Questioning Paul
Chapter 2
part 4
That is pretty good I suppose for an old, dead, and obsolete, book. But it is enough to make your head spin and stomach queasy. Paul is not only contradicting God, he is now contradicting himself.
Sadly, this all reminds me of the Qur’an, where after Allah tells us that there should be no compulsion in religion, he orders Muslims to kill all non-Muslims in addition to any Muslim who rejects his or her religion.
But perhaps even in the swirling tornadic winds of circular reasoning, there is an explanation for Paul’s conclusion, whereby he negated his own long and drawn out premise. Maybe it was good from his perspective that the Torah killed him. That way he could present himself rising from the dead to serve as mankind’s savior, especially now that the Torah had schooled him in all manner of unscrupulous methods and beguiling deceit. And of the latter, he was lord and master.
There has always been an unspoken and ignoble aspect of Christianity that Romans 7 seems to foster. The old god, the god of the old system, died, which is why his witness was relegated to an Old Testament and why his words are no longer considered relevant. Laying the foundation for this myth, Paul has the husband, which is the metaphor Yahowah applies to Himself in relation to both Yisra’el and the Covenant, dying. This thereby frees believers from the deceased deity and his arcane methods. Christians, will of course deny that their religion killed God, but there is no denying that they treat Him as if He were dead. From the Christian perspective, Yahowah was replaced by Grace. And in the process a real and rewarding monotheistic relationship became a pagan religion.
Sha’uwl’s long and deeply troubling initial announcement concludes with the following clause: "…to whom (o) the assessment of the brilliant splendor (e doxa – the opinion regarding the glorious radiance, the view or perspective on the appearance of the shining light, the estimation of amazing greatness, and as a characterization of a manifestation of God’s reputation) by means of (eis – to, on behalf of, and with reference to) the old and the new systems (tous aionas ton aionon – the past and present circumstances), Amen, let it be so (amane – verily and surely, this is indeed as it ought to be, also Amen, the name of the Egyptian sun god)." (Galatians 1:5) This time with aionos, without a verb in sight, and now in the plural form, tous aionas ton aionon becomes "the old and the new systems."
It should be noted that Paul, in his second of three conflicting accounts on what he saw and heard on the road to Damascus, in Acts 22:11, used doxa, which was translated here as an "assessment of the brilliant splendor." But since by comparing Acts 26:14 with 2 Corinthians 12:7 in the first chapter, now that we know that the encounter was with Satan, we are compelled to consider doxa’s association with the Adversary. And from Strong’s Lexicon, we learn that its primary connotation is "to express an opinion, to present one’s own view or estimate regarding someone or something." It is from dokeo, meaning "to be of the opinion and to repute," thereby saying: "it seems and is pleasing to me to question and to suppose." The Complete Word Study Dictionary concurs, writing that doxa is "to think or suppose, to be of the opinion that something is so."
It is Paulos’s assessment that Satan is Lord. He sees him as brilliant, radiant, and beautiful. It is how the Adversary sees himself. It is their opinion mind you, and they would be wrong, but it is instructive for us to be aware of it.
They were now a team, with one goading the other. The Master had his apostle put him on the pedestal he craved. The Lord, in Paulos’s opinion and estimation, was a manifestation of God. He was glorious. And it would be by transitioning from the Old System to the New System that Sha’uwl’s Lord would be empowered. He even concluded his opening statement with the name of the god of Egypt, Amen, saying: "Let it be so...."
Sha’uwl has undermined Yahowsha’ while equating His Lord, Satan, to a "messenger of light." He would say the same thing of Satan, in 2 Corinthians 11:14. And his depictions of the "flashing light" he experienced on the road to Damascus, as chronicled in Acts 9, 22, and 26, is identical to Yahowsha’s depiction of Satan’s fall from heaven as recorded in Luke 10:18-19 – passages which we will analyze and compare in due time.
