Questioning Paul
Chapter 5
part 2
Continuing to speak of becoming acceptable so that we are prepared to live in heaven with God, Shim’own wrote:
"Therefore (dio – for this reason), loved ones (agapetos – dear friends, those who are unique and welcomed), those eagerly anticipating (prosdokao – confidently look forward to) this (tauta), earnestly make every effort to become (spoudazo – engage, diligently endeavoring to do your best to be ready) pure and spotless, without blemish or defect (aspilos – undefiled without fault) and (kai) blameless (amometos – beyond reproach, without fault, avoiding judgment) for Him (auto), learning to be found with (heuriskomai en – discovering how to attain) reconciliation leading to salvation (eirene – the closest Greek analog to shalowm – being united in a harmonious relationship which brings restoration and salvation)." (2 Shim’own / He Listens / Peter 3:14)
Those who earnestly make every effort to observe the Torah can expect to experience Yahowah in a purified state. The Covenant’s children avoid judgment because the benefit associated with responding to this relationship’s third codicil, which is to "walk to Yahowah to become perfect," makes us immortal and blameless in God’s eyes.
As an interesting aside, in two verses we have already benefited infinitely more from Shim’own than we have gained in two Pauline chapters. Kephas wrote about how we can be made right with God while Paul has written about how he is right.
Thus far, Shim’own has predicted the sky being ablaze upon Yahowah’s return – perhaps even to thwart the devastation of a nuclear exchange. He has said that God is going to create a new universe for those His promises have saved. As a result, he has encouraged us to be observant so that we learn how God vindicates, thereby becoming perfected and righteous, reconciled in the relationship. Therefore, Yahowsha’s Disciple realizes that the Covenant’s children are not judged and should eagerly anticipate entrance into heaven. Having listened to Yahowsha’, he knows that God perfects those who actively observe His Guidance, those act upon the terms of His Covenant, those who capitalize upon the Torah’s promises. And to these insights, and in the context of being observant regarding Yahowah’s testimony, Shim’own adds this warning:
"Also (kai) this regarding (ten tou – of, about, and in association with in the accusative feminine addressing reconciliation and genitive masculine addressing) our (emon) Upright One, Yahowah (KY – a Divine Placeholder used by Yahowsha’s Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey Upright Pillar of the Tabernacle and Yahowah’s name): steadfast endurance and constraint (makrothymia – show restraint under trial, always analyzing while expressing righteous indignation toward the adversary, being hostile, even exasperated, willing to wage war with great passion) considering forming opinions (hegeomai – thinking in matters pertaining to an directions and guidance, influence, authority, and counsel) regarding the process of salvation (soteria – when the object is being saved) inasmuch as it pertains (kathos – just as accordingly in the manner) then (kai) to this (o), our (emon) esteemed (ho agapetos – unique and dear, welcoming and entertaining) countryman (adelphos – brother and / or fellow Yahuwd / Jew [and thus not afforded the title Apostle title he craved]), Paulos (Paulos – Latin for Little and Lowly), throughout (kata – pertaining to and in accordance with) the (ho) clever use of human philosophy (sophia – wisdom and insights gleaned and capacity to understand derived from man’s knowledge, intelligence, and experience [and thus not Godly inspiration]) having been produced (didomai – having been given, granted, entrusted, and appointed) by him (auto) in writing (grapho) to you (umin)." (2 Shim’own / He Listens / Peter 3:15)
Shim’own Kephas is saying, "make every effort to become blameless" "learning about and finding reconciliation," because he wants us focused on the testimony "regarding our Upright One, Yahowah," so that we are properly prepared to show "steadfast endurance and constraint concerning forming opinions regarding the process of salvation" "inasmuch as" Yahowah’s approach differs so dramatically from his "countryman, Paulos." So after undermining the veracity of Paul’s alleged conversion experience, the man Yahowsha’ called, "the Rock," is now prepared to provide a life and death contrast between this man and God.
The Rock has established that salvation is a steadfast and unwavering process, neither instant nor capricious. No one stumbles into God’s lap. Those who find their relationship with Yahowah "shalowm – reconciled and restored" are observant and engaged, traveling to Him along the path He has articulated. Even this is in sharp contrast to Sha’uwl, who has promoted the myth that faith rather than thinking provides access to salvation.
