Questioning Paul

Chapter 5

part 4


Adding fuel to the fire, as we shall soon witness in Ephesus, in Acts 19 Paul admits to "setting boundaries" for Yahowsha’s Disciples, notably Shim’own and Yahowchanan. And even Kephas’s comments regarding Paul’s epistles were used in a way "the Rock" never intended. Rather than being seen correctly, as a warning to God’s sheep, telling them to be on their guard lest Paul’s epistles confuse them and lead them to their own demise, Christendom twisted what "Peter" wrote to infer that Paul’s letters were "Scripture." The Disciple had been taken to a place he did not intend to go.

Beyond the fact that these words came from the mouth of God, beyond the fact that this was His last prophecy prior to returning to heaven, Yahowsha’ is translated using semaino, a word which affirms that this was a prophetic prediction, one which was designed to clearly communicate a future event, making it known to us. As such, only a fool would ignore its implications, one focused upon the most deadly plague ever foisted upon human kind. And in this light, there is only one possible perpetrator, the man who did this very thing.

We have already examined thanatos, associating it with the Hebrew deber, so we recognize that the revelation Yahowsha’ wanted to make perfectly clear was the demise of billions of diseased souls, all separated from their Shepherd, from life, nourishment, protection, and guidance, as a result of the words one man would write while "doxasei ton ΘN – attributing his opinions to God." And that, more than anything else, was the problem. Had Sha’uwl not claimed that his message was inspired, he would have been summarily rejected for being insane, for being arrogant, presumptuous, and delusional. But Paul provided a new, entirely different way to view God, one that made salvation as simple as believing. There was nothing to know, nothing to do, and the saved were at liberty to sin. All that was required was to believe Paul while ignoring God, His prophets, and His disciples.

As a compound of a, "signifying unity and being part of," and keleuthos, "the Way," Yahowsha’ used akoloutheo to tell Shim’own to "Follow the Way"—the narrow path to God continually described by Yahowsha’ as being accurately and completely delineated within the Towrah. This is especially relevant when considered adjacent to Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:5:

"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 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 will gather together unto him, all of the people from different races and places."

Written as akolouoei, it was rendered in the present active imperative tense. The use of the present active tense indicates that He wanted the man He had trained to to follow The Way right now, at this very instant, and never stop. The imperative mood was deployed to express that this instruction was subject to the exercise of freewill, and yet it was expressing an earnest desire. This was supportive advice upon which a choice should be made, and thus in full recognition that Shim’own’s volition was in play.

Yahowsha’ wanted "the Rock" to "Follow His Way" to the Father—not Paul’s way of faith which was different (by his own admission) and led in the opposite direction.

Should you want additional proof that it was appropriate to refer to Sha’uwl as "a wolf in sheep’s clothing," let’s turn our attention to Bare’syth / Genesis 49:27. There, Yahowah spoke about Sha’uwl, the man who has become the most infamous member of Benjamin’s tribe.

But first, let’s affirm that Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin. The wolf in sheep’s clothing wrote, notably and admittedly communicating his own personal mantra, wrote: "I say (lego – I speak and I provide meaning), therefore (oun – indeed as a result), not (ue) pushed away, rejected, or repudiated (apotheomai – cast aside, thrust or driven away) the God (o ΘΣ) the people of Him (laos autou – the nation of Him). Not may it be (ue genoito). And yet (kai – so then) indeed (gar), I, myself, am (ego eimi) an Israelite (Israelites – transliteration of Hebrew Yisra’el), from (ek – out of) the seed (spermasemen singular) of Abraam (‘Abraam – a transliteration of the Hebrew ‘Abram), the tribe (phyle) of Benjamin (Beniamin – a transliteration of the Hebrew Benyamyn)." (Romans 11:1)

While the connection to Benjamin was all we were looking for, I’d be remiss if I didn’t correct Paul’s erroneous statements. God temporarily rejected Yisra’el in Howsha’ / He Saves / Hosea, divorcing them for infidelity because they, like Paul, embraced the religions of the Gentiles. And He has repudiated their political and religious leaders countless times for their false teachings. So while Yisra’el and Yahuwdym will be reconciled with Yahowah on the Day of Reconciliations in 2033, Paul’s "not may it be" is in direct conflict with God’s testimony. Further, Yisra’el and Yahuwdym were supposed to be a people set apart unto Yahowah, making them the antithesis of "laos – common."

