Questioning Paul
Chapter 2
part 7
Incidentally, and forgetting about the Divine Placeholders for a moment, just because the Greek reads: "Iesou Christou," that does not automatically mean that it is always appropriate to order the name and descriptive title this way in English. In Greek, like Hebrew and Latin, in fact in many languages, adjectives follow the nouns they are modifying. But in English the opposite is true. For example, the Hebrew reads "Ruwach Qodesh," but in English, it is written "Set-Apart Spirit." But then at issue is whether Ma’aseyah is an adjective or a title, and if it is a title, why is the definite article routinely omitted? And also, since Paul has already deployed Satan’s title, "the Lord," writing "the Lord Iesou Christou," why is the improper title in the proper place but the proper title is not?
Then, turning from the text to the religious translations of it, regardless as to whether it was deployed as an adjective or a title, why is "Iesou Christou" the lone exception, the only case where English translators failed to move adjectives, adverbs, and titles forward, so that they precede the nouns and verbs they are describing. Calling the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’ "Jesus Christ" is like writing "James King," where "King is inferred to be James’ last name, instead of his title. And yet, it is hard to miss the possible intent and unavoidable consequence: the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’ became "Jesus Christ" to Christians.
You can be the judge as to whether this was incriminating, or affirming:
"For because currently and simultaneously, men I persuade, I presently, actively, and actually use words to win the favor of, seducing, misleading, coaxing, convincing, appeasing, and placating, or alternatively, the God? Or by comparison and contrast, I seek and desire to please and accommodate humans? Yet nevertheless, if men, I was pleasing and accommodating, exciting the emotions of and lifting up a slave of Christou, certainly not was me. (1:10)
But nevertheless, I profess, reveal, perceive, provide, and declare to you brothers of the beneficial messenger and healing message which having been communicated advantageously by, under, through, by reason of, because of, and controlled by myself, because it is not in accord with man. (1:11)
But neither because I by man associating myself with it. Nor was I taught or instructed as a disciple. But to the contrary, by way of a revelation, an appearance serving to uncover and unveil of Iesou Christou." (1:12)
Sha’uwl’s animosity toward the Torah began before his conversion. As a rabbinical student, he had been trained to argue against God. So Paulos wasn’t so much addressing his former association with Judaism, but instead revealing the mindset which permeated his writings.
Initially, at least before I discovered that each of the hundreds times "towrah" was written in Yahowah’s Word as a proper noun that it was translated using nomos throughout every extant copy of the Septuagint, I was hopeful that by confessing his affinity for Judaism and the religion’s oral traditions, Paul would associate his use of nomos with the Talmud instead of the Torah. But that did not happen and it is not possible. While he knew the Talmud’s Oral Laws like the back of his hand, Sha’uwl never made the connection to Rabbinic Law and he routinely associated the "nomos" he was assailing with Yahowah’s Torah. Moreover, the notion of rendering nomos as anything other than "Torah" is torn asunder by Paul’s own translation in Galatians 3:10. So now, listen carefully to what he says:
"For (gar – because indeed) you heard of (akouo ten – you received news of) my (emos) behavior (anastrophe – wayward conduct and upside-down way of life) in some time and place (pote – whenever, speaking of an undisclosed point in the past or future; from pou – where, addressing a place and te – not only and both) in the practice of Judaism (en to Ioudaismos – in association with the Jewish religion), namely that because (hoti – since) throughout and accordingly (kata – coming down from and regarding this) showing superiority, surpassing any measure of restraint (hyperbole – to an extraordinary degree, preeminently, excessively, beyond measure, and better than anyone else) I was aggressively and intensely pursuing (dioko – I was hastily striving toward, systematically running after, persecuting, oppressing, and harassing) the (ten) Called Out (ekklesia – from ek – out and kaleo – call) of (tou – the) God (ΘΥ – a placeholder used by Yahowsha’s Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey ‘elohym, the Almighty), and (kai) I was and am devastating her, continuing to annihilate her (portheo autos – I was and am attacking and overthrowing her, I was and am undermining and ravaging her, continuing to destroy her; from pertho – sacking (in the imperfect tense, this ongoing action began in the past but there is no indication when it might cease if ever, in the active voice, Paulos was and is personally engaged ravaging and destroying, and in the indicative, these attacks are being presented as actually occurring)).” (Galatians 1:13)
The Nestle-Aland’s Interlinear presents this same revolting pallet of words using a slightly more sparse array of colors: "You heard for the my behavior then in the Judaism that by excess I was pursuing the assembly of the God and was ravaging her."