The first of many intriguing words, makrothymia, is from makrothumos. It was translated "steadfast endurance and constraint" because of the words from which it was comprised. Macros, meaning "lengthy and for a long time," is defined by Strong’s as "longanimity," a Latin compound of "longus – long" and "animus – reasoning." It speaks of "calmly suffering through an adversary’s injurious attack." The second aspect of makrothymia is from thumos, meaning "to be hostile, inflamed with righteous indignation." It is used to convey "being exasperated with someone" and of "waging a war with great passion against them, overtly showing animosity and anger." Thumos, itself, is derived from thuo, which speaks of "a sacrifice whereby the victim dies," so it is a very serious concept.
Therefore, the English translations which render makrothymia as "patience," which is often the lack of a response, or as "forbearance," which suggests acceptance, grossly shortchange and misrepresent the word’s etymology. Shim’own, as we should be, is "inflamed with righteous indignation," he is "exasperated and angered" by what Sha’uwl has written. And, therefore, he wants everyone to be "steadfast and circumspect, to calmly and methodically examine the evidence" so that we are "neither swayed nor capricious, showing constraint." Paul is "sacrificing lives" and "injuring" souls by representing the "adversary," and "Peter" passionately disapproves. That is a lot to convey in a single word, and yet every facet is revealing.
Hegeomai also presents a challenge to communicate properly within the construct of a single sentence. While it was rendered "considering forming opinions," it specifically addresses the idea of "thinking diligently regarding matters pertaining to the directions, guidance, and influence of those in positions of leadership who claim that their counsel has been authorized." Based upon ago, the emphasis is on "being led," and thus "misled," succumbing to the wrong influence. Rather than believe Paul, rather than follow Paul, "Peter" wants us "to think" so that we aren’t "mislead."
Recognizing that there are few things as vital to our wellbeing than "soteria – the process of salvation," since there is nothing controversial about the term, let’s move on to Shim’own’s curious depiction of Sha’uwl. To the great dismay of Christians, he does not refer to him as an "Apostle," the title Paul not only craves but has bequeathed upon himself. He is simply an "adelphos – brother" which is used to identify someone from the same race or nation. It is akin to acknowledging that Sha’uwl, now Paulos, was still a Jew.
At first blush, agapetos, is awkward in this derogatory evaluation. But it does not always mean "beloved," or even "dear," rather "esteemed, unique, welcoming, and entertaining." And at the time this letter was written, for some, Paul was all of those things. Many adored him then as now – as they were and continue to be mesmerized by his bold assertions. And few men have ever been as esteemed, even venerated. But Paul was most of all, unique. From the beginning, it has been Paul against everyone, including God. He stood with no man. And his message was his own. Yet in a way, even through his hostility and hatred, he was welcoming, because in his faith, believers didn’t need to know or do anything. And as the subject of countless books and bible studies, it would be hard to find something more entertaining.
However, based upon how Sha’uwl treated Shim’own, and based upon the fact that he vociferously condemned him in the very letter Peter was now referencing, it strains credulity to believe that that Yahowsha’s Disciple penned the word "agapetos – dear and esteemed"—unless the "esteemed" connotation was a tongue-in-cheek reference to Paul’s notorious ego. It is, to my mind, much more likely that second- or third-century scribes operating under Marcion’s influence augmented the text to serve their religious masters. It is the most reasonable explanation. But, more on this in a moment.
So, since the status Paul craved most was not afforded him, and since "Peter" has now associated Paul with the race the wannabe apostle has been opposing, we would be wise to see Shim’own’s tongue planted firmly in his cheek, and his eyebrows raised mockingly, regarding the notion of "esteemed." And realizing that Paul was now virtually unknown as Sha’uwl, Shim’own addressed the man now identified with the letters that have become the bulk of the "Christian New Testament" by his chosen name: Paulos. I suspect he did so in light of Yahowsha’s foreboding warning: "I, Myself, have come in the name of My Father, and yet you do not receive Me. But when another comes in his own name, that individual you all will actually receive." (Yahowchanan 5:43)
The next phrase, kata sophia didomai auto grapho umin, contains this passages most controversial terms. This begins with kata, whose primary connotation is "downward and against," but can also convey "throughout, among, opposed, with regard to, or in accordance with," even "in the name of." I selected "throughout," but any of these options, so long as they can be worked into the sentence, could be justified.
