Questioning Paul
Chapter 5
part 6
Now if I may, please note that what you are about to read is not only untrue, it is insane. But nonetheless, this is what Sha’uwl wrote to Timothy in support of his open war against Yahowah’s Towrah and those who observe it and teach it. When I consider the words Sha’uwl claimed were inspired by God, it is hard to fathom how someone this irrational, this jaundiced, this pathetically hostile to Yahowah’s testimony and teaching found one person to believe him, much less billions. He and his message are beyond reprehensible. This is repulsive...
"But (de) we have come to be somewhat aware (oida – we previously acknowledged, albeit vaguely, the possibility (representing the weakest form of knowing in Greek which was further weakened by the indicative mood and then put into the past by the perfect tense)) that (oti) good (kalos – moral and advantageous, sound and fit) the Towrah (o nomos – the nourishing allotment which provides an inheritance (nomos is universally used in the Greek Septuagint rendering of the Hebrew Towrah to translate towrah)) if conditionally (ean – if ever with the implication of a reduced probability) someone (tis – an individual) might deal with it (chraomai auto – might possibly treat it a certain way, perhaps currently and passively using it (present passive subjunctive)) correctly in accordance to the rules (nomimos – properly). (8)
Having realized this (oida touto – having become aware of this (perfect active participle)), that (oti – because) the Towrah (nomos) is not in place (keitai – is not appointed, set, or situated) for the righteous (dikaios – the upright or innocent) but for the Towrahless (de anomos – those without an allocation or an inheritance, for those without the Towrah), (kai) for the disobedient who are not subject to religious beliefs (anypotaktos asebes – the independent, uncontrollable, and insubordinate, who are not subdued, refusing to worship, lacking regard for religious practices), (kai) for unholy sinners (anosios – unreligious and not obedient outcasts who are mistaken), (kai) the who are accessible and open-minded (bebelos – the approachable and receptive who are irreligious and worldly willing to step up and walk across the threshold) who kill their own fathers (patroloas) and (kai) for murders their mothers (metroloas), those slaughtering mankind (androphonos – slaying humankind), (9)
...for the sexually immoral and perverted (pornos – fornicators and marketers), homosexual pedophiles and sodomites (arsenokoites), slave traders and kidnappers (andrapodistes), liars (pseustes), perjurers (epiorkos – who provide false witness), and also (kia) if (ei) some other, different, or alternative (ti eteron) thing be opposed to (antikeimai – thing hostile and adversarial to) the accurate (te hygiaino – the sound) doctrine (didaskalia – teaching and instruction) (10) in accord with (kata) the beneficial message (to euangelion – the healing messenger) of the brilliant and glorious (tes doxa – the great and mighty), the blessed and fortunate (makarios – the blissful and lucky) god (theou) which (o) was entrusted to me (pisteuo – have faith place in me (aorist passive indicative first person singular)), myself (ego – I (scribed in the nominative, thereby renaming the subject, which in this sentence was the lucky god))." (1 Timothy 1:8-11)
While they have mistranslated nomos as "law," and feature some antiquated phrasing, the King James Version proudly presents Sha’uwl’s ungodly rant just as the wannabe apostle intended: "But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; (8) knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, (9) for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; (10) according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust." (11)
Collectively, Paul and Timothy "have become aware that good the Towrah," but only "if as a condition someone deals with it in accordance with the rules." But those rules aren’t found in the Towrah, because on Paul’s planet the Torah is for those without the Torah. Of course, that means that the Torah can’t be for anyone because the moment those without the Torah grasp hold of it, they would cease to be Torahless, thereby disqualifying themselves. Paul may have been schooled in religion, but not in logic.
Also according to Paul, as professed at the end of this rant, everything regarding God has been entrusted to him. So therefore, his "blissful god is fortunate, even blessed," to have someone with Paul’s credentials conveying this healing message. But it does cause one to wonder why God bothered providing humankind with His Torah and Prophets, especially now that they have been replaced by Paul’s letters. I mean it has to be embarrassing for God to have failed so miserably, only to have to rely on this man fix all of the problems He couldn’t resolve. And it’s either that, or someone was lying.
If you are prone to ignorant and irrational rants, Sha’uwl has reinforced the central plank of his argument against the Towrah by stating: "the Towrah is not in place, appointed, nor suited for the righteous, upright, or good." It is a backhanded way of saying "the Torah cannot save" – which was the primary premise of his Galatians letter. But here he takes this point way beyond incapability to corruptibility. From Paul’s perspective, one he initially articulated in his letter to the Romans, the Towrah, rather than discouraging bad behavior, actually encourages it. And while I suppose that reflects Satan’s view, because it most certainly isn’t God’s.