The King James Version helped fan the flames of anti-Semitism by combining "Jews’ religion" and "beyond measure I persecuted the church of God." "For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:" What’s interesting here is that there is actually no basis for or indication of a "conversion" in Paul’s letter.
And the British can’t blame the Roman for this Christianity’s deadly opposition to Judaism. The Vulgate’s rendering was somewhat more accurate. Jerome’s Latin translation reads: "For you have heard of my former behavior within Iudaismo: that, beyond measure, I persecuted the ecclesiam Dei and fought against Her." But here again, while "former" is a superior rendering of pote than is "conversion," it isn’t accurate. It speaks of "any place and time, of some place and time, of an undisclosed point in the past, present, or future" and is, therefore, by no means limited to a "former" time.
This is not a minor point, because Paulos specifically used the imperfect tense in association with portheo to say that he had and was continuing to ravage and destroy" those who have chosen to be with God. He never stopped attacking.
The New Living Translation turned back the clock even further on truth by completely ignoring pote, by rendering ekklesia "church," and by failing to communicate the ongoing nature of the final imperfect verb. "You know what I was like when I followed the Jewish religion—how I violently persecuted God’s church. I did my best to destroy it." God has a lot of things, but "church" is not among them.
In this passage, Sha’uwl wasn’t putting himself in opposition to Judaism, nor suggesting that he was no longer practicing the religion, but instead was stating that the Jewish religion was in opposition to God’s people. In fact, later in Acts, before a Jewish assembly, Paul will speak of Judaism as if it remained the love of his life. And yet throughout this letter, and in others, his comments are decidedly anti-Semitic, fueling the animosity Christians would harbor against Jews. This duplicity is an enigma unless perceived from the perspective that Paul wanted to be seen as both in league with and in opposition to everyone and everything.
And there is no question that Sha’uwl was and continued to be religious. It is therefore instructive to know that Ioudaismos is based upon Ioudaizo, which in turn is defined as "the adoption of Jewish customs, traditions and religious rites, even the observation of the ritual law." Thereby Ioudaismos describes: "Rabbinic Judaism."
Being a fundamentalist practitioner of Judaism made Sha’uwl opposed to a redeeming Ma’aseyah, to a suffering servant, as opposed to a conquering warrior, but that still does not explain his unbridled animosity toward those who quietly elected to follow Him. Judaism, unlike Islam, indeed even unlike Christianity, has never inspired rage. From the religion’s fledgling beginnings circa 200 BCE to the present day, Jews have fought six defensive campaigns, the first three of which failed, all hoping to liberate their homeland from invaders: the Greeks once, the Romans twice, and more recently on three occasions against Muslims. The religion isn’t sufficiently aggressive or violent to inspire the kind of rage Sha’uwl expressed. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that Sha’uwl was anything more than a lone wolf – singularly vicious and out of control.
This is the second time Paul has revealed that his cravings were insatiable. First it was libertine lusts, sexual perversions, which he blamed on the Torah. And now he is attributing his unrestrained annihilation of passive and peaceful people on his religion. And yet, lost in his arrogance, he wants us to believe that he alone was selected by God to slander Him and undermine His Torah.
But I know someone similarly perverted and violent – Muhammad. His bloodlust and appetite for sexual abuse were hallmarks of his life where terrorism was used to supply an endless stream of booty and babes. His religion grew out of his lust. Paul’s may have as well.
As we consider Paulos’s claim, I’d be surprised if more than a handful of people, most of whom would have been relatives of his victims, would have heard of him. I suspect that Sha’uwl was a legend in his own mind.
