples, presenting himself as being superior to those He chose and taught.

Also, since the primary meaning of eritheia is "electioneering and the process of running for an elective political office," by using it, Paul is demonstrating his hostility to representative government and democracy. And this position is further reinforced in the 13th chapter of Romans, where Paulos orders the faithful to submit to governmental authority – an abomination from Yahowah’s perspective considering the repulsive nature of Rome. Further, eritheia defines Paul, a man fixated on rehabilitating his public image.

Eighth, dichostasia, translated "discord and division," is predicated on a compound of "dis – a second" "stasis – stand." So it was okay for Sha’uwl to propose a New or Second Covenant without Divine sanction, but it’s not okay for someone else to take another stand against him. But just on the face of it, "dichostasia – standing apart through dissension and disunity" summarizes most everything we have read thus far.

And ninth, that brings us to hairesis, which literally means "choice." It defines the act of "choosing" and is thus foundational to "freewill." Based upon haireomai, it means "to select for oneself, to prefer, to choose, to vote, and to elect." From Yahowah’s perspective, freewill is unassailable. And from Paul’s, believers are to have no choice in the matter of their religion. So once again, we find similarity between Galatians and the Qur’an which makes the same claim.