I do find Sha’uwl’s listing of Torah-prone behaviors, revealing. The Torah does not ask us to obey anything or anyone, and in fact there is no Hebrew for obey, completely eliminating this possibility. And yet the first thing Sha’uwl says of those who prefer God’s instruction to his own, is that they are "anypotaktos – disobedient." That can only mean that Sha’uwl is demanding obedience, which is to say that he is now reflecting his Lord’s persona.
Claiming to free souls from having to be obedient to a set of arcane laws by way of faith in the Gospel of Grace, Pauline Christianity takes its devotees in the opposite direction. While Yahowah’s Towrah liberates, Paul’s religion calls for obedience, while denouncing those who do not readily comply.
Those who are anypotaktos reject religious beliefs and are averse to worshiping their gods, just as the Towrah implores. Therefore, once again we see Paul demeaning what Yahowah encourages. Their messages are the antithesis of one another. Similarly, while lords and their political institutions subordinate and subjugate in a quest to control, our Heavenly Father’s Covenant resolves these human tendencies. Further
Asebes, the second supposedly unsavory term on the Pauline list of despicable behaviors is defined as "an aversion to religious beliefs and practices." And while Paul considers this to be "ungodly and irreverent," even "wicked," Yahowah is overtly opposed to all aspects of religion and views our willingness to walk away from such beliefs and practices as being godly and reverent. Once again, God loves what Paul hates.
Not that it was Sha’uwl’s intent, but the Towrah is for "anosios – unholy sinners," for "societal outcasts," the "disobedient," and "the unreligious." Yahowah’s guidance was specifically designed to save sinners who by disobeying religious and political edits become societal outcasts." It is these souls who are invited into His home.
Likewise, Yahowah’s Towrah Teaching only appeals to those who are "bebelos – open-minded and accessible." Those interested in approaching God along the path that He has provided, those who are receptive to and respond to His invitations to meet with Him, are saved. Interesting in this regard is that bebelos literally speaks of "being willing to step up and walk across a threshold," and therefore expresses a willingness to approach God by walking through Passover’s life-giving door and across the redemptive threshold of Un-Yeasted Bread which collectively prepare us for adoption into the Covenant family.
The fourth item on Paul’s list, "patroloas – father killers," is a twist on the Second of the Three Statements Yahowah etched on the First of Two Tablets, where God told us that that one of the reasons that He is opposed to religion is that by twisting His testimony fathers corrupt their own children, and their children’s children, precluding their salvation. And then when we add "metroloas – mother murderers" to the list, we have an upheaval of the Second of Seven Instructions Yahowah etched on the Second of the Two Tablets whereby God encouraged us to value our Heavenly Father and Spiritual Mother. And by embracing the Towrah we demonstrate our respect for God in this way.
The Third of Seven Instructions listed in the Towrah asks us not to make a habit of killing, and yet Sha’uwl would like his religious, and thus ignorant and irrational, audience to believe, that the Towrah inspires killing. It is ironic, without the Towrah, all men and women die, their souls ceasing to exist. But with the Towrah, a way is provided to life eternal. It is the path Yahowsha’ followed; His very purpose.
Beyond discouraging incest, homosexuality, bestiality, and especially adultery, the Towrah has very little to say about human sexuality. It is Sha’uwl, not Yahowah, who is fixated on "pornos – fornication." And while homosexual pedophilia made Paul’s list, it is interesting that he omitted adultery, the lone sexual act to make it onto Yahowah’s top ten list. And of course it is telling that Paul’s lone love was the boy to whom this letter was written.
Kidnapping and slave trading are forms of theft, and are thus opposed by God. In fact, for the victims of such crimes, He has a remedy – one known to those who read the central book of the Towrah and consider the purpose of the Yowbel. And even in the First Statement Yahowah etched in stone, God states that His purpose is to free us from slavery. Therefore, here again we find Yahowah and Sha’uwl at cross purposes.
The same thing can be said of "pseustes – liars" and "epiorkos – perjurers," in that both behaviors are discouraged by the same Instruction: "You should not make a habit of being a false witness." So there is no affinity between the Towrah and lying.
And then there was the broad net, the catchall phrase: "and also if some other, different, or alternative thing be opposed to the accurate doctrine in accordance with the beneficial message...entrusted to me." Anything in opposition to Pauline Doctrine was thereby defined as a crime akin to murder. And that is perhaps why the Roman Catholic Church for better part of a thousand years exterminated everyone who wouldn’t capitulate.