And the evidence indicates that Judaism wasn’t responsible for his actions. There is no historic evidence to suggest that others were operating similarly. There is no record of such orders in any rabbinic archive, and you’d be hard pressed to find any group more committed to documenting their aims and arguments.
That may be one of many reasons that Paulos provided no specificity with regard to time or place. And if you are wondering why he would admit these awful things, especially if they were exaggerated, it is because he thought that the comparison between the old Sha’uwl and new Paulos would serve to demonstrate the relative merits of the Old System compared to his New Testament. The same strategy is deployed in Islam which is why I recognize the ploy.
And while these are all serious and deeply troubling issues, they don’t measure up to juxtaposing "hyperbole – showing superiority surpassing any measure of restraint," "dioko – aggressively and intensely pursuing," and "portheo – devastating and annihilating," especially when scribed in the imperfect and directed at God’s children. Had Paulos wanted to say that he had been conceited, that he had been out of control and intensely aggressive in the past while annihilating, which is to murder in mass, God’s Covenant children, he would have used the perfect tense, which describes actions which were completed in the past which lead to the present state of affairs. The fact he didn’t, not only confirms that his assault on the Covenant was ongoing, indeed never ending, but also that he had no respect for his audience, believing that they were so inferior to his intellect that they’d never figure it out no matter how obvious he made it for them.
We don’t know all of the details of Sha’uwl’s life. He told us that he studied to be a rabbi, but we don’t know for certain if he never became one. As a young man, he claims to have studied under the famed Gamaliel, which would have put him in Jerusalem while Yahowsha’ was there. But an undisclosed time thereafter he claims to have been making tents back in his hometown of Tarsus, in what is now southwestern Turkey. So since there was no shortage of rabbis in Yaruwshalaym to harass the followers of The Way, should that have been their unofficial mission, why recruit a vicious and egotistical unbridled libertine?
That makes no sense, unless, of course, Sha’uwl was so immoral, myopic, and uniquely savage that he became an ideal candidate for all of the wrong reasons. But even then, how depraved would an individual have to be to engage in a mission where the goal was to mercilessly bludgeon your own people, ripping innocent families apart who had broken no laws, only because you disagreed with their conclusions? A moral and rational individual could never have done such a thing. So since Sha’uwl has confessed to all of these acts and attributes, and since the attitude required to actually have done these horrendous things permeates this letter, it is incumbent upon us to consider the character flaws which motivated him.
Returning to the passage itself, the ekklesia, describing those who were "called out" of the world and unto God, is a translation of the Hebrew qara’ – itself the basis of Miqra’, the title of Yahowah’s seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with Him. It is telling that the ekklesia is feminine. This is because it represents Yahowah’s "beryth – Covenant," also feminine, and because inclusion in it is facilitated by the "ruwach qodesh – Set-Apart Spirit, the feminine manifestation of God’s nature.
Beyond this, Yisra’el, like beryth, ekklesia, and ruwach, is feminine, with the first two representing Yahowah’s bride—at least symbolically. Before the divorce decree was announced through the prophet Howsha’ / Hosea based upon Yisra’el’s infidelity, the Familial Covenant Relationship was a monogamous marriage between Yahowah and His Chosen People. But when God’s bride chose to cavort with Ba’al (the "Lord" in Hebrew), Yahowah announced the divorce, a split which He has promised to resolve on the Day of Reconciliations two thousand years after He healed the rift with Yahowsha’s and the Set-Apart Spirit’s fulfillment of the first four Miqra’ey. In so doing, Yahowah honored each of the five promises He had made to His Covenant children, with our Spiritual Mother enriching and empowering the "ekklesia – called out" on "Shabuw’ah – Seven Sabbaths." And it had been on this Miqra’, after tangibly demonstrating the purpose of Passover, Un-Yeasted Bread, and FirstFruits on the way out of Egypt, that the Towrah was revealed to God’s children. It is another connection Christians seldom acknowledge.