However, since Sha’uwl has shown his utter disregard for Abraham, consistently referring to him by his pre-Covenant name, Abram, and will profess in his letter to the Galatians that the Covenant he formed with Yahowah enslaved and thus had to be replaced, it’s Sha’uwl who has rejected Yisra’el. He also repudiated Moseh and the Torah, Dowd and his songs he wrote to the Torah, and all of the Hebrew prophets, including the most Hebrew of prophets, Yahowsha’, even pushing His Disciples, all of whom were Yisra’elites, away.

Since we know that Paul has a propensity to twist God’s Word, it is incumbent upon us to determine why. And in this case, the reason is obvious. Paul’s theory is that since God has not rejected all of His people (at least according to Paul), it serves to reason that He has not repudiated "me," "for indeed I, myself, am an Israelite." Simply stated, Paul was bad to the bone.

Also, there was a twinge of Sha’uwl’s messianic complex being revealed here because Paul said that that he is "from the seed (singular) of Abram," a distinction that would otherwise be redundant to being an "Israelite." The notion that there was "only one seed of Abram" will be twisted in the third and fourth chapters of Galatians to jump from Abraham to Yahowsha’, bypassing the Towrah. But now according to Sha’uwl, he, himself, is that seed.

Before we consider Yahowah’s prediction regarding Sha’uwl, the Benjamite, remember that in the Chabaquwq / Habakkuk prophecy which calls Sha’uwl out by name, we find a reference to a later time: "So therefore the expectation and subsequent realization of this revelation from God is for the appointed meeting time. It provides a witness to and speaks in the end. Whatever extended period of time is required for this question to be resolved this shall not be proven false. Expect him in this regard because indeed he will absolutely come, neither being delayed nor lingering." (Chabaquwq / Embrace This / Habakkuk 2:3) With this in mind, the preamble to Yahowah’s next indictment is found in Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 49:1, where we read: "And Ya’aqob called his sons and said, ‘Gather together so that I may declare to you what is to befall you in the last days.’"

Then, speaking of this Benjamite, and his animosity toward the Ma’aseyah (who was presented coming from Yahuwdah in verses 8-12), the Towrah reveals that at the time of the Ma’aseyah: "Benjamin (Benyamyn) is a wolf (za’eb – a predatory animal) viciously tearing apart, continually mangling and actually killing (taraph – tearing and plucking the life out of his victims) in (ba) the morning (boqer – early part of the day), consistently devouring (‘akal – actually feeding upon) his prey (‘ad), and in the evening (‘ereb – during the dark of night at the end of the day) he divides and destroys (halaq – he apportions, assigns, and distributes that which they have harmed and ruined) that which has been spoiled (shalal – possessions of value, plunder, and prey)." (Bare’syth / In the Beginning / Genesis 49:27)

The horrible crime perpetrated by this wolf from the tribe of Benjamin would occur during the very period of time Yahowsha’ predicted. In the tenth verse of this same discussion, we were told: "And the tribe and scepter (shebet – the family and authority) shall not depart (lo’ bow’) from (min) Yahuwdah (Yahuwdah – those who are related to Yahowah), or the staff of the leader with the authority to inscribe instructions (wa mahoqeq – the power to lead and to write authorized prescriptions for living; from chaqaq – to cut in and cut out, to inscribe and engrave, and to establish guidance (scribed in the rare poel stem, whereby the object receives the benefits of the verb’s action)) for understanding (min byn) His footsteps (regel), until (‘ad) indeed (ky) the arrival (bow’) of Shyloh (Shyloh – to Him whom these things belong and from whom reconciliation flows (the home of the Ark of the Covenant and the Tabernacle of the Witness which is used in reference to the Ma’aseyah))."