Sophia, usually translated "wisdom" was also chosen to the chagrin of Christians. They would have preferred "inspiration." And while sophia can describe any form of wisdom, most every lexicon identifies it first and foremost as "the wisdom of men—the synthesis of education and experience, of philosophy and science." For example, in Acts 7:22, sophia was used by Luke to convey: "Moses was learned in all the wisdom (sophia) of the Egyptians."
In this light, consider the difference between Shim’own and his adversary, Sha’uwl. The Disciple was a fisherman with no formal education. He had learned everything he knew from walking in the footsteps of Yahowsha’. Sha’uwl, by contrast, had been born into a wealthy family. He was a Roman citizen. He was educated in Tarsus of Cilicia, the home of what was then a most prestigious university. And Sha’uwl studied Judaism in Jerusalem at the feet of the world’s leading religious scholar. From Peter’s perspective, Paul was steeped in human understanding.
Since it implies "insights gleaned from man’s knowledge," the statement "throughout the clever use of human philosophy having been produced by him in writing to you" should not be construed as a compliment, much less an endorsement of Paul’s message—especially as presented in the Galatians epistle. Considering Paul’s over the top protestation in Galatians, one he contradicted in Acts, that he was inspired by God and not taught by men, this was written to rebuke those claims. It was a punch to the gut, an attempt to knock the wind out of the man.
You may have noticed that the final clause of 2 Peter 3:15 speaks of a specific letter which had been written by Paul to a common audience. So to understand which letter Peter was referring to we have to conduct a little investigation. In 2 Peter 3:1, Shim’own says that this is "the second letter I am writing to you." And in 1 Peter 1:1, we learn that Shim’own’s first epistle was addressed to "those who reside as foreigners scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappodocia, Asia, and Bithynia." The lone point of intersection between Paul’s letters and Peter’s recipients is "Galatia." And not so coincidently, this is the letter in which Peter was openly condemned by Paul.
Before we press on, remember that Paul continually insisted that Peter’s ministry was limited to Jews, while the wannabe and self-proclaimed apostle’s realm was comprised of the rest of the world. Obviously Shim’own didn’t agree. Last time I checked, "foreigners scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappodocia, Asia, and Bithynia," could not have been Jews in Judea. Therefore, when Paul implied that Shim’own, Ya’aqob, and Yahowchanan had agreed with him that their ministries were limited to "the circumcised," he was either misinformed or lying.
This known, Peter’s next line reads: "And even (kai – also) as (hos – like and in a similar way, when and because) in (en – throughout) all (pas) letters (epistole – epistles), inside (en) them (autais – they) speak (laleo – proclaim and convey a message) all around and on the other side of (peri – about, encompassing the proximity or sides concerning an account, with regard to or remotely about; from peran – beyond the extremity to the other side, and heteros, that which is different and opposed to) this (touton)." (2 Shim’own / He Listens / Second Peter 3:16)
Yahowsha’s Disciple is announcing to all who will listen that there is a common and universal theme in all of Paul’s letters: "throughout they proclaim the message of the other side" – meaning that they speak for the Adversary. Sure, they talk all around God and His plan of salvation, but just as circular reasoning is designed to mislead, and just as going around someone never gets you to them, Paul’s letters have this effect.
The subject has been and remains diligently observing and acting upon Yahowah’s unwavering nature and unchanging plan in order to live with Him. In contrast, Paul’s epistles were penned to speak "all around" this subject. That is to say that circular reasoning was deployed to convey a view which is "opposed and different." So if Yahowah’s message is from God, if His message is truthful and reliable, if His message saves, what might we reasonable conclude about a different message which is opposed to His?
And so now you know the reason Christian theologians want Peter’s epistle expunged from their "New Testament." They don’t want you to consider these questions.
To fully appreciate Shim’own’s next line, it behooves us to contemplate the meaning of dusnoetos, which will be translated "difficult to understand," below. As a compound of "dus – difficult, injurious, detrimental and in opposition" and "noeo – thinking, perception, consideration, and understanding," the word literally means: "opposed to understanding and detrimental to thinking." And that would make what follows considerably worse than it already appears to be.