Sir Francis Bacon, the occultist that King Iames, as he was then known, most likely hired to shepherd his self-serving translation, in addition to the politically savvy theologians who served with him, must have felt that since the opening verb of Galatians 1:13 was "you heard," they had liberty to change "wayward behavior" to "conversation," after all, they could be pretty sure Paulos wasn’t going to object. And I suppose it sounded more racist to say "the Jews’ religion," rather than "Judaism," which explains that decision as well. But no matter what their justification may have been for copyediting Sha’uwl, as a consequence of replacing "ekklesia – called out" with "church," the lone aspect of the message which had any merit was lost, and a devastating misnomer was born.
While I have attempted to hold Sha’uwl, himself, accountable for the severe character flaws required to perpetrate savagery on innocent kin, he must also bear the burden of his legacy. His positioning of Judaism as a ruthless enemy of God’s "church" has fanned the flames of racial hatred and caused horrible and needless suffering. Translations exacerbated the problem to be sure, but it was Paul who presented Judaism as the enemy of his faith: Christianity. The foreseeable and inevitable consequence was to rally Christians to persecute Jews out of a misguided sense of divine retribution.
This is a glaring red flag, a dire warning signal, a dead canary in the coal mine, which most have missed. Satan’s religions engender a hatred for Yahowah’s Chosen People. In the Torah we read: "For you are a set-apart people unto Yahowah, your God. Yahowah, your God, has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a treasured possession above all of the peoples on the face of the earth." (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 7:6) God’s love for His people is unmistakable and unshakable. But so is Sha’uwl’s animosity.
The Babylonians and Assyrians, as the first practitioners of Satanic sun-god religious schemes, were especially savage toward Jews (or correctly, Yahuwdym, meaning Related to Yahowah), plundering their towns and hauling the people off into slavery. The Egyptians, who practiced the same religion under different names, held the Yisra’elites captive for four centuries. Again changing the names but still practicing the same religion, the Seleucid Grecian Empire, which was created as a result of Alexander’s conquests, ruthlessly sacked Yaruwshalaym under Antiochus IV Epiphanes ("the Manifestation of God"), as is described in the books of Maccabees. The Romans, who worshipped the same gods, but also under different names, were perhaps even more barbaric in their treatment of Jews than were the Babylonians and Assyrians. They razed Yahowah’s Home, salted Yahuwdah so that nothing would grow, and then renamed the Promised Land "Philistina," solely because the Torah presents the Philistines as Yisra’el’s most annoying enemy. From whence we get the myth of a "Palestinian people."
Constantine’s Christians, governed as they were by Pauline Doctrine, were so anti-Jewish, observing any aspect of Yahowah’s Torah became a crime punishable by death. Then came Islam, a religion born out of plundering, enslaving, raping, and murdering Jews en masse. But they were not alone. Such discrimination and lack of moral judgment lingered throughout the reign of Catholicism in Europe, facilitating the horrid treatment of Yahowah’s Chosen People under the dominion of the first Socialist Secular Humanist regimes: Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia.
The common denominator manifest in each of these religions, including the faith conceived by Sha’uwl, is a ruthless animosity directed at God’s Covenant Children, especially those who were naturally born: Yisra’el and Yahuwdym. It is Satan’s trademark. It is why Yahowah predicted that the Serpent would "bruise the heel of man." Ya’aqob, who was named Yisra’el by Yahowah, is based upon the Hebrew word for "heel." Therefore, Sha’uwl’s animosity toward God’s chosen people should have been seen as a red flag of monumental proportions.
Displaying the kind of arrogance that is the hallmark of the most grossly insecure individuals, Sha’uwl continued to brag. But rather than isolate his next statement from his previous one, let’s join them because one flows out of the other. And as you read these words, please note that the selection of the imperfect tense, which made Paul’s last statement so indicting and devastating, is manifest again in his follow on comments, thereby, conveying two things. First, Paul is suggesting that Judaism was the cause of his bloody rampage. And second, he is saying that he is still progressing in the religion.