The idea that God would cease to speak for Himself through His Towrah and Prophets, would repudiate that testimony, would abdicate the thing He was best at doing, to hand the single most important job in the universe to a stunningly flawed, admittedly insane and demon-possessed individual who was an abject failure at rational communication, is ludicrous. And here, Paul wasn’t just claiming the world apart from Yisra’el for himself, he was claiming that "the beneficial message...of god was entrusted to him." So why did Yahowah bother with Yahowsha’? Why did Yahowsha’ select and train twelve Disciples? Why was Yahowsha’s and Paul’s message so different? How can Paul’s god be trusted if his previous attempt to deal with humankind was a complete failure?
This statement from Paul to Timothy highlights the place that these wannabe apostles differed most from Yahowah and Yahowsha’. The humans positioned God’s Torah as a set of laws which condemned mankind. God, however, presents His Towrah as a set of instructions which guide His children toward a relationship with Him so that by way of its promises, He can save His children, empower, and enrich them. Since it is His Towrah, and since Yahowah and Yahowsha’ are of like mind on its merit and purpose, who do you suppose is right?
It is God’s position that His Towrah guides individuals who are seriously flawed, directing them to the provisions He has provided to make His Covenant children righteous. Therefore, His Towrah is the only book for righteous individuals, because it was written expressly written to teach imperfect men and women how to become perfect, and thus vindicated and innocent. But Sha’uwl wants to associate the Towrah, not with divine righteousness, but instead with the worst of human behavior.
Since God says that there is one Towah for everyone, that its purpose is to make men righteous, that it is guidance to be followed not laws to be obeyed, that it makes us Godly by curing us of our sin, and that it clearly instructs us not to murder, methinks Paul is completely wrong. But nonetheless, since Paul despised those who were Torah observant, he continued to equate the Torah with the very things it opposed.
Those trying to exonerate Paul, might protest, saying that the Torah isn’t needed by righteous men because they are already perfect, and that Paul was actually suggesting instead that it was designed for faulty individuals. Put such justifications are absurd. First, there is no mention of "righteous men." Paul wrote "to righteousness the Torah is not appointed," which is to say that, according to Paul, it isn’t the Torah’s purpose to perfect us.
Second, since the only means to righteousness is by observing the Torah’s instructions, the Torah is the one and only book every righteous man and woman has in common. Third, while the Torah can save a disobedient sinner, even a murderer, fornicator, homosexual, and lying slave trader, if these behaviors define an individual, as they are presented here, then such people would be adverse to the Torah because it is adverse to these behaviors.
Fourth, this ridiculous justification requires us to ignore everything Paul has written up to this point and to believe that the Torah he has been assailing is actually the means to salvation when in fact he had made the exact opposite claim. And fifth, Paul just told Timothy that "accurate instruction and beneficial doctrine is opposed to it," with "it," representing the "Towrah."
Paul is so consistently arrogant, disingenuous, and duplicitous, I am seldom surprised by anything he says. But on occasion, something he writes is so evil it takes my breath away. Such is the case with his concluding line, where he infers that God is somehow "blessed and happier, blissful, fortunate, and lucky" to have him on the job. Sha’uwl not only claims that his convoluted and contradictory diatribe is "hygiaino – accurate," even that he was a "euangelion – good, healing, and beneficial messenger," but that God’s primary purpose, which is to relate and communicate with humankind, was in Paul’s voice: "pisteuo ego – entrusted to me." The God Paul claimed was impotent and could not save anyone was now moot. Paul would do the talking and saving from now on.
Sha’uwl no doubt realized that his Lord, especially with the godlike mystique he invented for him, was pleased. As a result, he would be less tormented by his goad. And also he no doubt believed that his new and improved message was would be much more popular that his adversary’s, ultimately making Paul the most influential individual in human history.
But I’ve had enough of him. So now that I’ve have demonstrated that Paul and Timothy were the deceitful apostles immortalized in Revelation, let’s turn the page and press on. We still have a lot of nasty ground to cover.
Since we have not yet dealt with the fourth chapter of Galatians, and Paul’s "Two Covenant Theory," had we not considered Paul’s testimony in Acts and First Timothy, you might have been left wondering what it was about this man that caused Yahowah and Yahowsha’ to be so adverse to him. After all, he was just one guy sharing his opinion. But there was there more to Paul than this.
