Questioning Paul

Chapter 8

part 4


Moving on to the next statement, Paul changes gears. We find him momentarily tabling his animosity for the Torah in favor of promoting himself. While these verses have no value spiritually, they are revealing, in that they paint a troubling picture of a tormented individual.

The Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear rendition of Galatians 4:11 reads: "I fear you not perhaps without cause have labored in you." More comprehensively translated (and recognizing that Papyrus 46 corrects the perfect "kopiao – have labored" to the aorist "ekopiasa – had labored"), I think he was trying to say:

"I am afraid and fear (poboumai – I am alarmed, frightened, and concerned) for you (umas) that maybe (me – perhaps expecting a negative outcome) somehow (pos – in some way) without reason (eike – without purpose or result in vain and for nothing) I have grown tired struggling and laboring (kopiao – I have grown weary, emotionally fatigued, and discouraged showing effort) toward you (eis umas)." (Galatians 4:11)

As is the case with most annoying habits that simply won’t go away, Sha’uwl has misspoken once again. Those who faithfully present Yahowah’s message never labor in vain. Even when God’s Word is rejected, our witness serves a purpose—even if it just leaves people without excuse.

And there is nothing to fear. Souls who ignore or reject God’s invitation to participate in His Covenant aren’t punished as Christian mythology portends. So there is great joy when someone comes to know Yahowah, but we are not anguished even when a thousand choose otherwise.

Our job is to prepare ourselves by studying Yahowah’s Word, so that when we go out, we accurately convey His message. How God’s plan of salvation is received isn’t our responsibility. Therefore, Sha’uwl’s lament is inappropriate and self-centered. He is once again wrong.

The KJV’s take on this passage is peculiar: "I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain." Albeit their misrepresentation should not be surprising since it’s readily apparent that they translated the Latin Vulgate: "I am afraid of you, lest perhaps I have laboured in vain among you." While the NLT isn’t accurate, it’s less inaccurate: "I fear for you. Perhaps all my hard work with you was for nothing."

In the words which follow, Paul issues a command that would not even be appropriate if he was God. And since every statement he has made thus far has been inaccurate, ungodly, and injurious, since he may have been the most caustic man who ever lived, by ordering everyone who reads this letter to become like him, Paul has become delusional to the point of being psychotic, and his statements have become counterproductive to the point of being suicidal. And this is not the worst of it. He compounds this megalomania with a claim of perfection.

The Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear presents the command and proclamation as follows: "Become as I that also as you brothers I beg you. Nothing me you did unright." But this rendition is both inadequate and incomplete, in that it fails to convey much of what was actually scribed by Sha’uwl.

This command and this assessment are so outrageous, let’s be especially deliberate in our analysis and consider and convey the implications of every tense, mood, voice, case, and particle. Therefore, completely and accurately recounted, Paul wrote:

"You all must become (ginomai (scribed ginesthe) you are all presently commanded to come to be, continuing to exist (in the present tense the action must commence at once and continue into the future, in the middle passive, the reader is being acted upon and will be affected and influenced by their response, in the imperative this is a command, and in the second person plural this is directed at everyone reading this letter)) like (os – the same as (conjunction (making a connection) adverbial (functioning like an adverb elaborating on the verb must become to reveal the purpose and the result) comparative)) I (ego – me (the nominative singular tells the reader that they are to become and be like the writer)).

Then I (oti kago – because also I namely by way of explanation (adverbial causal emphatic demonstrating the basis or grounds for an active and demonstrative prioritization and response to turn a direct assertion into an indirect claim)) as a result like (os – the same as (conjunction (making a connection) adverbial (functioning like an adverb elaborating on the verb must become to reveal the purpose and the result) comparative)) you all become (umeis – all of you becoming (nominative plural conveying you all to be) called brothers in the faith (adelphoi – fellow believers (in the vocative this indicates that they will being directly addressed as religious brothers)), the means I want to compel, to bind, and to control (deomai – the way I ask to possess, so I beg and plead to have supernatural power over and imprison, and I desire and want to throw into chains and restrict, wishing to forcibly obligate; from deo – to bind, tie, and fasten, to restrict, chain, and imprison, speaking of satanic demon possession through a controlling messenger, and to make ill and obligate to the authority of another (present (now and in the future) middle passive (the writer is being influenced by someone else and is being affected by his own desire to control) indicative (the mood of reality and assertion) first person singular)) you all (umon – all of you (in the genitive case the pronoun is being restricted to a specific characterization and marks a possessive relationship)).