At the close of the fourth millennia, every tribe except Yahuwdah and Benyamyn were lost and thus unknown, this being the legacy of the Assyrian conquest of the Northern Kingdom six hundred years earlier. And immediately after Sha’uwl penned his last letter, it became impossible for either of the two remaining tribes to demonstrate affiliation because Rome razed the Temple where all of their genealogical records were stored. As such, the time marked from the arrival of Shyloh to the destruction of Temple is so constrained, there really is no other viable candidate for this dire prophecy other than Sha’uwl.

Hebrew lexicons affirm that Benyamyn is a compound of ben, meaning son, and yamyn, conveying either "right, right hand, or south." As such, we might see this connotation reflected in Sha’uwl’s attempt to take the upper hand and position himself as "God’s right hand man," thereby replacing Yahowsha’ and his Disciples. Or perhaps, this could be a reference to Paul leading his flock—Christians—south, and therefore back into the wilderness. Also interesting, Sha’uwl has already spoken of "the right hand being offered to him." And it has become obvious that Sha’uwl, a man whose name is indistinguishable from She’owl, served at Satan’s right hand.

Perhaps also we should look at yam in the name’s root. Yam is the Hebrew word for "sea," and it is symbolic of Gowym, distinct from Yahuwdym who are associated with the "’erets – land." It is hard to miss Paul’s repetitive and braggadocios claim of dominion over Gentiles.

As we examine Yahowah’s Towrah prediction, we find that "taraph – plucking the life out of his victims" is an accurate prophetic portrayal of what Sha’uwl would do to Christians in addition to being a rather precise match for thanatos in Yahowsha’s statement to Shim’own. Written in the qal imperfect, as was "‘akal – consistently devouring," "taraph – viciously killing" reveals that the wolf actually tore them apart, continually mangling what God had promised, "consistently ripping the life out of" the Torah which ultimately led to the "ongoing and unfolding death" of countless Christian souls. Sha’uwl continually devoured the truth, leaving nothing but a "rotting and neglected carcass" in his wake.

Sha’uwl was indeed cunning as a "za’eb – wolf." He was a "predator" masquerading as the Shepherd’s "right hand," while dressed as one of His sheep, all to "pluck" souls away from the flock.

"Boqer – in the morning," meaning "the first part of the day," provides is also insightful. To begin, Paul was the first to mangle Yahowsha’s message. As Thomas Jefferson wrote: "Paul was the great Coryphaeus (voice and leader of the chorus), and the first corrupter of the doctrines of ‘Jesus.’" (From Jefferson’s letter to W. Short (Published in The Great Thoughts by George Seldes (Ballantine Books, 1985, page 208)))

Second, Paul’s treachery occurred at the very onset of the fifth day of human history, at least as measured from the fall of Adam. So this timing is indicative of his arrival. According to the Genesis account, and history, this is the time of confusion when new religions would and now have ravaged the world.

Third, the "morning" reference adroitly connects Yahowsha’s "breakfast" conversation in which the prophecy warning about Paul’s predatory practices was revealed. It makes an otherwise extraneous comment relevant.

And fourth, Sha’uwl began his career murdering those who came to know and trust Yahowsha’. (Acts 7:58, 8:1-3, and 9:1) And then in Galatians 2:9, he claims Gentiles has his exclusive territory, thereby marking his prey. His constant wrangling for money, or plunder, would then dominate his later writings, and thus represent the evening of his career – all in keeping with the prophecy.

‘Akal, rendered "devouring," and meaning "to eat and feed upon," in addition to "to consume, ruin, and destroy something valuable," is an even more exacting fit for Yahowsha’s prediction. It was in the act of feeding God’s sheep that Paul viciously savaged and devoured "Peter." Likewise, Yahowah is not speaking of "wolves and their prey" in a literal sense, but instead of "predators" and their "victims," which would be His "sheep." In other words, the wolf and sheep references adroitly connect these two predictions.

