Questioning Paul

Chapter 5

part 5


"Handkerchiefs" is from soudarion, which also means "pieces of cloth, towels, or napkins which may or may not be used as burial cloths over the face of the deceased, to blow one’s nose, to wipe perspiration for one’s face, or to dry one’s hands." It is of Latin origin. "Aprons" was rendered from simikinthion, another Latin word, which is "a bib-apron worn by common workers and servants to protect their clothing."

So what Paul is saying here is that napkins or aprons were placed upon his skin and then carried to those who were sick, and that as a result annoying spirits were exercised from the diseased. This is creepy in the extreme, not unlike today’s charlatans who fleece their flock by pretending to heal the sick. It is another case of Paul claiming to be divine, while at the same time incriminating himself, this time by suggesting that "evil spirits" cause "disease" and must be "exorcised" to heal the "sick."

The term Paul chose to infer that his handkerchiefs were healing the sick, apallassomai, means "to be set free, separated from them," as if a piece of cloth that has made contact with Paul’s skin would exorcise demons. And while that is stupid in the extreme, this term’s secondary connotation, "to change, to settle with, and to reconcile," infers that the feeble may have simply come to accept their maladies. It is derived from allasso, which denotes "exchanging one thing for another." So perhaps the blind became lame and the deaf became dumb?

The "spirits to depart out" were called "poneros – annoying, burdensome, harassing, troublesome, wicked, corrupt, worthless, faulty, and criminal." It is the same revolting word Paul associated with "the old system" which he later identified as the Torah. And here, the Spirit associated with Yahowchanan, Yahowsha’s most beloved Disciple, was the one rejected by Sha’uwl and replaced by another of his choosing during the rebaptism. So I suspect that the reason Paul saw the Set-Apart Spirit as "annoying," is that She was opposed to everything he said and did.

This account gets stranger by the moment. Consider what Paul claimed next (as recorded in the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear and corrected by the Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains, once again in an effort to be as accurate as possible)...

"But (de) were attempting to put our hands on (epicheireo – with the assistance of anyone were trying to promote an undertaking upon) some (tines), and the (kai ton) circuitous wanderers (perierchomai – the traveling about and roving around) of the Judeans (Ioudaion – an errant transliteration of the Hebrew Yahuwdym, meaning Related to Yah), exorcists (exorkistes – those who drive out evil spirits; from exorkizo – to extract using an oath or force to adjure) to be known (onomazomai – to name or designate) for the (epi tous) possessing (echo – having and holding on to) the evil and annoying spirits (pneumata ta poneros – the worthless, morally corrupt, seriously faulty, toilsome, and wicked spirits) the name of (to onoma) the Lord (tou kuriou – the master who owns, controls, subjugates, and possesses (a Satanic title)) Iesou (Iesou – an errant misnomer without any semblance to Yahowsha’), saying (legontes) put under oath (horkizo – implore and swear) you the (umas ton) Iesoun (Iesoun) whom (on) Paulos (Paulos – of Latin derivation meaning Lowly and Little) announces (kerysso – preaches in his official capacity)." (Acts 19:13)

Recognizing that the Interlinear version, even amplified, is at best confusing, let’s consider the New American Standard Bible which claims to be literal: "But also some of the Jewish exorcists, who went from place to place, attempted to name over those who had the evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying ‘I adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preaches.’"

There is no discussion of exorcism in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, nor in the Talmud or the Oral Law of Yahuwdym, and there is no such thing as a Jewish exorcist. So this is a complete fabrication. More damning still, Paul, in his testimony to Luke actually admits the obvious: there is a difference between "the Iesous whom Paulos proclaimed" and the actual individual who was proclaimed by Yahowsha’s Disciples Yahowchanan and Shim’own.

While I cannot attest to the veracity of the following scholarship, I found it both credible and interesting relative to the origins of Sha’uwl’s Iesou. Since you may as well, in the Gospel History and Doctrinal Teaching Critically Examined by Arthur Dyott Thomson, which was written and published in London by Longmans, Green, and Company in 1873, under the heading "Derivation of the Name of Jesus," on page 247, we find:

"The whole system is developed in the Mithraic monuments, but it is only necessary to observe here that the seven fires, stars, or flames which are on the bas-reliefs which represent this myth, and which are always placed between the sun and the moon, refer to the Pleiades, which correspond to the constellation of the Bull.