In no way (ouden – in not even one thing at all (adjective accusative modifying a noun which is a direct object of a verb)) were you wronged, harmed, or treated unjustly as a result of fraud (adikeo – were you violated, mistreated, or injured, were you deceived in a wicked, destructive, or sinful manner; from adikos – to violate and treat unjustly through fraud and deceit (aorist active indicative – at a point in time in the past as a result of something done)) by me (me – with myself (in the accusative the writer is the direct object of the verb))." (Galatians 4:12)

Bereft of the Greek terminology and full amplifications, Paul conveyed: "You all must become and are commanded to exist like I. Then I as an emphatic priority as a result like you all become called brothers and fellow believers, the means I want to compel, to bind, and to control you all. In no way were you wronged, harmed, or treated unjustly as a result of fraud by me." (4:12)

According to the Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, when ginomai "speaks of persons," as it is doing here, they are being asked to "be born and appear" in a certain way – in this case, to appear like Paul and to be born of the same spirit that possessed Paul. Not only would that be destructive, deadly, and damning, the edict to make Paul, not Yahowsha’, the example to be followed and emulated was scribed in the imperative mood, making it a command. In the second person plural, it is for "you all" and thus for everyone reading this letter. The middle voice signifies that the subject, who in this case would be the reader, is being affected, influencing themselves, by their response. And the passive voice tells us that the reader is being acted upon as well. This voice is used by Paul as the "divine passive" to infer that he is an agent of god.

Very few people would be sufficiently impressed with themselves to suggest that others should imitate their behavior, as Paul is proposing here. In so doing, he has crossed the line from pretending to speak for Yahowsha’ to pretending to be the Ma’aseyah. Yahowsha’s life is the only one worth emulating. (Although, based upon many of the emails I have received, most of those who tell others to "behave more like Jesus" have no concept what He was like. After all, Christians would have to be Torah observant to follow Yahowsha’s example.)

Paul’s emphatic priority is to win back the souls who have rejected him. He wants them to become "brothers" in the sense of "fellow believers" because as the founder and sole advocate of the Faith, this gives Paul absolute control over them. By writing "deomai umon – the means I desire to compel, possess, and control you all," Sha’uwl left no doubt as to his purpose in promoting his Faith. Based on "deo – to bind and tie (which is the basis of the Latin and English word "religion"), to fasten and restrict, to throw into chains and thereby to forcibly control and obligate," deomai simply adds "desire" to this end. If all Paul wanted to convey was his will in this regard, he would have used thelo, because it does not carry any of the oppressive religious baggage.

Paul also claimed that he did nothing wrong, writing: "In no way whatsoever were you wronged or treated unjustly as a result of fraud by me." But had he proclaimed: "I have said nothing right," it would have been much closer to the truth – making his remarks delusional and disingenuous in the extreme. And yet setting his treachery aside, with these past two statements, the wannabe Apostle has begun to sound more like a wannabe god. And that perhaps is why he felt no compunction against telling us that his way was superior to God’s.

It should also be noted that in between these egotistical pontifications, Sha’uwl’s positioning was duplicitous. As a chameleon, he was always willing to change his colors based upon what he thought would win the favor of his audience. If these folks were Gentiles, as is suspected, then apart from his new religion, he was lying with "then I like you become brothers," but if they were Jews, who were Paul’s adversaries in this community?

The Catholic and Protestant religious renderings of this passage read: "Be ye as I, because I also am as you brethren, I beseech you. You have not injured me at all." (LV) And: "Brethren, I beseech you, be as I am; for I am as ye are: ye have not injured me at all." (KJV)

To help demonstrate the inaccuracy of the New Living Translation, here, once again, is the Nestle-Aland rendering of this repulsive proposition: "Become as I that also as you brothers I beg you. Nothing me you did unright." Allegedly rendering their translation from the same base text, the New Living Translation published: "Dear brothers and sisters, I plead with you to live as I do in freedom from these things, for I have become like you Gentiles—free from those laws. You did not mistreat me when I first preached to you." Once again, there is almost no correlation between Paul’s Greek and the words found in the NLT.