The Greek word amane is a transliteration of the Hebrew amein, meaning "trustworthy and reliable." Capitalized as "Amen," it becomes a transliteration of the name of the Egyptian sun-god: Amen Ra. And as such, Amen is the name of the god to whom Christians pray when they say, "in god’s name we pray, Amen." So, based upon its position at the end of this clause, and its reemergence in Sha’uwl’s signoff at the end of this letter, there would be no justification for translating the meaning of the word, strongly suggesting that the inappropriate transliteration was intended.
It is interesting in this regard to note that among many of the obelisks around Rome, including one now at the center of the Vatican, their bases are inscribed with testimonials to the sun. In fact, one in front of St. John’s Basilica still has the inscription "The Name of our God is Amen." Such obelisks were then sanctified by Christian clerics and became church steeples replete with crosses.
Bringing this to a conclusion, the opening sentence of Paulos’s first letter concludes as follows according to the Nestle-Aland Interlinear: "to whom the splendor into the ages of the ages amen." And so as we probe the King James and Vulgate, it appears obvious that they wanted us to believe that the Egyptian sun-god, Amen Ra, was eternal and glorious. The KJV reads: "To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen." The LV says: "To him is glory forever and ever. Amen."
But they were not alone. The NLT conveys the same message: "All glory to God forever and ever! Amen." The only difference between them is that the NLT arbitrarily added "God," and thereby associated this title with "Amen."
There is an advantage to dissecting every statement, one word at a time, but there is also a benefit to seeing a writer’s thoughts presented as a collective whole – no matter how longwinded or misguided. So here again is Paulos’s opening statement in its entirety:
"Paulos, an apostle or delegate, not separating men, not even by the means of man, but to the contrary and emphatically on behalf of Iesou Christou and God, Father of the one having roused and awakened Him for public debate, raising Him out of a dead corpse, (1:1) and all the brothers with me to the called out of the Galatias, (1:2) Grace to you and peace from God, Father of us and Lord Iesou Christou, (1:3) the one having produced and given Himself on account of the sins and errors of us, so that somehow, through indefinite means, He might possibly gouge or tear out, pluck or uproot us from the past circumstances and old system which had been in place which is disadvantageous and harmful, corrupt and worthless, malicious and malignant extended downward from and in opposition to the desire and will, the inclination and intent of God and Father of us, (1:4) to whom the assessment of the brilliant splendor, the opinion regarding the glorious radiance and appearance of the shining light, the characterization of a manifestation of God’s reputation, by means of the old and the new systems, Amen, let it be so." (Galatians 1:5)
It didn’t take Paulos very long to reveal whose side he was on. This was not an auspicious beginning.
What follows affirms that Paul’s preaching had failed. The moment he had left town, the Galatians ignored what he had told them. Accentuating the problem, this is just the second sentence of his first letter.
"I marvel (thaumazo – I am amazed and astonished, wondering and surprised) that (hoti – namely) in this way (houto – in this manner) quickly (tacheos – suddenly in haste) you change, desert, and depart, becoming disloyal apostates (metatithemai – you are waylaid, abandoning your loyalty, you are transposed, transferred to another, becoming traitors (in the present tense this is the current condition, in the middle voice they have done this to themselves under their own volition, and in the indicative mood the writer is revealing that this was actually occurring)) away from (apo) your (sou) calling in the name of (kaleo en – summons in reference to the name) Grace (Charis – the name of the lovely and lascivious Greek goddesses of merriment, known to the Romans as the Gratia, from which "Grace" is derived) to (eis) a different (heteros – another) healing message and beneficial messenger (euangelion – a compound of eu meaning beneficial, healing, and prosperous and aggelos, which is messenger and sometimes message),…" (Galatians 1:6)
It is hard to imagine this getting worse, but that may be the case. There are five serious problems associated with the opening portion of Paulos’s second sentence.
First, God’s spokesmen know, they do not "wonder." God’s prophets are aware of what is going to happen, they are not "surprised."