When Christianity arose, the Jews had thronged Alexandria, and had acquired by means of bribes many of the privileges reserved to the companions of Alexander (Jos. Cont. Apion, 1. Ii. C. 4). The Ptolemies being patrons of literature and of science, learned men of all nations resorted to Alexandria, which soon became the theatre of religious disputes, and each party in turn appealed to the Egyptian monuments, on which the secretes of the mysteries were preserved in the symbolic characters. Contact with Paganism produced the same effect on the Jews as it had done previously when the Asmonean princes had been compelled to issue an edict forbidding the Jews to read Greek books. Sects were formed, the Jewish sacred books were translated, and commentaries were written upon them. The Caraites wished to keep to the literal meaning of the Scriptures, but the majority addicted themselves to the allegorical interpretation of them, and Aristobulus went so far as to write a commentary on the Mosaic text in favour of Ptolemy Philometer.

At this time some of the Alexandrian astrologers ascertained that it was the blood of Aries, not that of the Bull, to the commencement of which the Iesou corresponded in the zodiacs. Iesou in the sacred language signifies the divine power of the heavens, or the winter solstice, because it is at that period that the sun resumes his strength in order to return towards the north.... The Iesou, or winter solstice, always corresponded in the zodiacs to the first degree of Aries. This Iesou, which was symbolically represented by a child sucking its finger, was placed over the interval between Aries and Pisces, and as Virgo, the symbol of the summer solstice, had to come to the primitive Iesou, in order to determine when the reign of God should commence, by means of the precession of the equinoxes, this Iesou was called the sacred, or anointed one, which the Greeks have correctly translated Christos, but which does not in the least correspond to the Hebrew mashyach / Messiah....

The Alexandrian astrologers was the error into which the followers of Mithra had fallen, but either through ignorance or design the took Virgo, who marked the commencement of the year (Hor. Apollo, Hierog. Iii.), for the symbol of the vernal equinox, at which period the Alexandrine year used to commence. Thy announced, therefore, that the end of the world would take place when the vernal equinox corresponded to the star alpha of Pisces. In the mystic language they would have said: ‘The blood of the Ram has just been shed; the union of Virgo and Aries has just been brought aout; Virgo has just given birth to Aries; Virgo has just given birth to Iesou; Virgo has just crushed the head of the serpent [the spirit of death and darkness]; the reign of God is at hand.

We know that the names of Jesus, John, and Mary are found on the monuments long anterior to Christianity. On the Zodiac of Denderah the Celestial Virgin holding Horus, symbols which the Egyptians called Marim and Iesou in the mystic language, have been so mutilated by the Christians that only the heads of them remain. This was probably done because there were hieroglyphs which might have revealed the mystery. Iesu, that is, "the divine power of the world," was the sacred name of the Word, or Demiurgus, and was therefore easily confounded with the Iesou of the Zodiacs. The Iesu whom the Virgin carried in her arms was to be put to death at the end of the world, in order to rise again, or give place to another Iesu. This mystery is represented in the sanctuary of the temple of Hermonthis (see Atlas de la Commiss. D’Egypte, A, Vol. I.)."

Returning to the book which latched onto and promoted the myths ascribed to Iesou, we find the McReynolds Interlinear interpretation of the Nestle-Aland:

"But were of some, Skeva, a Jewish ruler priest, seven sons this doing." (Acts 19:14) From this, the New American Standard Bible published: "And seven sons of one Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this." Skeuas is of Latin origin, not Hebrew, and it means "mind reader." But that is not the worst of Paul’s misstatements. No "Jewish" priest, much less a high or chief priest, by that name, or any other name remotely akin to Skeva / Sceva, ever existed. Furthermore, there never were any "Jewish" high priests living in Ephesus. As such, this too is a complete fabrication – a fairytale – in the midst of the Christian New Testament.

"But having answered, the evil and annoying spirit said to them, ‘Indeed, Iesoun I know (ginosko) and this Paulon, I understand (epistamai), but who are you?’" (Acts 19:15) Here, the New American Standard Bible reports: "And the evil spirit answered and said to them, ‘I recognize Jesus, and I know about Paul, but who are you?"