The more challenging Sha’uwl’s message is to decipher, the more comfortable I am with the idea of introducing you to his terminology by way of the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear. This isn’t because I think that their translation is particularly accurate, but instead, their grammatically literal, albeit simplistic, approach to the Greek text helps reinforce just how difficult the task of translating Galatians has become. Therefore, the NAMI reads: "You know but that through weakness of the flesh I told good message to you the former."

The one advantage of this proclamation is that it affirms that Sha’uwl, himself, is to blame for the deficiencies in this letter that make it so difficult to translate.

"But (de) you realize (oida – you recognize and acknowledge) that (hoti) because of (dia – by way of and through) an incapacity, weakness, and limitation (astheneia – an illness and timidity, a lack of strength and frailty, an infirmity and ailment, a lack of insight and feeling of inadequacy) in the flesh (tes sarx – of the physical body or human nature), I announced the healing messenger and beneficial message (euangelizo) to you all (umin) this (to) previously (proteros – before, formerly, or earlier in the first place)." (Galatians 4:13)

Since Sha’uwl revealed precisely what was causing his "timidity, incapacity, and limitation in the flesh" in his letter to Corinth, it is again pertinent here.

"Because (gar) if (ean) I might want (thelo) to brag (dauchaomai), truthfully (aletheia), I would not be (ouk esomai) foolish or imprudent (aphron). For then (gar) I will say (ero) I am presently abstaining (pheidomai). But (de) someone (tis) not (un) approaching (eis) me (eme) might ponder (logizomai) beyond (hyper) what (o) he sees (blepo) in me (me), or (e) something (ti) he hears (akouo) from (ek) me (emou), (12:6) and of the (kai te) extraordinary superiority of the exaggerated (hyperbole ton) revelations (apokalypsis). Therefore (dio), in order that (hina) I not become overly proud and be lifted up (me hyperairomai), there was given to me (didomi ego) a sharp goad and troubling thorn (skolops) in the body (te sarx), a spiritual messenger (aggelos) of Satan (Satan), in order to (hina) strike and restrain and incapacitate me (kolaphizo), so that as a result (hina) at the present time there is the possibility that I might not be conceited, currently exalting myself beyond what would be justified, so as not to be able to be insolent or audacious, lifting myself up (me hyperairomai)." (2 Corinthians 12:6-7)

Therefore, Paul’s statement is troubling, especially in this context.

If we can get beyond the issues associated with demon-possession, this letter continues to be more about Paul than about the nature of the message he should have been proclaiming and explaining. And such is the case with all of Paul’s epistles. They focus on Paul’s life not Yahowsha’s, and on Paul’s message not Yahowah’s. Thus far, Paul hasn’t accurately quoted a single line of Scripture, nor has he conveyed anything which would help anyone understand Yahowah’s nature, Yahowsha’s purpose, Yahowah’s Word or His plan of salvation. The relatively few partially accurate statements he has made haven’t contributed to anyone’s understanding because he hasn’t supported any of his positions with the proper citations. And the preponderance of what he has written has been inaccurate and/or incomprehensible.

No matter which standard you deploy, whether it is Yahowah’s Deuteronomy 13 or 18 tests or just the overall inconsistency with God’s Word, whether it is the writing quality, the plethora of internal contradictions, or the onslaught of logical fallacies, you’d have to be ignorant, irrational, or religious to consider the Galatians epistle "Scripture," as in the sense of being "inspired by God." But worse, even as one man’s opinion, Galatians isn’t even remotely helpful. In fact, this letter has been overwhelmingly counterproductive. Its only value has been to artificially evaluate Paul. And in that light, the verdict is dire.

The Christian renderings of this latest proclamation are as follows. The Catholic Latin Vulgate reads: "And you know how, through infirmity of the flesh, I preached the evangelizavi to you heretofore: and your temptation in my flesh." The Authorized Protestant King James says: "Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first." And the Evangelical New Living Translation published: "Surely you remember that I was sick when I first brought you the Good News."