Returning to the portion of the book of Acts that we considered briefly in the first chapter, we discover that Paul deliberately put a pagan proverb into his god’s mouth in the third of his three depictions of his "lightning" conversion experience. In Acts 26:14, with Sha’uwl defending himself before King Agrippa, we read:
"And everyone (te pas) of us (emon) having fallen down (katapipto – having descended from one level to another, lower one) to the earth (eis ten ge), I heard (akouo – I paid attention, listening, comprehending, and obeying) a voice (phone – a sound, crying out) saying to me (lego pros ego – speaking according to me) in the (te) Hebrew (Hebrais) language (dialektos), ‘Sha’uwl, Sha’uwl (Saoul, Saoul – a transliteration of the Hebrew name, Sha’uwl, meaning "Question Him," a designation synonymous with She’owl – the pit of the dead), Why (tis) are you actually pursuing me (dioko me – are you following me, really striving with such intense effort to reach me, hastening and zealously running toward me)? It’s hard (skleros – it’s demanding and difficult, even rough, harsh, violent, and cruel, especially offensive and intolerable) for you (soi) to resist (laktizo – to kick, to strike with the heel) against (pros) the goad (kentron – a pointed sharp stick used to prick and prod and thus control animals featuring the stinger of a deadly scorpion with the power to ruin and kill, making resistance vain or perilous)." (Acts 26:14)
While it is absurd to suggest that Yahowsha’ would choose to say "difficult for you to kick against or resist a goad stinger" on this occasion, if those who are prone to give credence to Paul’s claim of a godly encounter do a little homework, they will discover that this citation was actually derived from pagan literature. You’ll find the phrase cited on line 790 of Euripides’s play, The Bacchae, where "kicking against the goad" was used to describe the consequence of trying to resist Bacchus or Dionysus (the Roman and Greek god who was considered the son of the sun). Rebelling against popular religious beliefs is difficult because the prevailing religious establishment is typically hostile to a person’s refusal to worship their god or gods. This insight from Euripides’, therefore, became a common Greek idiom.
The Bacchae was named after Bacchus’ maenads—or female followers. Euripides’ story pictures the pagan god intoxicating those who believe him. In that the play was written centuries after the Towrah, the faithful are shown striking rocks in Mosaic fashion with Dionysus’ staff, such that water and wine gushed forth from the earth. Honey trickles down from this thyrsus, just as manna came down from heaven. In Euripides’ play, the maenads had King Pentheus cousin betray him, luring the king into the woods so they could murder him, literally tearing him apart, after he banned the worship of Dionysus. It was all reminiscent of the Babylonian Tammuz, for whom Christmas, Lent, Easter, Sunday Worship, and the Christian cross first originated.
So, we are left with three less-than-ideal choices: 1) Yahowsha’ revealed Himself to Sha’uwl in the same way He witnessed Satan falling from heaven and then cited a pagan proverb because He couldn’t think of anything better to say. 2) Satan revealed himself to Sha’uwl in his natural form and quoted a pagan proverb from Dionysius because there was no better counterfeit upon which to base Pauline Doctrine or the religion of Christianity. 3) Paul was struck by lightning and made up the rest of the story, citing the line from The Bacchae because he thought that King Agrippa would be impressed by his grasp of Greek and Roman literature. Paul may also have hoped that King Agrippa would equate the Pauline god with Dionysius or Bacchus, with whom he would have been familiar.
Dionysius (known as Bacchus in Roman mythology, Osiris in Egypt, and Tammuz in Babylon) was chosen by Sha’uwl (or Satan) as a model for his god, it is because the Son of the Sun in pagan literature provided the closest Greek and Roman counterfeit of Yahowsha’. As the most recent of the twelve Olympian gods, Dionysius represented change: a new and different kind relationship with the gods. And unlike the vengeful gods of old, Dionysius was fun, even forgiving—foreshadowing the Christian distinction between Yahowah and Yahowsha’. Very few, if any, religions have created their gods out of whole cloth, but have instead woven the strands of earlier tapestries into their own. The names and locals tend to change, but not much else.
Dionysius was considered an "epiphany – the manifestation of god who mysteriously arrives on the scene to occasionally interact with humankind." His appearance was said to illuminate his followers and change the meaning and essential nature of what had come before—in perfect harmony with Pauline Doctrine. Even today, January 6th is observed as the Epiphany, commemorating the Magi, or Gentile recognition of god’s appearance in keeping with the Dionysian Mysteries. And considering Paul’s affinity for being both a divine messenger to be heeded and a divine example to be emulated, Dionysus’s constant companion was Hermes—the messenger of the gods.
Just as blood is represented by wine in the Torah, and therefore became associated with Yahowsha’s fulfillment of Passover, Dionysius was the god of wine. Just as Yahowsha’ had a divine father (Yahowah) and a mortal virgin mother (Mary), Dionysius had a divine father (Zeus (the father of the gods)) and a mortal virgin mother (Semele). Just as Yahowsha’s Heavenly Father told Yowceph to carry the newborn child to Egypt, as soon as Dionysus was born, Zeus carried him away to Egypt to protect him from the envy of rival gods. And up to this point, these traits associated with Dionysus came long after they were predicted of Yahowsha’ in Yahowah’s Towrah.