According to Sha’uwl, Satan’s demon only "ginosko – recognized and was generally aware of" Yahowsha’, while said demon "epistamai – knew everything there was to know, was completely acquainted with and totally understood" Paul. An individual’s choice of words, especially when making a distinction, reveal so much about them. Such is the case with Sha’uwl, who like Satan, wants to be seen as having a higher status than God. And when we recognize that Sha’uwl fabricated this whole story for the express purpose of elevating his status and acclaim, it is especially devastating.

Not it appears as if spiritual beings have legs and are leapers, that they have dominion over the sons of imaginary "Jewish high priests," and that they have the power, authority, and inclination to disrobe and wound them... "And having leaped upon the man on them in whom there was the annoying and evil spirit, having dominion and mastered over, overpowering and lording over both (katakyrieuo amphoteroi – ruled over the two), was strong against them so that naked and having been wounded to flee out from that house." (Acts 19:16) This tall tale as chronicled in the NASB reads: "And the man in whom was the evil spirit leaped on them and subdued both of them and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded."

While we should not be surprised, the New American Standard Bible edited Paul’s testimony to correct an obvious contradiction. The seven sons became "amphoteroi – a total of exactly two," in the Greek text. Moreover, the point Paul is trying to make here is that Jews were incapable of doing what he did routinely. Paul claims to have influence over the demonic spirits which overpower and lord over Jews. And while there is no indication that demons plague Jews more than any other race, the reason they respond to Paul is because he was working for the Lord of Demons.

"So this became (ginomai) known (gnostos) to all Judeans both and Greeks, the ones residing in Ephesus. And pressing against, falling upon, and embracing fear and terror on (phobos epi) all of them. And was being made great the name of the Lord Iesou." (Acts 19:17) Or from the NASB: "And this became known to all, both Jews and Greeks, who lived in Ephesus; and fear fell upon them all and the name of the Lord Jesus was being magnified."

So that there is no confusion, here the verb is "ginomai – came to exist," and gnostos, the basis of Gnostic, was used as an adjective to convey "what is known and what can be known." Therefore, Sha’uwl was terrifying his audience by saying that those who rely on the testimony and ability of Jews will become demon possessed and it was only by believing him and his Lord that one could be saved from this horrible fate. And mind you, the Disciples Shim’own, Ya’aqob, and Yahowchanan were Yahuwdym. So this entire fabrication was conceived to make this point. It is not unlike a Christian threatening damnation and hell fire on those who don’t submit.

While the point has been made, and it’s obvious that Paul was the false, self-proclaimed, and dishonest apostle who Yahowsha’ warned us against in His letter to the Ephesians, there is a bit more to this incredulous story. "So many of those who believed (pisteuo) were coming, agreeing, consenting, confessing, and professing allegiance (exomologeomai – giving thanks and offering praise) and declaring their deeds (praxis – actions, functions, and practices)." (Acts 19:18)

Sha’uwl is therefore saying that he and his pals won, that the people of Ephesus believed him, consenting, confessing, and professing their allegiance en mass to him, praising and thanking the self-proclaimed apostles in opposition to Yahowsha’s Disciples.

Now that Sha’uwl has denounced and marginalized Yahowsha’s Disciples, starting a precedent that would haunt the world for centuries to come, the paranoid preacher promoted the burning of books.

"So enough (de hikanos) of the ones who were busybodies and meddlers with their superfluous, impertinent, and trifling information and interference (ton ta periergos – of the one who overstepped their authority and were fixated on the details, neglecting what actually matters, the ones intrigued by conspiracy theories while overemphasizing the satanic influences).

Having received and experienced (prasso), having gathered together (symphero) documents consisting of scrolls and books (biblos), burning them (katakaio) in front of everyone (enopion pas). And they calculated, computing (kai sympsephizo) a monetary values, price, and worth (time) of them and (autos kai) discovered (heuriskomai) fifty-thousand pieces of silver money (arguion myrias pente)." (Acts 19:19) Too bad they didn’t burn his letters instead.