‘Ereb, translated "evening," is indistinguishable in the Hebrew text from ‘arab, which means "desolate and lifeless" in addition to "making a pledge which exchanges one thing for another." Paul’s promise was that "belief in his Gospel of Grace" replaced "trusting the Torah." And lest we forget, Sha’uwl’s credibility was derived from his encounter on the road to Damascus and his subsequent imagined journey to Arabia.

Halaq doesn’t just mean "divides and destroys." It also speaks of someone who is a "smooth talker," and a "slick operator," as well as of the "slippery slope" they lead their victims down to their "ruin." Halaq is "flattery, words that reflect illegitimate praise." And it describes the "use of seductive words which are deployed to persuade people in a suggestive manner." Paul was the poster child for halaq.

Additionally, halaq is a "smooth stone used as an impromptu religious altar, and as a stand-in for an imaginary god." Grace, Gratia, and Charis fit this bogus bill.

And that leaves us with "shalal – the spoils," the victims and their possessions. At the end of the day, under the cover of darkness, Paul’s legacy, the Christian Church, divvies up what they have been able to confiscate from the lives of those they have destroyed.

So it is hard to miss the connections between Paul and Benjamin, and between Yahowah’s predictive description and Yahowsha’s prophetic warning. Benjamin was not only the last name on Yahowah’s list, and the last prophecy in Bare’syth / Genesis, the prophetic reference to Sha’uwl was the last prediction Yahowsha’ would make before He returned to heaven.

Once again, there is but one man in all of human history who fits Yahowah’s and Yahowsha’s prophecies: Sha’uwl.

Before we move on, it should also be noted that Yahowah provided other Benjamites a better option: "Concerning (la) Benyamyn, he said (‘amar – he accurately and completely declared (qal stem and perfect conjugation meaning literally and totally)), ‘The beloved (yadyd – those who are attractive to and loved) of Yahowah (efei) choose to consistently and genuinely live (shakan – elect of their own volition to continually dwell, actually campout, and always remain (qal stem, imperfect conjugation, jussive meaning collectively conveying a reality which is an ongoing choice)) by approaching with (la) absolute confidence through complete trust (betach – reliance which is proven and bold, leading to salvation) upon His, the Almighty’s (‘al), protective covering (chophaph – shelter, enclosure, and shield, keeping the beneficiary safe from harm) over and around him (‘al) each and every day (kol ha yowm). And by understanding (wa byn – so by comprehending) His supportive garment and His outstretched arm (katheph – His willingness to adorn us by shouldering our burdens, reaching out His arm while at our side) he lives (shakan – he dwells, camping out, inhabiting His home).’" (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 33:12)

Absolute confidence is the antithesis of faith, putting Yahowah’s declaration in irreconcilable opposition to the fulcrum of Pauline Doctrine, of salvation through faith. Diligent and disciplined observation of the prevailing evidence followed by careful and discerning consideration leads to knowing and understanding, which in turn facilitate trust, and thus complete confidence. And remember, Yahowsha’ is the outstretched arm and hand of Yahowah.


Yahowsha’s prophetic warning to Shim’own was the last He would make before returning home, but some thirty-nine years later, Yahowsha’ warned Yahowchanan about the same wannabe "Apostle" and those who had now leagued with him. He said to His beloved Disciple: "To the messenger of those Called-Out in Ephesus write...." This was one place where Yahowchanan’s and Sha’uwl’s footsteps and writings crossed paths. Therefore, the Ma’aseyah revealed the following regarding those Yahowchanan had shepherded and the wolf and his self-proclaimed apostles had tried to snatch away:

"I am aware of and recognize (oida) your (sou) works and undertakings (ergon – the things you have responded to and have engaged in), the difficult and exhausting encounters (kai ton kopos – the bothersome trouble burdens encountered), and your (sou) unswerving and enduring perseverance (kai ten hypomone – continual steadfastness and unwavering dependability, fortitude under circumstances where others would succumb) and that (kai oti) you cannot possibly accept, tolerate, support, nor endure (ou dynamai bastazo – you haven’t the will, desire, ability, or state of mind to take up with, walk along side of, lift up, or carry forward, advance, sustain, or promote) that which is incorrect, immoral, injurious, pernicious, destructive, or baneful (kakos – errant, wicked, wrong, evil, harmful, noisome, morally corrupt, diseased, culpable, mischievous, demonic, or hurtful having an ill effect, a bad nature which is not as it ought to be, and a mode of thinking, feeling or acting which is invalid).

And you have observed, examined, and objectively tested (kai peirazo – you have scrutinized, coming to learn the nature and character of others through enquiry, judging them and catching the mistakes of) those who claim and maintain (tous phasko – those who say, affirm, profess, declare, promise, or preach) of themselves (eautous) that they are (eimi) apostles (apostolos – special messengers who are prepared and sent forth) but are not (kai ouk eisin). And (kai) you have found them (heurisko autos – you have examined and scrutinized them, you have come to understand, discovering and learning through closely observing them that they are) false, deceitful, and deliberate liars (pseudes – are pretending to be something they are not, they are erroneous deceivers)." (Revelation 2:2)

It is especially relevant to this statement that Ephesus was the only city listed among the seven described in Yahowsha’s Revelation letters where Paul and his pals were known to have preached. And it is the only one with a warning against false Apostles. Surely this is not a coincidence.

While Revelation is a prophetic book, Yahowsha’s commendation was written in the present and past tense. And that is significant because Yahowchanan scribed Revelation in 69 CE, seven years after Sha’uwl wrote his letter to the Ephesians, and two years after the self-proclaimed apostle’s death. So considering the fact that Paul and his traveling companions were the only men who claimed to be Apostles in Ephesus during this short span of time, Yahowsha’ was calling Sha’uwl an "errant, demonic, deceitful, charlatan." We are without excuse. Christians cannot claim that they were not warned about this horrible man.

Even Yahowsha’s parting comments paralleled things we have read pertaining to the distinction between Yahowah’s Way and Paul’s way. "And you have loyal steadfastness and enduring consistency (hupomone) and have endured (bastazo) through My name. You have worked hard (kopiao) and have not grown tired." (Revelation 2:3)

Since I’ve made the claim that Paul and comrades preached in Ephesus, that they presented a contrarian view to that of Yahowsha’s Disciples, notably, Yahowchanan, and thus singled themselves out as being the deceitful liars who were falsely claiming to be apostles, let’s consider the evidence. I’ll be providing this testimony largely based upon the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear to be as accurate and fair as possible. This is Paul’s personal testimony as recorded by Luke, and so as we have come to expect, much of what he said is difficult to comprehend.

"But it became in the the Apollos (one of Paul’s accomplices and a man who still bore the name of the Greek god Apollo) to be in Corinth (the Greek city in which Paul preached the longest and to which he wrote two early letters, the second of which contains a confession to being insane and demon possessed by a messenger of Satan), Paulos, having gone through the uppermost parts, came down to Ephesus so as to find some Disciples (mathetes – followers who are tutored and learn). (19:1)

But he said against and regarding (pros) them, ‘If conditionally (ei), spirit holy you received having trusted the ones but to him but but not if spirit holy there is we heard.’ He said, ‘But into what then were you immersed?’ And they said, ‘Into Yahowchanan’s immersion.’ (19:2-3)

But Paulos said, ‘Yahowchanan immersed immersion of change mind to the people, saying to the coming after him that they might believe (pistos) this is in the Iesous.’ So having heard, they were immersed into the name of the Lord Iesou. (19:4-5)