"For because indeed you heard of my wayward behavior in some time and place in the practice of Judaism, namely that because throughout, showing superiority, surpassing any measure of restraint, to an extraordinary degree, and better than anyone else, I was aggressively and intensely pursuing, hastily striving toward, persecuting, oppressing, and harassing the Called Out of God, and I was and am devastating her, continuing to undermine, overthrow, and annihilate her." (1:13)
"And so (kai) I was and continue to progress (eprokopto – I was accomplishing a great deal, and I persist moving forward, advancing; a compound of pro – before and kopto – cutting, striking, and smiting (scribed in the imperfect, where the writer is portraying the action as an ongoing process which while initiated in the past is continuing to occur with no assessment of when if ever it will end, in the active voice, which signifies that the subject, Paulos, is performing the action, and in the indicative mood, whereby the writer is saying that his assessments are genuine and his accomplishments are real)) in (en) the practice of Judaism (Ioudaismos – the Jewish religion), over and beyond (hyper – to a greater degree and for the sake of) many (polys – the preponderance of) contemporaries (synelikiotes – people of similar age) among (en) my (ego) race (genos – progeny, descendants, ethnic group, kin, or nationality), excessively (perissoteros – over abundantly and to a much greater degree) enthusiastic (zelotes – zealous, jealous, and excited, devoted, emotional, and burning with passion, vehemently adherent; from zeloo – to burn with zeal, heated, envious, and angry, boiling over) to belong to (hyparcho – to be identical to, to exist with and possess, to be equivalent to and yield to, and to be present with and assimilate (in the present tense Paulos, at this very moment and moving on into the future, is currently striving to embrace Judaism and to incorporate its Oral Law, in the active voice, Paulos is doing whatever it takes to achieve this state, and a participle, and thus as a verbal adjective, his desire to belong is influencing him with regard to)) the traditions and teachings handed down by (paradosis – to being given over to the word of mouth which has been passed on by) my (ego) forefathers (patrikos – ancestors)." (Galatians 1:14)
First things first. By successively deploying the imperfect tense, Paulos has left no doubt that his unrestrained and depraved behavior and his participation in this degenerate religion were not limited to the past experiences, but was an ongoing devotion. He was and would continue to be a religiously inspired assassin. And indeed, Paul morphed many of the worst characteristics of Judaism into Christianity, thereby spreading its devastating consequences from a few to many, from Yahuwdym to Gowym.
This confession means that there was no conversion experience on the road to Damascus. Paulos is what Sha’uwl was. Nothing changed. He did not progress from attacking God’s Covenant children to nurturing them, from rabbinical traditions to the Christian religion.
If, as Yahowah asserts, it was Satan under the guise and moniker of the Lord who had influenced the Yisra’elites to oppose His Towrah and to reject His Covenant in favor of their Oral Traditions, then as Sha’uwl will later admit, it was the same spirit who appealed to the founder of the Christian religion on the road to Damascus. In his opposition to God, Paulos would display the same attitude and approach now manifest throughout the Talmud. And he was just like the authors of Jewish traditions who while claiming to speak for God, did the opposite.
Likewise, and in the manner of the rabbis, Sha’uwl’s characterization of the Ma’aseyah would bear no resemblance to most of the promises made about Him in the Torah or Prophets. The Christian Christ, like the Rabbinic Mashiach, would be estranged from Yahowah. And most penalizing of all, there would be no connection between the Ma’aseyah and His fulfillment of the Miqra’ey in the Talmud or these Epistles.
Also, as was the case with the rabbis, Paulos would deploy arguments which made his testimony, at least in the eyes of his adherents, more relevant than, even vastly superior to, God’s. To this day, religious Jews hold their Talmud over the Towrah, just as every religious Christian values their "New Testament," comprised chiefly of Paul’s letters, over the Word of God – and most especially over His Towrah. Nothing changed except the audience.
In these words, Sha’uwl has conveyed and indeed embraced the rabbinical mindset, defining what it means to be an adherent of Judaism. The religion was conceived to zealously incorporate and integrate every descendant of Ya’aqob so that each and every religious Jew would have their lives defined and governed by these Oral Traditions. Christianity has had a very similar influence on Gentiles, with nations, communities, and cultures for vast swaths of time often being indistinguishable from the religion.