Second, the benefits of Yahowah’s teaching and guidance endure. Those exposed to His Towrah, those who understand the benefits of His Covenant, those who act upon Yahowah’s guidance don’t go astray. They are transformed by His Instructions, and not for a moment, forever.
Third, by selecting metatithemai, Paulos is speaking of a mutiny. He is criticizing the Galatians because they have turned on him. This has become personal. The Galatians’ disloyalty was being directed at Paulos, himself. And because he saw himself as the founder of a new religion, he considered these traitors to be apostates.
Fourth, following kaleo, Paulos has now affirmed that he was using Charis as a name. And while these girls were alluring, they were mythological. God does not call us to false gods, even when they are cute.
And fifth, by saying that the Galatians had embraced a "different" healing message and messenger, what are we to make of Paul and his competition? Was he fighting against Yahowsha’, and was his foe the Torah?
Having studied Sha’uwl’s initial letters, I’ve come to the conclusion that he never provided his audience with a sufficient number of appropriate Scripture references for them to understand God’s plan of salvation. His style was to issue a wide range of unsupported opinions under the banner: "But I say…." So rather than deliver the information they would need to know Yahowah, and the reasons to trust Him, Sha’uwl asked the faithful "to believe him." He even encouraged them to "imitate" him.
The other reason that Paul had so much trouble with his first three assemblies, the Galatians, Thessalonians, and Corinthians, is that his message was so radically different than Yahowah’s, Yahowsha’s, and the Disciples. And since the overwhelming preponderance of the first to capitalize upon God’s teaching were Yahuwdym (more commonly known as Jews), they not only knew the Torah, they had come to recognize Yahowsha’ through the Torah. And they realized that Sha’uwl lacked the authorization to annul any part of it.
So it became a credibility issue. They could trust Yahowah or believe Paul. And initially, based upon the evidence contained in the five epistles to the Galatians, Thessalonians, and Corinthians, the people who actually met with Paul, who listened to his preaching, overwhelmingly chose God over Paulos. In fact, considering Paul’s desperate admission to Timothy, for a while all of Asia rejected Paul: "You know this, that all those in Asia have turned away from me...." (2 Timothy 1:15). What did they recognize that Christians are ignoring today?
Galatians 1:6 is enlightening in this regard. It states that there were two competing "euangelion – healing messengers and beneficial messages." Obviously, one of the messengers and messages was Paul, and as we make our way through his initial letter, we will know him and it all too well. But then who was or were his competitors? Our options are Yahowah and His Towrah, Yahowsha’ (who is a diminished manifestation of Yahowah) and that same Towrah, or one or more of the Disciples, namely Shim’own Kephas, Yahowchanan, or Ya’aqob, but their message was the same as Yahowah’s. And that leaves only one potential competitor: God. And perhaps that is why Paulos spoke of "their calling in the name of Grace," and not in God’s name. They were more attractive, at least, from Paul’s perspective.
One of the reasons our options are so constrained is because the challenger was said to be wielding a different "euangelion – healing messenger and beneficial message." Therefore, Paulos’s foe can neither be Judaism nor Rome. At this place and time, they were the antithesis of healing and beneficial. Furthermore, in his subsequent letters and in Acts, Paul will speak glowingly about both Judaism and Rome, eliminating them as adversarial candidates. Reinforcing this conclusion, Yahowsha’ denounced Judaism and was convicted by Rome, so they cannot be considered beneficial or healing.
Even though the answer is obvious, the reason that it isn’t seen as such is because of Paul’s approach. By claiming to speak on behalf of the individual and message he is opposing and against the spirit he is promoting, to discover the truth, a person has to compare God’s testimony to Paul’s. But by disparaging Yahowah’s revelation and by ignoring Yahowsha’s testimony, those who are swayed by Paul are predisposed to discard this evidence against him. So long as the audience remains religious, operating in the realm of faith, Paul’s scheme prevails. To understand who is opposing whom, we have to be willing to examine the evidence and process it judgmentally.