This next sentence is difficult to understand, not only because it is awkwardly written, but because we do not know what occurred during Sha’uwl’s last visit with these folks, nor do we know what has transpired since. So as hard as this letter is to translate, it is even harder to interpret. And along these lines, Papyrus 46 replaces the initial umon with mou, changing "you" to "me" in the initial clause. Further, it excludes oude ekptuo, "nor reject" in the middle of the sentence, leaving us with the NAMI unwilling to acknowledge the oldest manuscript, and preferring the majority rendering instead, publishing: "And the pressure of you in the flesh of me not you despised but not you spit out but as messenger of God you welcomed me as Christ Jesus."

Continuing to complain about the restraints imposed upon him by Satan, according to the oldest extant codex, Sha’uwl scribed: "And (kai) my temptation to prove my integrity (mou peirasmos – my submission to another, my examination and test regarding consistency, fidelity, and virtue, my enticement which serves as the means to learn the true nature of my character of the reason for trying to prove myself; from peirazo – to try to see if something can be done, to attempt and endeavor to make a trial or test to reveal one’s thinking regarding the other side) in (en) my (mou) flesh (sarx – physical body or human nature), you did not ridicule, despise, or reject (ou exoutheneo – you did not disdain, look down upon, make light of, treat with contempt, or disregard) [nor (oude) reject (ekptuo – scorn, spurn or loathe)].

To the contrary (alla – certainly and by contrast) like (os – because as in such a way or in the same way) a spiritual messenger (aggelos – a divine representative and heavenly envoy who was sent with a message) of god (ΘΥ), you received and believed (dechomai – you welcomed, entertained, and accepted) me (me) as (os – one who is like) Christon ‘Iesoun (ΧΝ ΙΝ – divine placeholders for the Ma’aseyah (Implement Doing the Work of Yah) Yahowsha’ (Yah Saves), but since this epistle has striven to disassociate Yahowsha’ from Yahowah and the Ma’aseyah from the Towrah, it would be misleading to connect that which the author has severed)." (Galatians 4:14)

There are four problems with this statement, yet everything which was said contributes to our understanding of Sha’uwl—a man named after the place he has led billions of souls. First, he continues to be fixated upon himself. It would be one thing for him to say that he was unqualified for this mission, as that would be honest, relevant, and useful. But there is nothing to be gained by wallowing in one’s own temptations, especially when they reveal demon-possession, insanity, violent hostility, and sexual decadence. But I suppose that it is Paul’s way of saying that his suffering was more important than Yahowsha’s.

In this regard, peirasmos is yet another in a long list of terms indicting Sha’uwl and his Christian audience. As is often the case with Satan’s messengers, they are so enamored with their perceived superiority and so dismissive of humanity’s lack of mental acuity, they flaunt their ability to beguile the faithful. He, himself, is tempting readers because he knows that most will be unwilling to examine his lack of consistency and integrity so as to learn the truth about his character and his desire to present such a contrarian view.

Exoutheneo sets a very low bar. It is hard to imagine the founder of a religion, arguably the most infamous man who ever lived, telling the Galatians that they "did not ridicule or reject him, neither despising or disdaining" him. Considering his propensity for ad hominem attacks on his opponents, that’s almost funny.

Second, aggelos is a loaded word, especially in this context. It implies that Paul was "a heavenly messenger, a divine representative, and spiritual envoy sent by God," all of which was blatantly untrue. Aggelos was used in Luke 1:26 to describe Gabriel / Gabry’el when the spiritual envoy visited with Mary / Miryam. It was used in Mark 1:2 to speak of the divine and prophetic witness of John / Yahowchanan the Baptist. And it was used in Mattanyah 25:41 in the context of the judgment awaiting those enduring the Tribulation, destining those estranged from God to spend their eternity separated from Him along with the other "spiritual messengers – aggelos" who were in league with Satan—better known as demons.

Third, as we have just reminded ourselves, in a direct reference to Satan’s "aggelos – spiritual messengers and representatives, Sha’uwl told the world in his second letter to the Corinthians that the trial he endured in the flesh was a sharp pointed stick (a goad used to control animals) which was wielded by one of Satan’s "aggelos – demons." And in actuality, the evidence Sha’uwl personally provides in his letters confirms that he was Satan’s implement, not Yahowah’s. So, the Galatians should have been repulsed by this, and as a result, they should have rejected Sha’uwl. Fortunately, most did.