While I don’t suspect that it can be proven, especially since there are no pronouns associated with the verbs or nouns in the first or second sentence, making it difficult to ascertain who was doing what to whom, based upon Yahowsha’s letter to the Ephesians regarding Sha’uwl and Sha’uwl’s testimony to Luke as it is recorded here in Acts, the scrolls and books which were burned were most likely comprised of the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms along with the eyewitness accounts of Yahowsha’s words and deeds as they were recorded in Mattanyah and Yahowchanan. They were in irreconcilable conflict with Paul’s message and they proved that he was lying. And with Paul now providing the sermons, scripture, sacrifice, and salvation, there was no room or need for anyone or anything else.

Burning books shortchanges knowledge and impoverishes us. It seldom if ever produces anything of value, especially money. And by putting this in a favorable light, the founder of the Christian religion legitimized a horrid practice. By way of example, rather than burning Qur’ans, I collected them, studied them, and then in light of what I learned from the Islamic Sirah / Biography, Tarikh / History, and Hadith / Oral Reports I was able to help many Muslims the world over reject their overtly Satanic religion.

And while Paul’s message is as incomprehensible and incomplete as ever, there are some things we can reasonably discern. For example, with periergos, which in the plural speaks of those who "overstep their authority, who are overly fixated on the details while neglecting what actually matters, the ones intrigued by conspiracy theories while overemphasizing satanic influences," and thus from Paul’s perspective: "irrelevant and superfluous meddlers interfering" in his affairs while "fussing over other people’s business in a disrespectful and unnecessary way." So Sha’uwl is taking one last swipe at Yahowsha’s Disciples, the men and message he went to Ephesus to refute and repress. Insecure men are not only intolerant of rivals, real or imagined, they are compelled to tear them down, trashing their reputations. Paul would never forgive them for not endorsing his message nor respecting his dominion over the Greek and Roman world.

In that this will become especially relevant in a moment, it is helpful to know that periergos is a compound of peri, which "expresses concern about an act while noting the point from which it proceeds," and ergon, the Greek word for "works, speaking of actions, attempts, and undertakings. Paul uses ergon repeatedly to besmirch God’s Word, saying that no one can be saved by "ergon nomos – works of the Torah." So he is trying to smear Yahowsha’s Disciples and Yahowah’s Towrah with the same brush.

Also relevant to our understanding of what and whom Paul wanted eliminated from consideration, this tormented troubadour deployed periergos a second time in his letter to Timothy, the only other occasion it appears in the Christian New Testament, and in that context, he defined it for us:

"But (de) at the same time (hama) also (kai), they learned (manthano – they came to realize) that these thoughtless and useless ones (argos – the inconsiderate and indifferent) were going around to the houses (perierchomai tas oikias), not alone (ou monon), but the thoughtless and useless ones (de argos) to the contrary (alla) were foolish gossips and babblers, disrespectful tattlers uttering vain and stupid things (phluaros – snitches rambling on with condescending hearsay) and also (kai) overstepping their bounds with their superfluous and trifling interference (periergos – busybodies and meddlers overdoing it, fixated on the details and neglecting what actually matters while intrigued by conspiracy theories and overemphasizing the occult) speaking that which (laleo ta) was not necessary or beneficial (me dei – not binding or propper)." (1Timothy 5:13)

While Paul was actually demeaning women in this portion of his letter to his lover, Timothy, he left no doubt as to the meaning of periergos. And considering the fact that he applied all of its decidedly negative connotations to Yahowsha’s Disciples, Sha’uwl indirectly revealed that they were trying to rein him in, to contest his appeal, to emphasize what really matters, while exposing the Satanic overtures found throughout Paul’s preaching.

Recognizing that what Paul was devastating for their business, the authors of the New American Standard Bible took great liberty with their rendering of the Greek. "And many of those who practiced magic brought their books together and began burning them in the sight of all; and they counted up the price of them and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver."

The etymology of periegos does not support the "practicing magic" rendering found in the NASB, nor in any other popular translation. But desperate to justify Paul’s decision to burn books, simply calling them "gossipy" or "meddlesome" was woefully insufficient. So it was Paul’s unjustifiable decision which led to the unjustifiable definition.