And having set on them the hands of Paulou, it came, the spirit of the holy on them. They were speaking but in tongues and were uttering prophecy (propheteuo – prophesying, expounding, and preaching). Were but the all men as twelve." (Acts 19:1-7)

While it is impossible based upon the quality of this testimony to know for certain what actually happened, I suspect that based upon information Paul received from Apollos in Corinth, Sha’uwl felt threatened. He recognized that his message was vastly different than Yahowsha’s Disciples, and he was convinced that one or more of them was treading upon his claim to have exclusive dominion over every race and nation. So he headed south, arriving in Ephesus to find the Disciples responsible for the encroachment and then to reestablish himself as the exclusive source of salvation for Greeks and Romans. When he arrived, rather than meeting with Shim’own or Yahowchanan, Sha’uwl sought to undermine them, suggesting that the Spirit they received as a result of responding to Yahowchanan was not the right spirit. This is why Paul used pros to say that his contrarian message was regarding and against the Disciples, not to them.

But then this dialogue gets a bit murky because Paul’s next sentence has two hypothetical conditions, three buts, and a negation. And yet as we continue to read, some things become abundantly clear. When Paul learned that these people had been immersed in Yahowchanan’s message, Paul immediately claimed that Yahowchanan had changed it, altering their thinking. He then questioned the nature of the spirit they had received. He told them that they should instead believe that his Lord Iesou had sent him. So after listening to Paul’s contrarian view, a dozen Ephesians were re-baptized by Paul, with Paul laying his hands on them in the name of his Lord. This then imbued these men with an entirely different spirit, one which caused them to blather on in tongues, believing that they were inspired prophets. But whatever they were saying, they were now Sha’uwl’s twelve disciples, just as Yahowsha’ had chosen twelve.

These things known, Yahowsha’ never once immersed or baptized anyone, so there is no need for it and no established way to do it. Therefore, it is as absurd to say that Yahowchanan’s technique was wrong and Sha’uwl’s was right, as it is to baptize anyone in the name of the Lord Iesou. Further, baptism is not the means Yahowah or Yahowsha’ designated to receive the Set-Apart Spirit. There is no mention of it anywhere in the Towrah. And adding insult to injury, when the Spirit came upon those who were set apart in Yaruwshalaim on Seven Sabbaths, they were empowered to speak the languages of the nations surrounding Yisra’el. They were not baptized, there was no laying on of hands, they knew nothing of Sha’uwl, they did not speak in tongues, and they did not prophesize.

That was bad, but it gets worse. Paul was just warming up. "But having gone into the synagogue he was preaching fearlessly (paresiazomai) for three months, disputing (dialegomai – arguing and contending) and persuading (peitho – to coax followers to become disciples and to seduce them to obey) about the kingdom of the god." (Acts 19:8)

Here, "preaching fearlessly" was from parhesiazomai, which means that he was "using the freedom to speak in a daring manner." It is a compound of pas, which means "individually," and rheo, meaning "to pour forth." So let there be no mistake: this was Sha’uwl’s message and his alone.

Even more insightful, "disputing" was from dialegomai, which means "to argue against someone using different thinking." It is "to contend with and convince though discourse."

Moving on to peitho, rather than being translated "persuading," it could have been rendered "seducing." It also means to "win the favor of others by misleading and coaxing them," even to "conciliate and strive to please."

Also, take notice of the order of the verbs. The message and spirit of Yahowchanan had to be "dialegomai – disputed, even argued against by presenting a different message" prior to Paul "peitho – persuading others to obey him, winning them over and seducing them to become his followers." Peitho speaks of tranquilizing those who listen, inducing them through words to believe, persuading them to favor one individual over another and to join with them. So it is hard to miss the fact that Paul is confessing to the crime Yahowsha’ addressed in His letter to Ephesus through Yahowchanan.