And fourth, Sha’uwl’s use of os, translated "even as" before "Christon ‘Iesoun," is arrogant and inappropriate, because by using os, Paul is "comparing" himself to Yahowsha’. This notion is reinforced by the fact that the Greek word os (spelled omicron sigma) is based upon "os" (this time spelled omega sigma) which means "who." Therefore, by using os, Paul has called himself: "a spiritual representative and heavenly messenger from God who is like (os) Christon Iesoun." So even if Paul had not otherwise incriminated himself, the hubris associated with making such a statement is grotesque.

Jerome wrote the following for his pope, recognizing that the religious potentate viewed himself similarly to Paul: "You despised not, nor rejected: but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus." Serving an equally deceived and egotistical political master, the KJV penned: "And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus."

While this isn’t a translation of the Greek text, the NLT is rendered as Paul intended, which is one of many reasons we should be so critical of him. "But even though my condition tempted you to reject me, you did not despise me or turn me away. No, you took me in and cared for me as though I were an angel from God or even Christ Jesus himself." And yet according to a manuscript written 1,900 years earlier than either the Nestle-Aland or the New Living Translation, it is obvious that Sha’uwl said that the temptation was his trial, not a test for the Galatians.

The best face we can honestly put on this discussion is that it was misguided and it is irrelevant to our understanding of God or the path to Him. The message quality remains as deficient as the writing quality. But don’t take my word for it, consider the NAMI’s: "Where then the fortunateness of you I testify for to you that if power the eyes of you having dug out you gave to me." If that is the inspired word of Sha’uwl’s god through his spiritual messenger, I opt for the God who created the universe, conceived DNA, and authored the Towrah. And it just gets worse the closer we look (at least while we can still look)...

"Where (pou), therefore (oun – accordingly and consequently then), the (o) declaration of blessedness (makarismos – the pronouncement of happiness and joy) of yours (umon)? I witness and testify (martyreo – I declare based upon first-hand knowledge and confirm through eyewitness experience) because (gar) of you (umin) that (oti) if (ei) possible (dynatos – able and competent), the eyes (tous ophthalmos) of you (umon) having dug out (exorysso – having torn, gouged, and plucked out) you gave (didomi – you produced and assigned) to me (moi)." (Galatians 4:15)

Since Paul has twice called the Galatians ignorant and irrational, how is it that he is expecting them to "proclaim how blessed" they feel. More curious still, how is it that Paul equates "joy" to "plucking out one’s eyes?" Why would the living give their eyes to someone who can already see, unless it was to keep them unaware, and thus blind?

But all of the ugliness vanishes when seen through the rose-colored glasses worn by the NLT: "Where is that joyful and grateful spirit you felt then? I am sure you would have taken out your own eyes and given them to me if it had been possible."

Their predecessors were more literal. LV: "Where is then your blessedness? For I bear you witness that, if it could be done, you would have plucked out your own eyes and would have given them to me." KJV: "Where is then the blessedness ye spake of? for I bear you record, that, if it had been possible, ye would have plucked out your own eyes, and have given them to me."

Now that this has gone from demonic to sadistic, it is becoming ever more difficult to share Paul’s words without grimacing. But we are committed to seeing this through, right to the bitter end. With our goal in sight, the next plank in walking into the valley of death, the NAMI reads: "So that hostile of you I have become telling truth to you." So from brothers to victims and now to foes, this is painful to read…

"So as a result (hoste), a hostile and despised adversary (echthros – hated enemy and odious foe) of yours (umon) I have become (ginomai) telling the truth (aletheuo – speaking no lies) to you (umin)." (Galatians 4:16)

Paul had become what the Galatians had implied, but not for the reason he suggested. Like the Adversary, Paul had lied to them.

With each new line, Galatians is becoming ever more like the Qur’an, both in tone and style. The Meccan surahs read like a never-ending argument between Muhammad and his neighbors, with the Allah’s Messenger constantly protesting that his signs and wonders were proof that he should be believed by a community that considered him demon-possessed and crazy as a loon. But in all fairness, the Qur’an’s rants are easier to read, because in Muhammad’s recital, the arguments on both sides are presented. With Paul, all we have is his response. But like the Qur’an, Paul’s letters are peppered with the names of Scriptural personages for credibility sake, even though the narrative is otherwise self-serving, self-aggrandizing, and argumentative.