That is not to say that you won’t find "magic" buried in the definitions of periergos in the lexicons compiled by Christian publishers. It is there to make the founder of their religion appear sane. In affirmation of this, when the same word appears in the same author’s letter to Timothy, there is no reference to magic in any popular bible translation, including the NASB, KJV, NIV, or NLT.

Based upon this testimony, no informed or rational person would refute the fact that the individual Yahowsha’ referred to as a wolf in sheep’s clothing during His first public declaration is the same individual he has called a false apostle and deceitful liar in His final public statement. Remember, He said:

"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). 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 2:2-3)

So now that we have matched the crime with the perpetrator, the only unresolved issue is whether Paul had accomplices working with him in Ephesus so as to justify the plural deployment of apostolous. And that issue is resolved by Paul, himself, later in this same chapter of Acts, because he admits to returning to Ephesus with Gaius and Aristarchus to meet Timothy and Erastus in order to resolve a controversy. Incriminating himself further, Paul bragged, "I have fought with beasts at Ephesus," in 1 Colossians 15:32.

And then in 1 Timothy 1:3, Paul told Timothy to remain in Ephesus, as an legitimate agent of his apostleship, to issue a command prohibiting the presentation of any doctrine different than his own. That letter begins so presumptuously and inaccurately, I thought I’d share it with you. It is particularly germane because Paul not only claims to be an apostle, he admits to trying to influence the Ephesians by his deputy, Timothy, making him the accomplice Yahowsha’ was referencing. It is a very short list of men who made these claims in this place at this time. And none were as famous, influential, argumentative, or deceitful as Sha’uwl and Timothy.

Once again, to make quick work of this, I’ll be citing the McReynolds English Interlinear due to its association with the Nestle-Aland, correcting it only when a name as it is presented in the text is altered or its rendering veers away from a word’s primary connotation.

"Paulos (Paulos), Apostle (Apostolos) of Christou Iesou (Christou Iesou) by mandate, command, and direct order (epitage – ordinance and authority) of God (theou), deliverer (soter – rescuer) of us (emon), and (kai) Christou Iesou (Christou Iesou), the hope of us (tes elpis emon), (1:1) to Timothy (Timotheo – meaning Putting a Price on God; from time – determining and establishing the price and theos – god), genuine and legitimate (gnesios – lawful, true, sincere, and loyal) child (teknon) in (en) faith (pistis – belief), grace (charis – the name of the Greek goddesses of charity, licentiousness, and merriment, known as the Gratia in Rome, and thus the Graces), mercy (eleos), peace (eirene) from (apo – speaking of separation, departing, and fleeing) god (theou), father (patros), and Christou Iesou (Christou Iesou), the Lord (tou kuriou – the master who subjugates and controls, possesses and lords over, and owner) of us (emon). (1:2)

Accordingly (kathos – in as much as) I pleaded (parakaleo – I begged) with you (se) to remain longer (prosmeno – to stay on and continue) in Ephesus (en Ephesos) [while I was] traveling (poreumai – proceeding) to Macedonia (eis Makedonin) in order that (hina) you might command (parangello – you may order and instruct) certain individuals (tisin – those considered important and everyone else) not to teach a different doctrine (me heterodidaskaleo – not to teach heresy)..." (1 Timothy 1:1-3)

Confessing to the crime Yahowsha’ told Yahowchanan had been committed, Paul admitted that Ephesus was the primary battleground in his war against Yahowah’s Torah (and its Covenant genealogies) and Yahowsha’s Disciples. Having fought for years against both, he would deploy every resource to keep his adversaries at bay.