While we shouldn’t have been surprised, the Greek word designating the religious teaching and traditions of Sha’uwl’s elders, paradosis, also means "to surrender, to give up, and to deliver oneself into the hands of others." It is based upon paradidomai, whose tertiary definition after "surrender" and "to be delivered into custody," is "to be judged, condemned, punished, put to death, and be anguished as a result of treachery." The fourth connotation conveys "to be taught in such as way as to be molded as a result of verbal reports." In the realm of etymology, this is especially revealing because it exposes the cause and consequence of religious traditions and teachings. Therefore, so has Paul. He loved his religion. He just hated his people. They would not honor him the way Gentiles have done.
With regard to Sha’uwl’s affinity for Judaism, please consider this confession. Having climbed some stairs to rise above his audience, motioning for them to be silent, and then speaking in Hebrew, Sha’uwl proclaimed: "Men, brothers and fathers (andros adelphos kai pater), you must listen to me (akou mou – now I command you to hear me (aorist active imperative)), to this regarding and against you (tes pros umas – with this advantageously), the current and present (nuni – this moment’s) defense and justification (apologia – answer and retort). (Acts 22:1)
As is the case throughout Paul’s letters, he is defending and justifying his credentials and message, not Yahowah’s or Yahowsha’s. It is a broken record figuratively and literally. Rather than encouraging us to listen to God, Sha’uwl is demanding that we listen to him.
Then rather than tell the uplifting story of Yahowsha’ of Nazareth, the troubled troubadour continued to tout Sha’uwl from Tarsus...
And then (de) having heard (akouo) that the Hebrew language (oti te Ebraida dialektos) he had been and was continuing to use to address them (prosphoneo autois – he was summoning them, calling them to him by speaking to them (imperfect active indicative)), the more (mallon) they continued to be (parecho) quiet (hesychia – still and silent). And he declares (kai phemi – so he says and affirms), (Acts 22:2)
This serves as one of several indications that the conversations later recorded in Greek throughout the so-called "Christian New Testament" were originally spoken in Hebrew – the language of Yahowah and Heaven. Therefore, any name or concept derived from Greek rather than Hebrew should be discarded. Inclusive of religious perversions, this includes: Jesus, Christ, Christian, Gospel, Cross, Church, Grace, resurrection, religion, obedience, worship, holy, hell, and angels in addition to Peter, Paul, John, James, and Matthew in addition to Jew among the list of invalid names and corrupt concepts. Since there is no support for the following in the Greek text, Christmas, Easter, and Sunday as the Lord’s Day, as well as the Eucharist, Communion, and the Trinity were derived from the pagan religious practices of Babylon, Egypt, Greece, and Rome and therefore cannot be blamed on Christianity’s New Testament.
Sha’uwl then admitted...
‘I am (ego eimi – I exist as) a Jewish man (aner Ioudaios – an adult male Jew; an inaccurate transliteration of Yahuwd, meaning Related to Yah), having been born (gennao) in Tarsus (en Tarsos – from tartaroo – being appointed to decide who is held as a captive and cast into hell) of (tes) Cilicia (Kilikia – due south of Galatia in modern-day Turkey).