But now as we press forward, deeper into the mythology, we find that the following aspects of the pagan god’s existence foreshadowed their adaptation into Christianity. By his death and resurrection, Dionysius was responsible for liberating his believers and thereby providing the faithful with eternal salvation, in complete harmony with being saved by way of faith in Paul’s Gospel. So Dionysius was not only killed and then resurrected each spring; his holy week mirrors the week-long Christian observance of Easter. The annual resurrection of Dionysius, on the Sunday closest to the Vernal Equinox, celebrated the promise of resurrection from the dead. As such, Dionysius, and thus Bacchus, was known as the "Eleutherios – Liberator," mirroring the central thrust of Paul’s letters where "believers were freed from being slaves to the Law." The very mission of Dionysus was to bring an end to burdens and worries. According to Greek mythology, Dionysus was the first to open communications between the living and the dead, paving the way for prayers to Mary and the Christian saints. Even the Roman Catholic Eucharist myth of transubstantiation, where priests allegedly turn wine into blood, was first practiced in the Dionysian religion.
Dionysus was a hermaphrodite, blurring the lines between male and female, and thus contributed to the corruption of Yahowah’s Covenant symbols of father and mother, husband and wife. And he was sexually confused, as was Sha’uwl.
Known as the god who inspired religious rituals, Dionysius’ holy week was celebrated over the course of five days each Spring. And it was the Dionysia which set the stage for the Christian replacement of Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits, with Palm Sunday ("Passion Sunday"), Maundy Thursday ("institution of Communion"), Good Friday ("death and burial of Jesus Christ"), Holy Saturday (where "Jesus rested in the grave"), and Easter Sunday occurring during the last week of the Babylonian festival of Lent.
Just as the Christian "Jesus Christ" is bereft of his Hebrew heritage, Dionysus was considered an alien among the gods—distanced from his Olympian birth. And consistent with the Lord Ba’al manifestation of Satan, the bull, satyrs, and the serpent became the enduring symbols of the Dionysian religion. He is often shown as a mighty hunter, wearing leopard skin, and standing in a chariot drawn by black panthers—all of which is symbolic of Nimrod, the father of the Babylonian religion. The thyrsus staff he is often depicted holding is distinguished by the adornment of a large pinecone—a phallic symbol representing "coming forth from the seed," and thereby foreshadowing Paul’s animosity to circumcision and his devotion to the seed of Abraham. By way of this "seed" the uninitiated were miraculously purified and enabled to dwell with the gods so long as they believed the words of his messengers.
Especially troubling, considering Sha’uwl’s affinity of the Greek Charis and Roman Gratia, Dionysus was their father. They were the "love children" of his affair with Aphrodite—the goddess of love.
Two-hundred and fifty years before Sha’uwl associated Dionysus’ testimony with his conversion experience, Greeks living in what is now southern Italy, as born-again maenads, began celebrating the Bacchanalia, a drunken festival replete with grotesque debaucheries in which the faithful rebelled against all forms of authority, foreshadowing the Catholic celebration of Mardi Gras.
And troubling as all of this is to the credibility of the Christian religion, there is more to the Dionysus line than first meets the eye. Satan used it to warn Sha’uwl that he would not be able to rebel against him. The Adversary had a way of controlling the man. Paul’s ego would be his vulnerability, and demon possession would be the implement. This confession is found in 2 Corinthians 12, the ego-laden demonic encounter we’ve considered previously.
By way of review, Paulos wrote: "But when Kephas came to Antioch, I was opposed to and against his presence. I stood in hostile opposition because he was convicted and condemned, even ignorant. (2:11)
Because, before a certain individual came from Ya’aqob, he was eating together with the different races, but when he came, he was withdrawing and was separating himself, out of fear of the circumcised. (2:12)
So they were hypocritical, and also the remaining Yahuwdym. As a result even Barnabas was led away and astray with them in the duplicitous hypocrisy." (Galatians 2:13)
Beyond what Yahowsha’ and Shim’own had to say about Sha’uwl and his letters, there are additional ways to ascertain the merits of his epistles. One way would be to examine the writing quality. For that, I present Exhibit A: Galatians 2:14. But before we ponder this incomprehensible verse, please note that Papyrus 46, dated to as early as 85 CE, and no later than 125 CE, omits "kai ouchi zao Ioudaikos," from the end of this passage. Translated, the extra-textual phrase means "and do not live Yahuwdym."