The comparison of demonic doctrines noted, here are the translations for your consideration. LV: "Am I then become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" KJV: "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" NLT: "Have I now become your enemy because I am telling you the truth?"

Since we only know one side of this argument, as we approach this next statement, we do not know who was stirring the people up, or even what they were promoting. Christian theologians will tell you that they were "Judaizers," but Jews have seldom if ever proselytized anyone. In all likelihood, Paul’s opponents were Yahowah’s proponents—those who loved His name and His Word.

Since this was poorly written, even by Paul’s deplorable standards, let’s consider the Nestle-Aland McReynolds Interlinear: "They are jealous you not well but to close out you they want that them you might be jealous." And so while it requires altering the order of the words, this appears to be what Sha’uwl was trying to convey...

"They are jealous (zeloo – they are deeply concerned and envious, coveting) of you (umas), not (ou) rightly (kalos – good, morally, attractively, healthily, or commendably), but to the contrary (alla), they want (thelo – they desire and propose) to exclude and separate (ekkleio) you (umas), in order that (hina) you might be jealous (zeloo – envious or deeply committed, coveting and desiring) of them (autous)." (Galatians 4:17)

This is the worst form of an ad hominem fallacy because the foe isn’t even identified. Unaware of what has transpired, or who has done what to whom, it’s impossible to objectively ascribe meaning to this criticism. Moreover, since Paul’s opponents were promoting the Torah, they would have been trying to unify their audience with Yahowah, not separate them. So it was Paul’s domineering nature which is being exposed here. He was afraid that he was losing his control over these people.

Beyond the idiocy of this insult, those who observe the Torah never share its wisdom in hopes that others will be jealous of them. We do it because we want people to be zealous for Yahowah and His Word.

In this case, Jerome’s Latin Vulgate is as incomprehensible as Paul’s Greek: "They are zealous in your regard not well: but they would exclude you, that you might be zealous for them." KJV: "They zealously affect you, but not well; yea, they would exclude you, that ye might affect them." This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Excluding someone doesn’t make them zealous nor does it cause them to be "affected."

Putting lipstick on this mythical, kosher pig, the NLT would have you believe Paul said: "Those false teachers are so eager to win your favor, but their intentions are not good. They are trying to shut you off from me so that you will pay attention only to them." To their credit, I also see this as Paul’s desperate attempt to retain his influence over the Galatians. It is one of the many symptoms of insecurity. And had this been what Paul was saying, then we could close the book on Galatians and return to the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. Separation from Paul is irrelevant. Separation from Yahowah is life and death. If Paul was trying to garner a following, he shouldn’t be followed.

After condemning jealousness, Paul is now advocating it. "But (de – now) good and right (kalos – moral, attractive, healthy, and commendable) to be jealous (zeloo – to be deeply concerned and envious, coveting) in (en) good and right (kalos – morality and attractiveness) at all times (pantote – always and forever). And (kai) not (un) only (monon – alone) in (en) my (me) presence (to pareimi – to be present) with (pros – toward, against, or among) you (umas)." (Galatians 4:18)

Therefore, according to Paul, what’s bad for them is good for you. It is little wonder virtually everyone on the planet rejected him prior to his death.

This has become akin to a campaign speech in which the audience is asked to "believe" the candidate. And like them, Paul has consistently deployed the dreaded negative advertising strategy which plagues most elections. It is as if demeaning his opponents elevated his candidacy.

Directly from the Greek, the NAMI conveys: "Good but to be jealous in good always and not alone in the to be present me toward you." Jerome penned this in his LV: "But be zealous for that which is good in a good thing always: and not only when I am present with you." Parroting what the Catholic wrote, the KJV repeats: "But it is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing, and not only when I am present with you." And in their own world, the NLT authored: "If someone is eager to do good things for you, that’s all right; but let them do it all the time, not just when I’m with you."

If Paul’s message had been about coming to know Yahowah, instead of following him, then his continued presence would have been unnecessary. It’s the influence of Yahowah’s Word which should have motivated the Galatians to be passionate, not the cult of personality. But Sha’uwl was a self-promoter, so in his mind his presence was more important than anything.