"Within (en) which (ais) there are (hos eimi – there is the existence and presence of) some things (tina – a considerable number of important issues) difficult to understand (dusnoetos – hard to comprehend, detrimental to thinking, and injurious to comprehension), which (tina) the (ho) uneducated (amathes – unlearned and ignorant who have not been properly taught) and (kai) malleable (asteriktos – the unstable and poorly established with flexible and wavering views, perspectives, and attitudes) misinterpret and distort, turning away (strebloo – pervert and twist deriving a false meaning which turns people away, tormented and suffering as a result),…" (2 Peter 3:16)
Strebloo is an especially undesirable term, so unpleasant that it is often translated "torture and torment," including the "wrenching limbs on a rack designed to inflict anguishing pain and suffering to the point of agony." Its root, trope, speaks of "turning way from heaven." It is about distortions which lead away from God, about perversions which prompt many to turn away from the Torah, about the undue suffering caused by misinterpreting and then twisting Yah’s testimony.
Having studied Yahowah’s testimony and Sha’uwl’s letters, I unequivocally agree with "the Rock’s" assessment. As a result of the writing quality and ambiguity, as a result of circular reasoning and his irrational approach, as a result of his affinity for self-promotion and his tendency to contradict himself, Paul’s letters are at the very least difficult to understand, especially in light of his propensity to twist the truth and misquote Scripture. And because of their deficiencies, the Pauline epistles are remarkably easy to misinterpret and distort, especially among those who are unaware of what the Torah actually reveals, in addition to by those who ignore most of what Yahowsha’ said and did. And that is why Paul’s letters have become a stumbling block for so many.
And while that is reprehensible and inexcusable, this represents the least condemning interpretation of dusnoetos and strebloo. More literally rendered, Paul’s epistles are "torturous and agonizing" to those who know and love Yah’s Torah because they are "detrimental to understanding – a genuine hindrance when it comes to knowing Yah." Precluding this is the one thing even worse than misleading someone. It’s the very reason Yahowah condemned Sha’uwl by name, speaking through the prophet Chabaquwq / Habakkuk, calling the author of half of the Christian New Testament the "plague of death." By replacing knowing with faith, by denouncing and obsolescing the Torah, God’s primary source of answers, by misrepresenting the purpose of Yahowsha’, Sha’uwl created a scenario where is becomes difficult, if not impossible, for those who ingest his poison to find God’s remedy. The one place they should look is the last place they’d consider.
In the six-thousand years Satan has been given to come up with a scheme to undermine Yahowah’s Towrah testimony and to negate Yahowsha’s life, this is his crowning achievement. And even the combination of Yahowah’s prophetic warning, Yahowsha’s Instruction on the Mount, and the Disciple Shim’own’s written condemnation were collectively insufficient to keep a lone insane, irrational, perverted, ruthless, and demon-possessed megalomaniac from luring billions of souls away from God.
One of the reasons that Sha’uwl’s letters are so prone to misinterpretation is the window dressing that accompanies them. He claims to be an Apostle, although he was not appointed as such. He claims to speak for God, and yet he consistently misquotes Him. He claims to represent the Ma’aseyah and yet by separating Yahowsha’ from the Torah, Sha’uwl, not the Rabbis nor Romans, wielded the most deadly and devastating blow against Him. He claims that he cannot lie, and yet that is all he has done. These things combined with the placement of his letters in the "Bible," as if they were "Scripture," work to enhance the credibility of the world’s most egregious deceiver. This man’s twisted rhetoric became the recipe for religious perversions of monstrous proportions.
Even here, steeped in Pauline Doctrine, Christian apologists will claim that I am misinterpreting "Peter’s" testimony to impugn Paul. And yet all I’m actually doing is presenting the Disciple’s words as accurately as is possible in the hope that a few more people will be saved from Paul. And of course, I am trying to relate to you what Yahowah had to say of him so that all who will listen with an open mind might choose to trust God rather than believe Sha’uwl.