Therefore, with the scribal additions in brackets, along with the omitted words, Sha’uwl evidently recited: "Nevertheless (alla – by contrast and to the contrary), when (hote) I saw (horao – perceived as a result of seeing with my own eyes) that (hoti – because) they were not walking through life rightly (ou orthopodeo – they were not behaving as they should; literally straight or upright foot) with (pros) the (o) truth (aletheia – that which is in accord with reality) of the healing messenger and beneficial message (euangelion), I said (eipon) to (to) Kephas (Kephas – a transliteration of the Aramaic word for Rock) in front of (emprosthen) all (pas): ‘If (ei) you (sy) Yahuwdym (Ioudaios – an inaccurate transliteration of the Hebrew Yahuwdym, meaning Related to Yah, commonly known today as Jews) actively being (hyparcho – existing as (present active)) ethnic (ethnikos – races or ethnicities; a derivation of ethnos – ethnicity; while only used this once as an adverb, as a noun Paul uses it to infer Gentile) [and (kai) do not (ouchi) live (zao) [like] Yahuwdym (Ioudaikos)], how (pos – in what way) the ethnicities (ta ethnos – people from different races and places) you compel and force (anagkazo – you necessitate by compulsion) (being/acting) Yahuwdym (Ioudaizein – Paul concocted a Greek verb out of the Hebrew proper noun Yahuwdym – Related to Yah (verb present active infinitive))?’" (Galatians 2:14)
In the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear, we find this same amalgamation of words, albeit inclusive of the extraneous clause, rendered: "But when I saw that not they walk straight to the truth of the good message, I said to the Cephas in front of all if you Judean existing nationally and not Judaically live how the nations you compel to judaize?" This was written so poorly, these scholars had to make up two words, "Judaically" and "judaize," in their attempt to "translate" Paul.
If we are to believe Paul when he protests that faith alone saves, then a person’s walk through life should be irrelevant. And who appointed Paul judge – the one who determines who is right and who is wrong? Moreover, what was the basis of his verdict?
While poorly worded, the opening clause is at least comprehensible: "Nevertheless, by contrast, when I perceived that they were not walking rightly, behaving as they should, with the truth of the beneficial message,...." Sha’uwl claimed in his letter to Timothy that his "euangelion – beneficial message" had been entrusted exclusively to him, and to him alone, by God, so anyone who didn’t capitulate regarding his mandate and agree with his doctrine was behaving improperly. And since both claims were in conflict with Yahowsha’ and the Towrah, Shim’own’s actions, as His Disciple, would have consistently been inconsistent with the "truth" according to Sha’uwl. Further, the reason Sha’uwl didn’t explain why he believed "the Rock" was wrong, is that according to God, Shim’own was probably right.
For the record, Shim’own would have been in violation of Rabbinical Law for sharing a meal with Gentiles, and in compliance with the Talmud when he left. And while that is interesting, it is also irrelevant because the Disciples did not adhere to rabbinical teaching. Since nothing else was mentioned, any other conclusion would be speculation. The menu wasn’t described. All that we know is that the participants were mixed with regard to their ethnicity.
The second clause, especially without the scribal addition, makes no sense: "I said to Kephas in front of all: ‘If you Yahuwdym actively being ethnic, how the ethnicities you compel and force (being/acting) Yahuwdym?’" The first problem is that as an adverb, "ethnikos – ethnic," is modifying the verb "hyparcho – existing as," making it "existing ethnically" I suppose. And since Sha’uwl typically uses ethnos to address races other than Yahuwdym, by extrapolation he may be saying that the Disciples were "acting like Gentiles." But that notion is torn asunder by the realization that Paulos preferred the Gentile ways to those of his brethren, which would have received an accommodation from Paul, not condemnation. And from a logical perspective, the Disciples could not have been "Judaizers" if they were adapting to the Gentile customs.
The second issue is that Ioudaizein isn’t a word. It begins by attempting to transliterate the plural of Yahuwdah which is Yahuwdym, but then ends in an attempt to make the proper noun a verb. So if we were to play along, Ioudaizein in the modern vernacular it would convey "being or acting Jewish." But then Sha’uwl’s who argument falls apart, because he is opposed to what he is proposing. Moreover, neither Yahowah, Yahowsha’, the Towrah, nor the Disciples ask Yahuwdym to convert Gowym. While we are offered the same advice and guidance, and the same opportunity and benefits, Gowym do not become Yahuwdym.
Third, with God, freewill is sacrosanct, and thus compulsion is abhorrent to Yahowah, as is any form of oppression or submission. Therefore, this is pointless, and likely errant.
Further, Sha’uwl has it all wrong. God never asks Gowym to act like Yahuwdym, but instead asks Yahuwdym not to act like Gowym. And that is because of the Babylonian influence on Gentile nations. Their religions shaped the world as we know it, a world that Yahowah wants us to disassociate ourselves from. Therefore, Yahowah does not want Yahuwdym to adopt the cultures and traditions of the Gentile nations, ostensibly because they are pagan. But by the same token, Yahowsha’ made it clear that the societal customs and traditions of religious Jews were errant, hypocritical, and even Satanic.