Now seeking to undermine the Torah with its long genealogies whereby the beneficiaries of the Covenant are documented, Paul writes: "...nor (mede – neither) carefully consider (prosecho – turn to or give oneself over to) myths and fables (mythos – tales and legends) or (kai) endless genealogies (aperantos genealogia – unlimited family lineages), or whatever (hostis) worthless speculation and aimless arguments (ekzetesis – questioning and debate, imagined controversy, or idle disputes; from ek – from and zeteo – seeking, thinking, and reasoning) they maintain (parecho – they hold and cling to), instead of (mallon), as the alternative (e – it is better), the administration (oikonomia – the management, trusteeship, and stewardship of the household affairs and oversight) of god (theou) in the faith (ten en pistis – according to the belief system)." (1 Timothy 1:4)

Since we know from the historical accounts published by Luke in Acts that Paul was targeting Yahowsha’s Disciples, it’s their presentation of Yahowsha’s words and deeds, especially as they were explained and foretold in the Torah and Prophets, which represents the "myths, fables, endless genealogies, and worthless speculations" that Paul wanted Timothy to curtail and condemn. In their place he wanted the alternative: "the administration of god in the faith." He is thereby advocating his new religion, prioritizing it over following Yahowsha’s example, above Yahowah’s teaching, over the Disciple’s witness, above the Covenant, and over the Word of God. He was now "managing" God, just as Christians have done throughout the ages. In this regard, Paul was also demanding that "pistis – faith" in his "oikonomia theou – oversight and stewardship of the affairs of God" take precedence over "ekzetesis – seeking knowledge, thinking, and reasoning."

It was a religious trifecta: God’s testimony was suppressed, religion trumped God, and evidence and reason were now foes. Is it any wonder Yahowah and Yahowsha’ expressly condemned this man and his message?

According to Paul, his flock can dispense with the Torah, because all you need is love and a clean heart. And sadly, to their own demise, Christians the world over, believe him. "So (de) the end (to telos – the result and entirety) of the command (tes paragelia – of the proclamation, announcement, order, or instruction) is (estin – exists as) love (agape) from (ek) a clean (katharos) heart (kardias), (kai) a good conscience (agathos syneidesis – a moral awareness, worthy psychology, or useful sensitivity), and (kai) non-hypocritical and unquestioning faith (anypokritos pisteos – sincere and genuine belief; from a – not as a form of negation and hupokrinomai – accepting another’s statements based upon what they have decided for themselves)...," (1 Timothy 1:5)

The Towrah never speaks of having a "clean heart," so Paul’s claim that it is the "end and result of the command" cannot be true. The only place we find a reference to a "leb tahowr – clean heart" in the totality of God’s Word is in Psalm 51:12, where the entire Mizmowr / Song is devoted to asking Yahowah to cleanse and perfect every aspect of our nature of corruption. It speaks of "bones rejoicing" and "lips singing" but they didn’t make Paul’s list.

Since we can always learn something from the Architect of life, let’s read what Yahowah inspired Dowd / David to write. And while we are at it, see if you can condense these six stanzas of his song, much less the entirety of the Torah and Prophets into a trio of platitudes.

"Hide (cathar – conceal) Your face (paneh – Your appearance and presence) from (min) my sin (chet’ – guilt for having gone astray), and all of (wa kol) my corruption (‘awon – wrongdoing, distortions, and perversions) blot out and destroy (machah – wash off and wipe away so that they no longer exist and are no longer known). (11)

Create (bara’) for me to approach (la), O God (‘elohym), a clean (tahowr) heart (leb), with (wa) the Spirit (ruwach) established and renewing (kuwn chadash – preparing, supporting, restoring, and reaffirming) in my inner nature (ba qereb – in my midst). (12)

Please do not cast me away from (‘al shalak min la) Your presence (paneh), and therefore (wa) the Set-Apart Spirit (ruwach qodesh) do not take away (laqach) from me (min). (13)

I want to be restored (suwb la – please return me) to the joy (sasown – happiness) of Your salvation (yasha’), and so with (wa) the Spirit (ruwach) who is worthy of respect (nadybah – who is willing and generous) sustain and uphold me (camak). (14)

I will choose to consistently teach (lamad) the rebellious (pasha’ – those who transgress by stepping away) Your ways (derek – Your path through life) and (wa) sinners (chata’ – those who miss the way) will return to You (‘el shuwb – will change their mind, attitude, and direction regarding You, God). (15)

Deliver me (natsal – save me) from dying dumb (min damym – from being cut off, silenced, unable to respond, and destroyed (note: damym is from damam)), O God (‘elohym), the God (‘elohym) of my salvation (tashuwa’ah – of my deliverance). My tongue (lashown) will sing for joy (ranan) of Your righteous vindication (tsadaqah – of Your justice which exonerates and establishes upright)." (Mizmowr / Song / Psalm 51:11-16)

While we could linger here and immerse ourselves in the beauty and merit of these lyrics, alas, since our mission is to question Paul, let’s return to his summation of "tes paragelia – the command." And in this regard, while we are encouraged to use our "nesamah – conscience" to distinguish between truth and lies, having "agathos syneidesis – a moral awareness" is going to preclude an informed and rational individual from embracing Pauline Doctrine.