If you recall, Yahowah said: "Moreover, because the intoxicating wine and inebriating spirit of the man of deceptive infidelity and treacherous betrayal who tries to influence and control others without justification through trickery and deceit, is a high-minded moral failure, an arrogant and meritless man of presumption, so he will not rest, find peace, nor live, whoever is open to the broad path, the opportunistic, duplicitous, and improper way associated with Sha’uwl. He and his soul are like the plague of death. And so those who are brought together by him, receiving him, those who associate with and join him, those who are removed and withdrawn from the company of God, assembling with him, will not be satisfied. All of the Gentiles, the people from different races, nations, and places, will gather together unto him, all of the people from different ethnicities in different places.
They do not ask questions, any of them, about him. Terse references to the word they lift up as taunts to ridicule, with clichés becoming bywords with implied associations to mock and counterfeit, along with allusive sayings with derisive words (malytsah – mocking interpretations wrapped in enigmas arrogantly spoken). There are hard and perplexing questions which need to be asked of him (chydah la – there are difficult queries to be solved, dark and hidden secrets, and double dealings to be known regarding him). And they should say, ‘Woe to the one who claims to be great and increases his offspring, to the one who thrives on numbers and who considers himself exceedingly important, even as a rabbi, none of which apply to him. For how long will they make pledges and be in debt based upon his significance, pursuant to the weight and burden of his testimony and the grievous honor afforded him?’" (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:5-6)
Yahowah and Shim’own view Sha’uwl and his writing similarly – if not identically. I agree with them. How about you?
Ignoring the overt criticisms Shim’own Kephas has leveled at Sha’uwl’s initial letter, and disregarding what he will say about the remaining epistles Sha’uwl had written by this time, the following sentence fragment is commonly misquoted and removed from its context to serve as substantiation, the lone "proof" Christians deploy to suggest that Paul’s letters specifically, and their "New Testament" generally, should be considered "Scripture."
The concluding clause of the Disciple’s statement reads...
"…as (hos – approximating in a somewhat similar way) also (kai – then even) with the (tas) remaining (loipos – inferior, residue, left over, or other) writings (graphas – letters; from grapho – to write (expressed here in the plural, thus addressing multiple written documents or letters), pertaining (pros – as a consequence with regard) to their (ten) own individual (idian – one’s distinct and unique) destruction and annihilation (apoleia – complete and utter ruin and obliteration) of themselves (auton)." (2 Shim’own / He Listens / Peter 3:16)
Considering the lofty role these words are said to play in the lore of Christendom, and recognizing that there are several potential obstacles to understanding that should be resolved to be certain that we have captured Shim’own’s intent, before we work through the list of potential pitfalls, let’s reestablish our bearings by reviewing where Shim’own has taken us thus far.
"Waiting expectantly and looking forward to the future knowing what is coming, and being eager regarding the hastening of the presence of the coming day of Yahowah, on account of which the sky will be ablaze with the elements being released, even becoming molten, as a result of becoming intensely hot. (3:12)
Therefore, we await a new universe and a previously unknown spiritual realm, and a freshly created earth according to His promise, expecting in which that the righteous and vindicated will live. (3:13)
So dear friends, those eagerly anticipating this, earnestly make every effort to become pure, without blemish or defect, blameless, avoiding judgment for Him, learning to be found with reconciliation leading to salvation. (3:14)
Also this regarding our Upright One, Yahowah: steadfast endurance and constraint, always analyzing while expressing righteous indignation toward the adversary, even being exasperated, considering forming opinions regarding the process of salvation inasmuch as it pertains then to this, our esteemed countryman, Paulos, through the clever use of human philosophy having been produced by him in writing to you. (3:15)
And even as in all epistles, inside them they speak and convey a message which encompasses the other side, deploying circular reasoning, which is different and opposed to this, within which there are some things difficult to understand, hard to comprehend, and detrimental to comprehension, which the uneducated and improperly taught as well as the malleable misinterpret and distort, turning away, as also with the remaining inferior writings, pertaining to their own individual destruction and annihilation of themselves." (2P3:16)
Dealing with the individual words, themselves, through the deployment of "hos kai – as also," the concluding statement is unquestionably connected to analyzing and opposing forming opinions regarding the process of salvation as it pertains to Paul, as well as to the clever use of human philosophy produced by him in his letters. This comparative approach also associates the realization that in all epistles, inside them they convey a message which through circular reasoning is different, difficult to comprehend and detrimental to understanding which is subject to misinterpretation, causing the improperly educated to turn away with the comments which follow "as also...." And for those who are rational, this is among the most serious problems we have encountered thus far.