In reality, Paul defined his foe in the first sentence of his first letter. He wrote that we were being plucked away from the counterproductive and laborious Old System, more accurately known as the Towrah. If it wasn’t his enemy, poneros would not have been used to demean it. So now in the second sentence, Paulos is distinguishing his approach from God’s. And he is showing his bewilderment and frustration that those he spoke to in Galatia prefer that old God to his new plan.
Had it not been for two clever tricks, the obvious answer would have become apparent to most everyone centuries ago. The first of these is that by pretending to speak for God, by pretending to be a brother, Sha’uwl became the wolf in sheep’s clothing. He was seen for other than what he was. He was accepted and viewed as being one with them, even while he was devouring them.
It is why Yahowah admonishes us for not questioning Sha’uwl. It is why Sha’uwl changed his name. It is why Yahowsha’ warned us, telling us that a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a man now named "Paulos – Lowly and Little," would seek to discredit and discard the Towrah.
The second ploy is found in the writing style, which blends circular reasoning and all manner of logical flaws with a myriad of inappropriate word choices. The opening sentence is a prime example. Due diligence is required as is thoughtful consideration to understand why a violent verb was deployed against a pornographic and arcane system. But those who have been conditioned by their political, religious, academic, and media institutions to avoid being judgmental, even critical, read right through Paul’s confession and are left wondering.
Before we move on, and with regard to Galatians 1:6, please note that Sha’uwl did not write "Gospel" at the end of his sentence. Euangelion, pronounced "yoo·ang·ghel·ee·on," is a compound of two common Greek words. It is not a name or a title. And if it were a name or title, it should have been transliterated, "Euangelion," which was done in Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, but not in any modern English translation. For example, in the King James, euangelion was neither translated nor transliterated, but instead, the Greek word was replaced by the religious term "Gospel."
The King James conveys: "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel." But here, now for the second time, we cannot blame Jerome for the mistake found in the KJV. There is no "Gospel" in the Latin Vulgate: "I wonder that you have been so quickly transferred, from him who called you into the grace of Christi, over to another evangelium." We can, however, blame Jerome for the inclusion of "Christi," which is errant on three accounts. If it is a word, it should have been translated "Implement Doing the Work of Yahowah." If it is a title, the Divine Placeholder should have been transliterated "the Ma’aseyah." But, according to P46, the oldest witness to this letter, Paul did not actually include the Divine title in this sentence, neither by placeholder nor by actually writing it out.
This affirms two things. First, the King James is a translation of the Latin Vulgate, not the Greek text—as are most subsequent translations as we shall see with the NLT. And second, Paul called his faithful to "Charis / Gratia / Grace," not to the teaching and guidance of Yahowah’s Towrah, which was different in every imaginable way.
I do not know if the term "gospel" was first deployed in the King James Version in the early 17th century. But I do know that it cannot be found in John Wycliffe’s translation, the first made in the English language. Wycliffe used "euangelie," not "Gospel," in the late 14th century.
Let’s juxtapose the New Living Translation against Sha’uwl’s actual words so that you might fully appreciate the liberties they have taken: "I am shocked that you are turning away so soon from God, who called you to himself through the loving mercy of Christ. You are following a different way that pretends to be the Good News…" Compared to the NA: "I marvel that thusly quickly you change from the one having called you in favor of Christ into other good message." And as a reference, more complete and correct, this is what Paulos conveyed: "I marvel, am amazed and astonished, wondering and surprised that namely in this way quickly and in haste you change, desert, and depart, becoming disloyal apostates and traitors away from your calling in the name of Grace to a different healing message and beneficial messenger,…" (1:6)
As a result of some religious tampering, whereby euangelion was replaced with "Gospel," Christians now believe that Paul’s preaching was in harmony with the eyewitness and hearsay accounts contained in what have become errantly known as the "Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John." But there are many problems with that theory. First, Sha’uwl never quoted a single line from any of them. He didn’t even reference them. And second, these biographical accounts were not called "Gospels."