The last of Paul’s triumphant trio of virtues is a bit of an odd duck. Since "faith" fills the void when we do not understand, how can it be "genuine?" Since "believing" is the result of not knowing, how can it be "sincere and non-hypocritical?" Therefore, it is only by searching anypokritos’ etymological roots that we can make any sense of this. As a compound of "a – do not" and "hupokrinomai – accept another’s statements based upon what they have decided for themselves," we have Paul suggesting that the virtuous reject the testimony of those who opposed his mantra. And in this regard, "unquestioning faith" may be the most accurate rendering of Sha’uwl’s inaccurate and unsupported conclusion.

But I must ask: if the following is true, why was Paul the antithesis of what he claimed was virtuous? "So the end and result of the command and proclamation is love from a clean heart, a good conscience with moral awareness, worthy psychology, or useful sensitivity, and unquestioning faith,..." Why was Sha’uwl so argumentative, condemning everyone who didn’t capitulate, and why was he deliberately duplicitous, if all that matters is a loving and pure heart?

If that was the case, why wasn’t Yahowsha’ loving, even nice, when he lashed out so viciously at most all of those who opposed Him? By Paul’s standard, Yahowsha’ should be condemned.

Mind you, Yahowah does not agree with Sha’uwl either. According to God, those who ignore His seven annual invitations to meet with Him, either die with their souls ceasing to exist, or they are eternally separated from Him in She’owl.

If a clean heart, good conscience, and unquestioning faith were all that was required for salvation, Paul’s claim that some deviated and strayed based upon idle discussions would be impossible, because evidence and reason are irrelevant to feelings and faith.

"...of which (on tines), some deviated and erred (astocheo – abandoned these goals, wandering away and deviating from the proper aim). They were disabled through avoidance (ektrepomai – they strayed, turning aside, and were becoming dislocated) by (eis) meaningless conversations (mataiologia – idle and empty talk, senseless and vain words). (1:6)

Deciding and desirous of (thelo – proposing, wanting, and enjoying, even delighting in) being (einai – of presently and actively existing as) teachers of the Towrah (nomodidaskalos – a compound of nomos – an allotment for an inheritance (the Greek substitute for towrah throughout the Septuagint) and didaskalos – teacher), not ever giving though or understanding (me voeo – not considering, comprehending, or recognizing), neither (mete) what they say (a lego) nor (mete) concerned about (peri) what they state with such confidence (tinon diabebaioomai – what they insist upon, maintain, and proclaim so assuredly)." (1 Timothy 1:7)

No matter where one turns in Paul’s writings, the argument is most always the same. It is Paul’s teachings against the Towrah’s teachings. And yet Paul wants everyone to believe that the God of the Towrah chose him, a rude, arrogant, often enraged, murderous, perverted, anti-Semitic, always duplicitous, and usually disingenuous man to undermine and contradict everything He had said and promised. And let’s not mince words: Paul is accusing Yahowsha’s Disciples, and notably Shim’own and Yahowchanan in Ephesus, of "thoughtlessly teaching the Torah without considering or comprehending it."

Since the God Sha’uwl claims authorized his mission also authored the Torah, how can that Torah only be good under the conditions he imposes on it. But before you answer that question, and before I attempt a translation of what appears to be a nearly incomprehensible string of words, let’s use the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds Interlinear as our guide: "We know but that good the law if some it lawfully might use (8) knowing this that to right law not is set to lawless but and unsubmitting irreverent and sinners unholy ones and desecrators, father killers, mother killers, men murderers, (9) sexually immoral ones, male bed partners, man trappers, liars, perjurers, and if some other in the being healthy teaching lies against (10) by the good message of the splendor of the fortunate God which was trusted I." (11)