In the extremely unlikely event that Shim’own’s intent was to suggest that the letters he has criticized thus far should be afforded "Scriptural" status, in the sense of writings which are considered divinely inspired, the status of God’s Word must inevitably be demeaned. By association then, it would not only be Paul’s contradictory, sometimes insane, and often irrational epistles, which are to be seen as "misleading, difficult to comprehend, and a hindrance to understanding," but everything from Genesis to Revelation. The Christian ploy is therefore suicidal. Nothing can be gained. Everything is lost. To cite the Disciple, doing this is "to their own individual destruction and annihilation."
In reality, there is no basis for the Christian assertion that "Peter" is conferring a "Scriptural" designation to the corpus of Pauline epistles. And that is because while the Greek word graphe is often convoluted to designate "Scripture" throughout the "Christian New Testament," all it actually means is "writing." Literally, it depicts "any representation by means of lines, a drawing, or a portrayal by way of a picture." And here, the Greek word was written in the plural as graphas, thus conveying a collection of "illustrations," "writings," "documents," or "letters."
Neither Yahowah, Yahowsha’, nor His Disciples, ever used the word "scripture." It is a transliteration of the Late Latin, scriptura, the "act of writing," which in turn was derived from scriptus, the past participle of scriber, meaning "to write." Therefore, while scriber and grapho conveyed similar concepts, neither was understood to mean "Scripture" in the sense of a text being divinely authorized by God. This Christian extrapolation is wholly unfounded etymologically – ultimately negating any benefit the religion seeks to derive from misappropriating Shim’own’s statement.
Further, the Christian religious interpretation cannot be salvaged by association with Yahowsha’, because He neither spoke Greek nor Latin. And the few times His words were translated using graphas, Yahowsha’ was citing the Psalms, which even today are called "the Writings." Affirming this, the acronym, Tanakh, is based upon Towrah (Teachings), Naba’ym (Prophets), and Kathabym (Writings – inclusive of the historical books, Proverbs, and Psalms). That is why His citation of Psalm 118:22 in Mattanyah 21:42, was appropriately translated "the Writings" from graphas. The same is true in Mark 12:10.
Simply stated, there is no linguistic or textual justification for rendering graphas "scriptures." Transliterating the Latin word for writing, scriptura, rather than translating Greek for writing, graphe, into English as "Scripture" instead of "writing," is inappropriate. This is nothing more than an unsupported leap of faith.
Beyond this, Yahowsha’s Disciple has already stated that the "graphas – writings" he was addressing were comprised of the "epistole – letters" written by Paulos. So this sentence fragment is merely stating that the rest of the letters Sha’uwl wrote after Galatians were comparable. They were similarly destructive and misleading. Shim’own is simply expanding his critical evaluation of Galatians to include everything Paul had written.
Yahowsha’s Disciple recognized, expressly because Yahowsha’ told him, and through him all of us, that those who do not learn from the Torah, those who misinterpret and distort Yahowah’s enduring testimony, lose their souls. Separated from the source of life, they will cease to exist. Such individuals don’t know God, and God doesn’t know them. The same fate awaits the malleable, because they are easily swayed by religious rhetoric.
If, as reason dictates, "Peter" was addressing the rest of Paul’s letters, then once again he would be accurate. Those who approach Sha’uwl’s epistles from a perspective other than that presented in the Torah, the one affirmed by Yahowsha’, will find their souls annihilated. It is the consequence of rejecting Yahowah’s invitations and failing to meet with Him during the Miqra’ey. Shim’own is thereby warning Christians about the consequence of Pauline Doctrine—calling it deadly and destructive.