At the time this letter was written in 50 CE, all of the contemporaneous and credible historical evidence affirms that Mattanyah’s eyewitness account was still in its original Hebrew. And while it was cherished in Yaruwshalaym, it wasn’t widely distributed beyond Yahuwdah / Judea at that time. It would have been irrelevant to Sha’uwl.
Moving on to Mark, Eusebius wrote: "Markus, who had been Peter’s interpreter, wrote down carefully…all that he remembered of Yahowsha’s sayings and doings. For he had not heard Yahowsha’ or been one of his followers, but later, he was one of Peter’s followers." Origen, Tertullian, and Clement concurred, writing at the end of the 2nd century that "Mark compiled his account from Peter’s speeches in Rome." As such, Galatians predates Mark by a decade. Therefore, a connection between Mark’s hearsay account based upon Shim’own Kephas’s witness and testimony cannot be made. Also, we must be careful. While the historical evidence suggests that Markus compiled the book attributed to him in Rome, there is no credible evidence that suggests that his primary source, Shim’own, was ever in Rome.
Lukas was unknown to Paulos and to Yahowsha’s Disciples at the time Galatians was scribed. Therefore, his historical, albeit hearsay, portrayal had not been written, making any association between it and Paulos’s use of euangelion in Galatians 1:6 ill-advised.
Based upon the enormous popularity of Yahowchanan’s eyewitness account, as evidenced by the sheer quantity of extant pre-Constantine manuscripts, had his portrayal of Yahowsha’s life been circulated by this time, Paul would have been compelled to reference it. But he didn’t. Not in this letter, and not in any of his subsequent letters.
So we know for certain that Paulos was not writing on behalf of nor promoting the historical portrayals of Yahowsha’s life found in Mattanyah, Marcus, Lucas, or Yahowchanan. At the time the Galatians letter was written, Scripture was comprised solely of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. It still is. Every statement Yahowsha’ made affirms this reality, as do the Disciples in their portrayals of His life.
Should you be wondering why in his subsequent letters Paulos never so much as even refers to the existence of the historical presentations of Yahowsha’s life found in Mattanyah, Marcus, Lucas, or Yahowchanan, the answer is two-fold. First, his message was the antithesis of that which can be derived from Yahowsha’s words and deeds. The caricature of "the Lord Iesou Christou" painted by Paulos differs so substantially in identity, nature, style, and substance from the actual Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’ that they have precious little in common.
And second, Paul’s ego got in the way. He was in competition with Him and them. After all, he wanted us to believe that he was both "co-savior" and "co-author," the chosen one completing what God, Himself, could not accomplish without his assistance. Someone of his status would never cite a lesser individual.
The Old English moniker, "Gospel," like the use of the Greek goddesses’ name, Charis, known by the Latinized "Gratia – Grace," has caused millions to believe that the "Gospel of Grace" replaced the Torah, when instead the Torah is the source of "mercy." To know the Towrah is to know "chanan – unearned favor" and the liberty it provides.
So this bears repeating: there never was such a thing as a "Gospel." There still isn’t.
No matter where you look, Christian apologists say that "Gospel means ‘good news.’" But if that is true, why not simply write "good news." Or more to the point, since euangelion actually means "healing messenger and beneficial message," why not translate the Greek term accurately?
Christian dictionaries go so far as to say that "gospel is from go(d) meaning ‘good,’ and spell meaning ‘news.’" But "god" was never an Old English word for "good." Instead, "god" is a transliteration of the Germanic "Gott," an epithet for Odin. The Old English word for "good" was "gud." And the Middle English "spell" is from the Old English "spellian," which means "to foretell, to portend, or to relate.’" As such, "gospel" does not mean "good news," and is therefore not a translation of euangelion as Christians protest.