This continues to be about Paul, not God. The Galatians were now "children of mine," not our Heavenly Father’s sons and daughters. Even his mention of the Ma’aseyah in this context is misleading, because it circumvents the role of the Set-Apart Spirit.

"Children (teknon) of mine (mou) whom (hos) also (palin – furthermore and again) I have birth pangs (odino – I have engaged in the labor of childbirth) as far as (mechri – to the degree or until) that which (hos) might be formed (morphoo – may be fashioned) becoming Christos (ΧΡΣ – divine placeholder for the Ma’aseyah (but without the definite article, the errant Christos used as a name is a better grammatical fit than the appropriate title "the Implement Doing the Work of Yah") in (en) you all (umin)." (Galatians 4:19)

This too is dead wrong. Men do not bear children, not even homosexuals like Paul. Those who have been adopted into our Heavenly Father’s Covenant family have been born anew from above by way of our Spiritual Mother, the Set-Apart Spirit. They are adopted once they act upon the terms and conditions of the Covenant relationship. And they receive the Covenant’s blessings through the annual Invitations to meet with God. There are few aspects of Yahowah’s Towrah Teaching more important than this.

In Yahowah’s family, there is no pain associated with childbirth. And yet the anguish and sorrow of being estranged from God will be all Paul’s children, known as Christians, will ultimately experience.

So by claiming to have "suffered birth pangs" for "my children" Sha’uwl has once again portrayed himself as a twisted surrogate for God. He has established himself as the mother of his Faith.

It is deeply troubling that the Nestle-Aland, after claiming that their 27th edition manuscript was a near perfect representation of the original autographs, ignored the placeholders found in all of the originals and then perpetuated the myth that the Ma’aseyah was "Christ." NAMI: "Children of me whom again I have birth pains until that might be formed Christ in you."

But 1,700 years of religious tradition was too much to buck and still make a buck. After all, Catholicism’s Latin Vulgate reads: "My little children, of whom I am in labour again, until Christus be formed in you." Of which the King James translated to produce their Authorized Version: "My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you." These translations actually say that Paul served as a surrogate mother "until Christ" who was the "Son" (i.e., male) fulfilled that role. The wannabe Apostle was wrong on both accounts.

Since these mistakes are ridiculous, one must ask: why would Sha’uwl write something this divergent from God’s symbolism and from human nature? Did he suffer from gender identity issues as the evidence suggests and Yahowah’s testimony affirms? Was this why he was opposed to marriage, and does it explain why he was demeaning toward women? Is it why he expressed his love for Timothy—a man he personally circumcised even though he was belligerently opposed to circumcision? Even celibacy, which Paul promoted, is a perversion of Yahowah’s marriage and parental symbolism.

Apart from his animosity toward God’s symbols of the Covenant, which are marriage and family, and the specific roles God assigned to the Spirit and Son, Paul’s sexual orientation is irrelevant, with a couple of caveats. According to Daniel’s prophecy, Satan’s Messenger will be a homosexual and Yahowah told us that Sha’uwl would be fascinated by male genitalia.

Swallowing Paul’s repositioning, and regurgitating his delusion, the New Living Translation affirms that he was the "mother of the faithful," compounding the author’s vanity, and affirming that this man gave birth to the religion of Christianity. "Oh, my dear children! I feel as if I’m going through labor pains for you again, and they will continue until Christ is fully developed in your lives." After removing Yahowah from their lives by renouncing the Torah, and after negating the purpose of the Ma’aseyah by separating Him from the Torah, it is Sha’uwl’s intent to personally fill the void he has created. This is the essence of Pauline Doctrine.

A mother longs to be with her children, to comfort and nurture them, just as a father longs to support them, but these are our Spiritual Mother’s and Heavenly Father’s roles in our lives, not Paul’s. And just a moment ago, Sha’uwl was demeaning these same individuals. He said that he had wasted his time with them. But now feeling motherly...

"But (de – now) I would purpose (thelo – I would desire and want) to be present (pareimi – to arrive and to come) with (pros – to against, toward, or among) you (umas) now (arti – immediately) and (kai) to change (allasso – to cause a difference by altering the nature or character, exchanging or substituting, transforming) my (mou) voice (ten phone – the sound or tone of speech or the language) because (hoti) I am at a loss (aporeo – I am perplexed and puzzled, doubting and embarrassed, uncertain and don’t know what to do, even disturbed) in (en) you (umin)." (Galatians 4:20)

Paul would indeed change his tone, and deploy a different tactic. His second and third letters, which were written to the Thessalonians, were sickeningly syrupy and sweet, except for his ongoing hatred of his own race.