I have always held hypocrites in low esteem. Sha’uwl was a textbook case. He erroneously presented his "Gospel of Grace" as the alternative to obeying God’s Torah, which he presents as an onerous set of laws. And while there is no Hebrew word for "obey," and while Torah does not mean "law," Sha’uwl routinely lashed out at people for not obeying him.

Continuing to rely on the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds English Interlinear to recount Paul’s testimony, while augmenting and clarifying it using the most highly esteemed lexicons, we find:

"But as some were being stubborn (sklerynomai – were being hard headed and obstinate, even offensive and intolerable, refusing to listen) and they were disobedient (apeitheo – they were disobeying, refusing to believe, rejecting faith, being noncompliant, rebellious, and insubordinate), speaking abusively of and maligning (kakologeo – cursing and maligning, insulting and denouncing) the way before the crowd. Having revolted against, forsaken, alienated, and separated (aphistamai – abandoned, avoiding association with, misled, withdrawing, and abstaining) from them, he appointed and marked off boundaries, separating (aphorize – he set aside and excluded in an attempt to get rid of) the Disciples (tous mathetes – those who had been taught by and followed Yahowsha’) through daily (kata hemera) disputes (dialegomai – arguments and speeches presenting a different message) in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. (19:9) And this took place for two years so that everyone residing the Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Judeans and Greeks." (Acts 19:9-10) Since Paul was speaking, setting aside the hyperbole, the last statement was true – at least for those who know that the Lord is Satan.

Yahowsha’ explanation, stating that there were some in Ephesus who did not believe Paul, has been resoundingly born out in his own words. And while Yahowsha’ praised the Ephesians for rejecting the liar and his lies, Sha’uwl saw them differently. The very people Yahowsha’ commended, Sha’uwl condemned, calling them "sklerynomai – stubborn, hard headed, and obstinate, even offensive and intolerable, refusing to listen." Based upon skleros, Paul viewed those he could not beguile as "hard, harsh, and rough men who were stern, intolerant, offensive, and violent." That’s almost funny considering the source.

Sha’uwl went on say that his rivals were apeitheo, which means that he saw the Disciples as being "insubordinate" because they "disobeyed him and rejected his faith." If that doesn’t take your breath away, considering whom he was rebelling against, I’d check your pulse. The most egotistical and presumptuous man to perhaps ever live called the Disciples Yahowsha’ had chosen and taught "apeitheo – disobedient," and that was because they "apeitheo – refused to believe" him when his message differed from the one God had conveyed in word and deed. So Paul was laying down the law, his law, to which everyone had to obey or suffer the consequences. There was indeed a new Lord in town.

The next verb in Paul’s intolerant diatribe was translated "speaking abusively of and maligning." It is from kakologeo, which is "to curse and revile, denouncing through evil and insulting speech." The verb is a compound of kakos, which describes that which is "of a bad nature" and is an "inappropriate mode of thinking, feeling, or acting which is troublesome, pernicious, baneful, and wicked," and logos, the "spoken word." Paul, like all insecure people, was ever ready to curse his perceived opponents, but would not tolerate reciprocation.

Yahowsha’ and His Disciples are often translated using histemi to convey that God stood up for us so that we could stand with Him. But Paul’s twist on this is markedly different. Aphistamai, rendered "having revolted against, forsaken, alienated, and separated" from them, is colored by apo, which speaks of separation, even of abandonment. It tells us that Paul "caused the rebellion" and then "avoided association, forsaking and abandoning, misleading and withdrawing from" the Disciples. It was and continues to be, Paul against everyone, from Yahowah and Yahowsha’, to Abraham, Moseh, and the Disciples.

Aphorize, translated "he appointed and marked off boundaries, separating" the Disciples, means that Sha’uwl did exactly what Yahowsha’ warned Shim’own and Yahowchanan would occur. Paul "set aside and excluded them in an attempt to get rid of" the Disciples, "severing the relationship while excommunicating them in an attempt to drive them out" of Asia. By selecting this word, Paul was admitting "to excluding" the Disciples because he claimed that they "were disreputable." Aphorize is also from apo, "to separate," but then horizo "to define, setting boundaries and limits, determining and appointing territory."