While "Peter" stubbed his toe from time to time, he never wavered from the path. When it came time to stand up and boldly declare the truth, the Disciple led the way. This is but one of many reasons that it is ridiculous to suggest, as Christians do, that "Peter" meant the "remaining writings" to be a reference to something they call "Scripture," as opposed to the rest of Paul’s letters. And they do so, of course, without thinking, because if the reference was to "other Scripture," then Yahowsha’s Disciple would be categorically stating that Yahowah and Yahowsha’ were poor communicators, that their offer of relationship and message of salvation was convoluted. And if so, then Shim’own Kephas could not have been inspired and speaking for God, because God says:
"Yahowah’s Towrah (towrah – teaching, instruction, guidance, and direction) is complete and entirely perfect (tamym – without defect, lacking nothing, correct, sound, genuine, right, helpful, beneficial, and true), returning, restoring, and transforming the soul. Yahowah’s enduring testimony and restoring witness is trustworthy and reliable, making understanding (hakam – educating and enlightening to the point of comprehension) simple for the open-minded and receptive." (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 19:7)
Since the Author of the Towrah and the Inspiration of these Writings, is also the Architect of life, having actually designed us, you’d have to be ignorant, irrational, and or insane to suspect that His conclusion regarding His testimony was errant. So where does that leave you with Paul?
Yahowah’s Towrah – Teaching is only difficult to understand when viewed from the perspective of Pauline Doctrine, when it is disassociated from Yahowsha’, when its instructions are taken out of context or errantly translated. Those whose thinking and attitude have been corrupted by Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, who have been beguiled into believing that the Torah is comprised of laws to be obeyed as opposed to guidance to be observed, are easily misled by those who misrepresent testimony they, themselves, neither know nor understand.
That is not to say that knowledge comes without effort or that understanding occurs in a vacuum. To know what Yahowah has said, you have to be willing to listen to Him. To understand what Yahowah is offering, you have to closely examine and carefully consider what He has written on our behalf.
It is because Sha’uwl claims that the Torah is no longer relevant that Christians no longer observe it. And in this way Paul’s letters have become the ultimate hindrance to understanding. As a result, it is the "New Testament" which is distorted and discredited by the inclusion of Paul’s letters.
So while reason dictates that the Christian interpretation of this passage is invalid, the question may remain for some: what besides Paul’s letters could have been meant by the use of the Greek word loipos? Providing a religious perspective, most every English translation wants us to believe that it means "other." They do this to infer that Paul’s letters are "Scripture," having also misrepresented graphas. But there are many irresolvable issues associated with this assessment.
First among them is that the primary Greek word for "other" is allos, not loipos. Allos is translated "other" or "another" 143 of the 160 times it appears in the Greek text. Allos, not loipos, is defined as "another person or thing of the same kind." Therefore, allos, not loipos, would have been the perfect word to deploy here if such an association were actually intended. The very fact that it wasn’t, tells us most of what we need to know.
Second, while loipos can be translated "others" when speaking of people and things, loipos is a "plural feminine adjective." In this context it appears to be modifying the feminine plural noun graphas, so it would have to be written "others writings," not "other scripture." But there is only one Divine revelation referred to by Yahowsha’, He, Himself translated referring to the "Torah and Prophets" as a single entity. Therefore, it is only when "Peter" is seen referring to Paul’s "remaining writings," that everything fits.
Third, along these lines, the primary definition of loipos is "remaining," not "others," which is why it was rendered as such. Loipos is derived from leipo, meaning: "that which is left." By way of confirmation, in Mattanyah / Matthew 25:11, loipos was used for the first time in these Greek manuscripts. There it was deployed in a translation to describe the "remaining" bridesmaids who were denied entry to the wedding for lack of oil, a metaphor for the Spirit, making them inadequate. Loipos was used in Acts 2:37 as a reference to the "remaining" eleven Disciples who witnessed Shim’own’s speech on the Invitation to be Called Out and Meet with God of Seven Sabbaths.
Fourth, as suggested above, leipo carries the derogatory connotations of "forsaken, inadequate, and inferior," which in this context affirms that "Peter" is saying that Paul’s writings were "inferior and inadequate," even "disassociated" from God, in essence turning the tables on his tormentor.
And fifth, it’s worth noting that in Greek, adjectives, which is how loipos was deployed, usually follow the nouns they are modifying. But in this case, loipos precedes graphas, which is sufficiently unusual to mention.
It is also worth noting that many people consider Galatians to be Paul’s worst letter—thus invalidating the notion that other epistles were "inferior." But their criterion is typically biased upon the horrible writing quality rather than being predicated upon the message itself. So when the criterion is based upon the magnitude of the deception, every one of Paul’s subsequent letters are inferior—including: First and Second Thessalonians, First and Second Corinthians, and Romans. We have and will continue to explore the justifications for this conclusion.