And yet, had he been telling the truth, the tone of Sha’uwl’s voice, his style, would have been irrelevant. But deceivers deceive by pretending to be the opposite of what they really are. The Towrahless One, known as the "Antichrist," isn’t going to burst onto the scene by announcing that he is Satan’s envoy, but instead will endear himself by pretending to be the world’s savior. Even in the end, when the charade is no longer necessary, Satan’s ambassador is going to present the fallen spirit who inspires him as "God," rather than the "Adversary." We are witnessing similar duplicity in Sha’uwl’s testimony.

And don’t miss the fact that Paul doesn’t know what to do, what to say, or how to react because he does not know Yahowah. When it comes to introducing souls to our Heavenly Father and then to nurturing His children on His Word, those who know Yahowah are never at a loss because He provided instructions regarding what we should say and guidance on what we should do.

But with Paul it is much worse that just being befuddled. He is distraught and embarrassed. He knows that he has ruined their lives, and worse, Yahowsha’s Disciples exposed him for the fraud that he had become. It is why Paul would die alone, without a single supporter.

One of the many problems associated with "faith" is that it is enhanced and fades in relation to the source of the inspiration. The unthinking become particularly susceptible to cults of personality. Religious sects also succeed by insulating the participants, surrounding them with other "believers," and isolating them from skeptics. With this in mind, the Nestle-Aland’s McReynolds Interlinear translation attests that Paul’s faith was wavering as a result of his failures in Galatia: "I would want but to be present to you now and to change the sound of me because I doubt in you."

Recognizing that such honesty would be bad for business, the Roman Catholic Jerome penned the following for his pope: "And I would willingly be present with you now and change my voice: because I am ashamed for you." In support of their potentate, the KJV published: "I desire to be present with you now, and to change my voice; for I stand in doubt of you."

Always there for Paul, and thus willing to elevate him to the status of an eloquent and sympathetic spokesperson for God, if not a manifestation of God Himself, the NLT proposes that their Apostle actually said: "I wish I were with you right now so I could change my tone. But at this distance I don't know how else to help you." But alas, if Paul were speaking for God, and not for himself, he would have known what to write. So much for the claim that this was "inspired by God."

Paul’s emotional interlude is now over. But during it he used "I" twelve times and "me" many more over the course of nine "verses" to say:

"I am afraid and fear for you that maybe somehow without reason and for nothing I have grown tired and discouraged, struggling to demonstrate effort toward you. (4:11) You all must become and are commanded to exist like I. Then I as an emphatic priority as a result like you all become called brothers and fellow believers, the means I want to compel, to bind, and to control you all. In no way were you wronged, harmed, or treated unjustly as a result of fraud by me. (4:12)

But you realize that because of an incapacity, timidity, weakness, and limitation in the flesh, I announced this healing messenger and beneficial message to you all previously. (4:13) And my temptation to prove my integrity and my submission to another, my fidelity and true nature of my character) in my flesh, you did not ridicule, despise, or reject. To the contrary like a spiritual messenger of god you received and believed me as Christon Iesoun. (4:14)

Where, therefore and consequently then, the declaration of blessedness and the pronouncement of happiness of yours? I witness and testify because of you that if possible and competent, your eyes having gouged and plucked out, you gave to me. (4:15) So as a result, a hostile and despised adversary of yours I have become telling the truth to you. (4:16)

They are jealous of you, not rightly, but to the contrary, they want to exclude and separate you, in order that you might be jealous of them. (4:17) But good and right to be jealous in good and right at all times. And not only alone in my presence with you. (4:18)

Children of mine whom also I have birth pangs, having engaged in the labor of childbirth as far as that which might be formed becoming Christos in you all. (4:19) But I would purpose to be present, to arrive and to come with you now and to change, altering the nature and character of my voice and language because I am at a loss, perplexed and puzzled, doubting and embarrassed, uncertain and I don’t know what to do in you." (4:20)

If you believe God inspired these words, your god is less capable than the average man.