But then and now (de) having been reared, nourished, and educated (anatrepho – having been brought up, cared for, and trained; from trepho, fed by suckling at the breast, and ana, into the midst) in (en) this (taute) city (polis) alongside (para – from beside) the feet (pous) of Gamaliel (Gamaliel – a transliteration of the Hebrew Gamly’el, from gamal ‘el, meaning to deal with God by repaying God), having been educated and trained (paideuo – having been taught and guided, having been instructed and disciplined in youth, having been chastised, criticized, and reprimanded with words; from pais, a child, slave, servant, attendant, or minister) with regards to (kata – according to) the most perfect and strictest conformity to, being absolutely accurate in exacting accord with (akribeia tou – the very careful, precise, and thorough approach to the fundamentalist and rigorous application of; from akibestatos – the most precise, the strictest, the most exacting and careful interpretation and observation of the most minute precepts of) the forefathers’ (tou patroos – the ancestral) apportionment which was received (nomou – allocation of inheritance which is parceled out), a zealous enthusiast and adherent (zelotes – a devoted and emotional zealot), present and existing (huparchon – equivalent and identical to, belonging to and found at the hand) of God (tou ΘΥ – a placeholder used by Yahowsha’s Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey ‘elohym, the Almighty), according to and in the same proportion degree as all of you (kathos pas su – inasmuch as you all, just as, and when compared to you all).” (Acts 22:3)
This single proclamation contains several exceptionally inappropriate statements. This man, who claimed to speak for the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’ wallowed in the idea of being "educated and trained" by a Rabbi, the leader of those Yahowsha’ had said "were born of serpents." It would have been one thing for him to admit in passing that he had once been one of Gamaliel’s students, but it’s another altogether to speak of this acclaimed rabbi as if he was filling the role of the Set-Apart Spirit. It is obvious that Paul admired a man Yahowsha’ would have despised.
The problem Yahowsha’ had with Rabbinical traditions, known as the Oral Torah (later codified in the Talmud), is that it changes, corrupts, counterfeits, and conceals Yahowah’s actual "Towrah –Teaching." So why did Paul call the inheritance which was received from his forefathers "precisely accurate" when Yahowsha’ said the opposite? And speaking of perfect, Sha’uwl used the perfect tense with reference to the training he had received from Gamaliel, saying that while his education was complete, it had lingering effects. Therefore, we must ask: why did Sha’uwl claim to be a religious fundamentalist, to be a zealot in strict conformity with that which was parceled out by his forefathers?
This question is vital because it also suggests that Paul was either a compulsive liar who cannot be trusted or he never converted from Judaism to Christianity – not that one was better than the other. Further, based upon this statement, since Sha’uwl claimed to be in absolute accord with Judaism and its Oral Traditions, the argument cannot be made that he was assailing the Talmud instead of the Torah throughout his letters. Also, Paul will twice attest that he had not been taught by men, and yet now when it suits him to gain credibility with this audience, he is admitting to have received training from the most acclaimed religious scholar of his day. So was he lying then or now?
This is one of the few times Sha’uwl specifically identifies whether it was Yahowah’s Towrah that he was addressing or the religious traditions of the Jews. And it is one of the few times he speaks favorably of the text. For those who know and love Yahowah, this juxtaposition is sufficient to demean and discount everything Sha’uwl wrote and said.
Reinforcing this reality, by placing nomou amongst qualifiers such as the teaching of the Jewish religious scholar Gamaliel, rabbinical training, conformity, being a fundamentalist, adhering to the traditions of the forefathers, and being a zealous enthusiast, the "Torah" Sha’uwl was declaring his loyalty to had to be Rabbinic, and thus could not have been Yahowah’s Towrah. So when we are finally given some clarity, the picture being presented is the antithesis of the one painted by God. Set into the context of his overt animosity for Yahowah’s Word, this is especially a-Paul-ing.
It’s becoming apparent through his testimony that Paul loved the religious Law Yahowah and Yahowsha’ despised, and hated the Towrah Yahowah and Yahowsha’ loved. And perhaps that was why he so seldom differentiates between them in Galatians. If he had made his allegiance this obvious in his initial letters, his message would have been summarily rejected by all those who actually knew Yahowsha’.
In this regard it should be noted that of the 219 times the Hebrew word towrah, meaning "teaching, direction, guidance, and instruction," is found as a proper noun in Yahowah’s Word, in the Greek Septuagint translation of it, towrah was rendered nomos, meaning "an allocation of inheritance which is parceled out," each and every time. Recognizing, therefore, the enormity of the Septuagint’s influence on the Greek texts which comprise the so-called "Christian New Testament," a statement including nomos must reference unequivocal modifiers, such as are evident here in Acts, to render nomos as anything other than Yahowah’s "Towrah." So throughout this book, unless the context dictates otherwise, we will continue to default to Torah when nomos is found in the Greek text. There is no other informed or rational option.