While the Talmud, Oral Law, and Rabbinical traditions are Jewish customs, and unworthy of our attention, the Torah isn’t comprised of Jewish law, or Jewish traditions. The Torah is replete with Yahowah’s instructions for living in this world and in addition to guidance to the next. So since Jewish customs and traditions are inconsistent with the truth, at least according to God, Sha’uwl, by inferring that Shim’own as a Jew wanted to force people to submit to Jewish traditions committed one of the greatest crimes ever perpetrated on humanity.
Regarding this highly charged and nearly incomprehensible statement, the KJV elected to write: "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"
Trying to make sense of this, more than a thousand years earlier, Jerome crafted the following in his Latin Vulgate for his pope: "But when I had seen that they were not walking correctly, by the truth of the evangelii, I said to Cephas in front of everyone: "If you, while you are a Jew, are living like the Gentiles and not the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to keep the customs of the Iudaizare?"
While the NLT reads more smoothly, it is a flight of fancy: "When I saw that they were not following the truth of the gospel message, I said to Peter in front of all the others, "Since you, a Jew by birth, have discarded the Jewish laws and are living like a Gentile, why are you now trying to make these Gentiles follow the Jewish traditions?"
As a result of this statement, and others Sha’uwl will make like it, Christians have been beguiled into believing that being Jewish, being Torah observant, and the religion of Judaism are synonymous. That is what Sha’uwl meant to convey with his use of "Ioudaizein – Judaizers." But while the race and the religion often share a nexus, most Jews today are not religious. Further, while there are many Jews who are Torah observant, religious Jews, those practicing Judaism, universally reject the Torah because they favor their Talmud, not unlike Christians prioritizing their New Testament over the "Old Testament." When they differ, which is often, those who are religious believe and apply the human instructions.
The reason this crime has been so catastrophic is that now, as a result of the mythical "Judaizers," when someone who is actually Torah observant teaches others what God revealed, Yahowah’s instructions and invitations are summarily dismissed by Gentiles because they are perceived to be Jewish. They reject Yahowah’s Invitation to attend Passover for racial and religious reasons, even though it represents the lone doorway to life, even thought Yahowsha’ observed it. Similarly, they reject Yahowah’s encouragement to make the Shabat a special part of our relationship Him, discarding it because they wrongly think that it is "Jewish," preferring instead to embrace the Gentile religious custom of Sunday worship. The "Old Covenant" in the Christian religion was replaced by a "New Covenant" because Paul led them to believe that the former was for the Jews and the later was for Gentiles. And as a result, Christians have universally rejected Yahowah’s one and only Covenant, precluding them from forming a relationship with God and forestalling any opportunity for their salvation.
In this regard, Yahowsha’, not Sha’uwl, provided a compelling example of how the Pharisees, the ultra-religious Jews who were devoted to their traditions and Oral Law, tried to impose their ill-conceived rules on Yahowah’s children.
"He said to them (kai lego autos), ‘You have a finely-crafted way to reject and invalidate (kalos atheteo – you have finely tuned the means to nullify and dispute the validity of) the instruction (entole – precept and prescription) of (tou) Yahowah (ΘΥ) in order (hina) to establish (histamai – to propose, maintain, and uphold) your (sy) tradition (paradosis – way and narrative that has been handed down over time, given to one person after another). (9)
For (gar) Moseh (Mouses) revealed (eipon), "Recognize and respect (timao – highly value, honor, and revere) your Father (ton ΠΡΑ sou) and (kai) your Mother (ten MTA sou)," and also (kai), "The one maligning (o kakologeo – the one reviling, cursing, and speaking badly about using unjustified and abusive language so as to denounce and insult) the Heavenly Father (ΠΡΑ) or (e) Spiritual Mother (MTA) in the plague of death (thanatos – in the separation of the soul from the body as a result of this pandemic disease) let him die, terminating his existence (teluuueutao – let this be the end of his life)."’" (Mark 7:9-10)
Yahowsha’ recognized and stated that Rabbinical Law was inconsistent with the Torah, and thus destructive. Beyond this, the realization that Father and Mother were presented by Mattanyah using Divine Placeholders, affirms that they represent our Heavenly Father and our Spiritual Mother. After all, the one unforgivable sin in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms is to insult and demean Yahowah, our Heavenly Father, and the one unforgivable sin presented in the eyewitness accounts is to insult and demean the Set-Apart Spirit, our Spiritual Mother. Without Her we cannot become God’s Covenant children. That is what Yahowsha’ is inferring here.