Aphorizo’s primary connotation is therefore: "to determine, to define, and to mark off boundaries for those who are disreputable, specifically to separate them by establishing limits which they may not transgress, excluding them." And since the objects of such constraints were Yahowsha’s Disciples, Paul was confessing to the very crime Yahowsha’ warned Shim’own and Yahowchanan about.

Contentious to the bitter end, Paul once again bragged of "dialegomai – arguing against and disputing" the Disciples because their "thinking was markedly different." But this time Paul was not to be found in the synagogue, in the place where those seeking to learn about Yahowah considered His Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. He turned to the "Tyrannos Schole." Tyrannos is based upon kurios, denoting "the Lord is a Tyrant." So this time there should be no mistaking that Paul’s Lord was a tyrant and despot seeking supremacy. And Paul was lecturing on his behalf.

It is a fact little known, but if Paul’s preaching is reflected in his letters, he never accurately conveyed anything Yahowsha’ said. In just one of his thirteen letters he made a brief passing attempt, citing a few words Yahowsha’ spoke about Passover, albeit completely out of context, and even then he misquoted Him. So rest assured, when Sha’uwl claims that everyone in Asia heard him "preach the word of the Lord," it was preaching Satan’s mantra. Yahowah consistently refers to the Adversary as "ba’al – lord" because Satan, like Sha’uwl, craves supremacy, mastery, control, obedience, subordination, and ownership." Paul’s predilection for these very same things is revealing.

Yahowah and Yahowsha’ routinely tell us that "dunamis – ability, inherent power, miracles, signs, and wonders" typify false prophets. But since Christians don’t listen to either, they typically associate such things with God. And yet here, Paul is saying that God had nothing to do with them. His supernatural power and his extraordinary mastery and skill were the work of his hands, conceived, fashioned, and brought forth without God’s assistance. "Miraculous and supernatural power (dynamis – the ability to perform miracles and wonders) and not having obtained in association with the god (te ou tas tygchano o theos – having disclaimed an experience with, having disavowed happening upon or meeting with, even relationship with God) were performed through the hands of (dia ton cheiron – by way of the person, authority, control, and power of) Paulou." (Acts 19:11)

I realize that this sounds too incriminating to be true, not unlike Paul admitting to being both insane and demon possessed. So I encourage skeptics to verify the meaning of te (likewise and corresponding to as the marker of a relationship), ou (serving as a negation and denial), tas (the definite article in the accusative, denoting a direct object), and especially tygchano (sometimes transliterated tugchano) for yourself.

Tygchano, which as I have noted, was negated in this statement by "ou – not in any way" and precedes "tas theos – of God" speaks of "having disclaimed an experience with God, having disavowed happening upon or meeting with God, and of not having a relationship with God." And while that’s indicting, using its secondary connotation we find Paul admitting to "not hitting the mark regarding extraordinary and unexpected performances which require uncommon skill." Therefore, it appears that the very attitude which got Satan expelled from heaven is now afflicting Paulou.

"Also to that (kai hoste – and as a result) on the being weak (epi tous astheneo – upon the being incapacitated and ill) to be carried away (apophero – to be led off and taken away) from the skin of him (apo tou chrotos autou – separated from the surface of his body) handkerchiefs (soudarion – napkins or pieces of cloth often used for wiping perspiration, blowing one’s nose, or during preparation for burial) or aprons (e simikinthion – or worker’s smocks) and to be settled from them (kai apallassomai apo auton – so to be set free, separated from them) the illnesses (tas nosous – the sicknesses and diseases) the and (ta te – denoting a closely related association with) annoying spirits (pneumata ta poneros – worthless, morally corrupt, seriously faulty, toilsome, and wicked spirits) to depart out (ekporeuesthai – to come forth, go out, and leave)." (Acts 19:12)