Addressing Sha’uwl’s concluding comment, "present and existing (huparchon – equivalent and identical to, belonging to and found at the hand) of God," while religions such as Judaism, while religious leaders such as Gamaliel, and while religious traditions and customs such as those manifest in the Oral Traditions now found in the Talmud, seek to nourish "a zealousness for god," their god isn’t Yahowah. The religious god is a false deity modeled after the men who conceived him.
Some fifteen paragraphs ago I suggested that Sha’uwl became Paulos and sought the acclaim of Gentiles largely because his own people refused to believe him. Already prone to anger, he became enraged. So should you want additional proof that Sha’uwl despised Yahowah’s Chosen People, consider these impassioned words from his second letter, where he rails against his race for doing what he himself had done: "You suffered, and under your own countrymen, just as also themselves under the Jews, the ones having killed the Lord Iesoun and the prophets, and having pursued and persecuted us, not pleasing God and hostile adversaries against all men, hindering us as we speak to the races so that they might be delivered. For they are filled to capacity with continuous and eternal sins. So upon them is furious indignation and wrathful judgment unto the end of time." (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16)
If this unjustified and unbridled religious rant doesn’t bother you, you can’t be bothered. An entire book could be written about the many ways this is wrong. Woven as it was on a single thread of truth, this repositioning of Yahowah’s Chosen People as being permanently disinherited, and as being the enemy of all humankind, as being completely evil, has the Adversary’s fingerprints all over it. But at the very least, consider this: was Sha’uwl not a Jew?
Returning to Galatians 1:14, the Nestle-Aland’s Interlinear conveyed Paul’s arrogance thusly: "...and I was progressing in the Judaism beyond many contemporaries in the kind of me more exceedingly jealous existing of the fathers of me traditions." So it isn’t that the King James is wrong, albeit it is poorly worded, but that it is inadequate, saying: "And profited in the Jews’ religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers." Jerome did the passage justice, however. In the LV he wrote: "And I advanced in Iudaismo beyond many of my equals among my own kind, having proven to be more abundant in zeal toward the traditions of my fathers."
Under Philip Comfort’s guidance, the NLT suggested: "I was far ahead of my fellow Jews in my zeal for the traditions of my ancestors." It is as if the authors of the New Living Translation felt compelled to change even the simplest messages. Ioudaismos describes "Judaism—the practice of the Jewish religion." It isn’t the Greek word for "Jew." "Judaism" is a religion. "Jews" are a race. The difference is gargantuan.
Sha’uwl’s next statement is also untrue, feeding the myth of predestination and the mythos which became Calvinism. And speaking of mistakes, you should know that the independent clause depicted within the brackets below isn’t included in the text of Papyrus 46, the oldest extant witness of this letter.
"But (de) at a point in time (hote – when) it pleased (eudokeo – it was chosen, preferred, enjoyable and better) for God (ΘΥ – a placeholder used by Yahowsha’s Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey ‘elohym, the Almighty), the one (o) having appointed me, setting me aside (aphorize ego – having separated me) out of (ek) the womb (koilia) of my mother (mou meter) [and having summoned me by name (kai kaleo) on account of (dia) his Grace (charis autos)], (1:15)
...to reveal and disclose (apokalypto – to uncover and unveil) the Son (ton ΥΝ) of Him (autou) in (en) order that (hina) I (ego) could announce the healing message and beneficial messenger (euangelizo) among (en) the races and nations (ethnos – the multitudes of people in different places), immediately (eutheos – straightaway, forthwith, without hesitation). I did not ask the advice of or consult with (ou prosanatithemai – I did not confer or communicate with), flesh (sarx – corporeal mass, physical nature, human or animal kind) or blood (kai haima).” (Galatians 1:15-16)
Unpolished in the Nestle-Aland’s Interlinear, Paul’s words as he wrote them, read: "When but thought well the God the one having separated me from stomach of mother of me and having called through the favor of him to uncover the son of him in me that I might tell good message him in the nations immediately not I conferred in flesh and blood."