In this regard, kokologeo is especially telling. Comprised of kakos and logos, it speaks of "those whose words convey a bad attitude because they view things from the wrong perspective, as their mode of thinking is errant, and thus their speech is troublesome, injurious, pernicious, and destructive."
The Ma’aseyah’s teaching in opposition to Rabbinical traditions continued with:
"‘But (de – by contrast), you, yourselves, say (umeis lego – you attest and imply), "If (ean – conditionally) a man (anthropos – an individual) may tell, speaking (eiphe – may say) to the father or to the mother (to patri e te metri), ‘Korban (korban – a Hebrew word designating a gift offering used to approach and come near God),’ which (o) is (estin) a gift (doron – an offering) that (o) conditionally (ean) you might receive as a provision and assistance (opheleo – you may benefit) from Me (ek ego), (11) therefore, you no longer permit (ouketi aphiemi – accordingly, then, you negate any additional credit or opportunity) for him (auton) to perform or provide (poieo) for the father or for the mother (to patri e te metri), (12) invalidating the authority of (akyroo – nullifying and voiding) the Word (Logos) of Yahowah (tou ΘΥ) through your traditions (te paradosis umon – by your teachings and instructions) which you have handed down as if it were an authorized (e paradidomi – that you have granted, bestowed, supplied, and controlled in an act of betrayal). And (kai) many (polys) very similar (paromoios) such things (toioutos) you do (poieomai).’" (Mark 7:11-13)
The Rabbis had devised a "wealth preservation" scheme which, according to their oral law, allowed religious Jews to shirk their responsibilities, in direct defiance of the Spirit of the Towrah teaching. Corrupting and perverting the Towrah has become a game to religious Jews, as it has to Sha’uwl. And that is why Yahowah said through the prophet, Howsha’: "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being ministers for Me; because you have forgotten the Towrah of your God, I also will forget your children." (Howsha’ / He Saves / Hosea 4:6) Rather than nailing Martin Luther’s thesis against indulgences on the doors of a Catholic cathedral, affixing Yahowah’s testimony to the door of every Christian church might actually open some eyes.
At this point, Sha’uwl contradicts himself. The "Jewish activities" and religion he has been condemning, he says makes Jews superior to heathen Gentile outcasts, in spite of the fact that he has catered to their sensibilities. While it proves that Paul cannot be trusted, there was a reason for his duplicity. Within the context of an irrational argument like this one, a disingenuous individual can feign allegiance and sympathy toward Jews, for example, thereby forestalling the charge of being an anti-Semite, while not risking the loss of his devotees because it would never dawn on them to question him.
"We (emeis) Yahuwdym (Ioudaios – Judeans) by nature (physis – in origin and character) and (kai) not (ou) from (ek) sinful (hamartolos – social outcasts avoiding the way and thus heathen) races (ethnos – ethnicities)." (Galatians 2:15) Hamartolos was commonly used by the Pharisees to describe and demean a "Jew who was not religious and who did not adhere to rabbinical rules and traditions." From the perspective of a rabbi, it is akin to using the "N" word.
This "verse" was comprised of a pronoun (ego), two nouns (physis and ethnos), two adjectives (Ioudaios and amartolos), a conjunction (kai), a negative particle (ou), and a preposition (ek), all manner of speech except a verb. It was therefore rendered as follows by the Nestle-Aland’s Interlinear: "We in nature Judeans and not from nations sinners..."
Yahowah doesn’t want His children to emulate the pagan ways of the Gentile nations, and says so regularly in the Torah and Prophets. But He is equally condemning when it comes to the religious and political conduct of Yisra’elites. Therefore, being "Yahuwdym by nature" does not exclude them from being sinful. In other words, Paul’s comments continue to conflict with God’s testimony.
Also, by stating this in conjunction with his concocted "Ioudaizein – acting Jewish / Judaizer" commentary, Sha’uwl seems to be suggesting that it is appropriate to follow Jewish traditions, and it’s not, at least it isn’t according to Yahowah and Yahowsha’. Even worse, in the next chapter we find Sha’uwl awkwardly and immediately transitioning to a denunciation of the Towrah, claiming that it cannot save, putting his preamble in conflict with his conclusion.
While the Greek text was grammatically inadequate, 17th-century English bible translators stood ready to make the founder of their religion appear literate. The KJV published: "We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles," Jerome in his LV tried: "By nature, we are Iudæi, and not of the Gentibus, sinners." Even the NLT played along: "‘You and I are Jews by birth, not "sinners" like the Gentiles.’"
Paul just used a dreadful pejorative to demean those he was asking to believe him and yet it didn’t faze them. But why should we be surprised? He told them that he was insane and demon-possessed, and that didn’t cause them to question him either.