Other dictionaries, suggest that gospel is "derived from an Anglo-Saxon word which meant ‘the story concerning God,’" even though there is no etymological history of such a term in the annals of the Anglo-Saxons.
While we are on this subject, it is insightful to know that, according to Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, the English word, "spell," came to us "from Old English by way of Middle English." And "circa 1623 (which would be around the time the KJV was being popularized) a spell 1) was a spoken word or form of words which were held to have magic power, 2) was a state of enchantment, or 3) was used in the context of casting a spell."
Webster’s Twentieth Century Dictionary says: "The word ‘god’ is common to the Teutonic tongues…. It was applied to heathen deities and later, when the Teutonic peoples were converted to Christianity, the word was elevated to the Christian sense."
Further affirming that "Gospel" conveyed being under "Gott’s spell," Merriam Webster explains: "god is from Old English by way of Middle English and is akin to the Old High German got, which was derived before the 12th century CE." Along these lines we learn that gottin is the Old High German word for "goddess."
Digging a little deeper in our quest to understand the religious origins of "gospel," circa 17th-century Europe, when the religious connotation was conceived and initially promoted, the Encyclopedia Britannica says that "God is the common Teutonic word for a personal object of religious worship…applied to all superhuman beings of the heathen mythologies. The word god upon the conversion of the Teutonic races to Christianity was adopted as the name of the one Supreme Being." Therefore, in the manner common to most every Christian corruption of Yahowah’s Word, the religious term is drenched in paganism.
By comparison, there is nothing particularly special about the Greek word, euangelion. The first recorded use was in the feminine, as euanggelia, as opposed to the neuter form most common to the Greek eyewitness and historical accounts. It was attributed to Augustus in 9 BCE in Priene where the Roman Caesar was hailed as the "Savior of the world for the ‘beneficial proclamation’ of the Julian calendar."
As I have mentioned, euangelion is a compound of two common Greek words. Eu means "beneficial, healing, and prosperous," and aggelos is the Greek word for "messenger" and thereby "message." So while Christians will protest that something which heals and is beneficial is by definition "good," and that a message can be "news," there is no reason to extrapolate when the primary meaning is readily apparent. Therefore, those who seek to know and share the truth are compelled to translate euangelion accurately so that others will understand its intended meaning.
Along these lines, if aggelos meant "news," as opposed to "message," the aggelos, or "spiritual messengers," would be "newscasters," instead of Yah’s spiritual envoys, representatives, and messengers. This odd connotation would also apply to Yahowsha’, who is often described using the Hebrew equivalent of spiritual messenger—mal’ak.
Moreover, while eu can be translated "good," "beneficial and healing" are both more accurate as definitions and more descriptive of Yahowah’s plan and of Yahowsha’s mission. After all, if the intent was to communicate "good," as in "Good News," the preferred Greek words for "good" are kalos and agathos. Yahowsha’ is translated using the former in Mattanyah 5:16, saying: "Thusly, let your light shine before men so that they might see within you the responses and endeavors which are good (kalos), thereby wonderfully attributing them to your Heavenly Father." And with the latter, Yahowsha’ says "I am good (agathos)," in Mattanyah 20:15.
However, since this statement was originally presented and then recorded in Hebrew, the word Yahowsha’ actually used to convey "good" would have been towb. This then becomes a serious problem for Pauline advocates because Yahowah says that both He and His Towrah are "towb – good."
But before I present Yahowah’s perspective on what is actually "towb – good," I’d be remiss if I didn’t share the fact that the same light and endeavors Yahowsha’ spoke about in His Instruction on the Mount are equated to Yahowah and His Towrah in the 105th Psalm, which proclaims: "Because they focus upon and observe, closely examining and carefully considering, His clearly communicated prescriptions of what we should do in life to live, and His Torah, His Source of Teaching and Instruction, they are saved, radiating Yah’s light." (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 105:45)