"The world is full of religious teachers [and] prophets. All of them claim to be able to speak authoritatively. How do we know whom to believe?" Steven Davis
"The world is full of religious teachers [and] prophets. All of them claim to be able to speak authoritatively. How do we know whom to believe?" Steven Davis
|
Search
|
|
Questions?
Click Here to Send Us an Email.
|
|
Recommendations
Only Jesus (great song by Big Daddy) What Did Jesus Say? (2012) - 7 topics None above affiliated with me |
Books:
Today, I stumbled across an article Questioning Paul. I read thoroughly chapters 1-5, and parts of 12, and believe it is worth serious consideration. I did this review March 2012. The current version - March 2013 - of this article is at Questioning Paul.
The author comes from a traditional Protestant background like myself, and many of those who read my pages here. This author's awakening from a Pauline-based Christian faith may help others. Mr. CW is the author. He has turned his life over to Yahweh and Yahshua as authority. He endorses Yahshua thoroughly, but he criticizes so-called "Christianity" created by Paul. I would adjust his words to identify "Pauline Christianity" as the problem, and not use the label "Christianity," which I believe is a purely accurate label meaning "Messiah-followers." (CW claims the proper name is followers of Chrestus not Christus. I think that point is moot. As used today, Christianity means "Messiah-followers" and nothing of ancient meanings suggest we should dispense with this name.)
Regardless, that is a slight point of correction. Here is thus a review of the website article Questioning Paul which I recommend for consideration. I do not know if everything is correct, because it depends upon the research work of the author, yet his points on Paul appear well documented and offer a good start to do one's own research. I do think it is inappropriate that the author criticizes any other religions or faiths while discussing Paul. I do not endorse any of those criticisms by suggesting anyone read this online book.
A small biography finally appears in chapter two which is helpful.
As an entrepreneur, with the help of others, I built three businesses from business plans into companies with annual sales exceeding one hundred million dollars. I had the privilege of taking two of those companies public. And as a result, at least for a brief moment, I became a billionaire. But a year after having left the management of my last enterprise, I found myself on the cover of an international publication, being publicly humiliated for things I had not done. It was my moment on the road to Damascus (albeit, there were no flashing lights).
But fortunately for me, as I wished it had been for Paul, all of my prior experiences, the successes and failures, were refined during this crucible of life. It was then that my dear friend taught me to write, and together we wove a word picture of what had actually happened at Value America. That story became In the Company of Good and Evil. (Chapter Two.)
The webpage topics begins with a very forthright letter to the reader, which I find a great witness of the Holy Spirit working to liberate us when we least suspect it. We begin as defenders of Paul, only to realize it cannot be done. And then we are freed to obey and follow Yahweh and Yahshua.
Here is a favorite quote from his page "Open Letter to the Reader":
By way of background, Questioning Paul was composed after I had compiled the first 2,000 pages of a collection entitled Yada Yahweh – A Conversation with God. In this seven-volume study, I provide an amplified translation of the oldest Scriptural manuscripts and then share insights into what Yahweh revealed based upon the words He chose to use. As a result, I have come to understand God’s nature, purpose, and plan far better than most scholars and theologians. And that perspective is pertinent because Paul purports to speak on behalf of this God. If Sha’uwl contradicts or misquotes Yahweh’s Word I am in a position to hold him accountable.
You should know that I have rewritten this book three times, because the evidence I discovered did not conform to my expectations. I began this project defending Paul, and therefore I positioned his every word as favorably as the manuscripts and lexicons would allow. I then emphasized the positive aspects of what he had said, and all too often glossed over those things which were of concern, remaining silent when I should have spoken. Frankly, it wasn’t until the end of the fourth chapter of Galatians that I realized that I had been fooled. But even then, I was blind to the ploy Sha’uwl was using to manipulate his audience. It wasn’t until I had lived with this material for many months, twelve hours a day, six days a week, that finally I came to understand the author’s strategy. And even then, my eyes were opened as a result of a daily barrage of hints from people all around the world, most of whom I’ve never met. So when I warn you that this will be hard to accept, I speak from experience.
****
when I reached the preamble to the crescendo of Paul’s manifesto at the end of the third and beginning of the fourth chapters of Galatians during my second pass through this material, the charade was finally over. My eyes were opened and I came to understand the edifice he was establishing. And it was then that I discovered four very specific prophecies whereby Yahweh and Yahshua admonished us to be skeptical of Sha’uwl. After that, I found Paul’s ultimate confessions lurking in verses I had read many times before. Then everything fit. There were no longer any loose ends, any mysteries, or questions.
The evidence you are about to consider, however, will be shocking. It leads to a place I could not have imagined before I embarked upon this voyage. And that is why I had to completely rewriteQuestioning Paul three times based upon what I learned along the way. Words are insufficient to express how divergent my preconceived notions were from what I discovered. I would have been much happier if I could have resolved the differences. But since I cannot, while ninety percent of what I had written in Yada Yahweh had nothing to do with Sha’uwl, based upon what I have learned, it will now take me a year to cleanse those seven volumes of Paul’s epistles.
I also love his analysis of the dilemma most people who love Christ are in when confronted with this issue. When they hear questions about Paul, they defend they are Christians, but often start justifying doctrine at odds with Christ unwittingly. They think they are identical. CW says:
while Christians will say that their faith is predicated upon "Jesus Christ," when asked to explain it, they will almost always cite Pauline Doctrine rather than the words of the Messiyah Yahshua. But the notion that Paul’s teachings differ substantially from "Christ’s" is lost on these Christians.
I also love his requirement that a true seeker must not quote Paul to disprove something else he said, because it only exposes Paul's self-contradictoriness:
But if you find fault with my translations of the oldest extant manuscripts, or with my reasoning, feel free to express your concerns and I’ll address them. But please, don’t quote a conflicting passage from one of Paul’s epistles to negate something he said elsewhere, as this would only prove that he contradicted himself. Yahweh’s Word (the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms) and Yahshua’s testimony (as recorded in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Revelation) comprise the lone reservoir of reliable evidence worthy of our consideration relative to evaluating Paul’s veracity.
I also like his translation of Psalm 19:7 to not be about the "simple" but about the "open minded." Here is what he renders it as saying:
Yahuweh’s testimony is trustworthy and reliable (‘aman – verifiable, confirming, supportive, and establishing), making understanding and obtaining wisdom (hakam – educating and enlightening oneself to the point of comprehension) simple for the open-minded." (Psalm 19:7)
Compare the odd rendering of the God's Word Translation:
The teachings of the LORD are perfect. They renew the soul. The testimony of the LORD is dependable. It makes gullible people wise. (Psalm 19:7.)
The Bible does not applaud gullibility. It does however make sense that God's true word will be understandable to those who are open minded -- a much better translation.
I also like this statement in chapter two:
I was utterly fooled by this man. And yet the truth was blatantly obvious, even ubiquitous, but blind as a bat, I missed it. (Chapter Two.)
In Chapter Three, CW finally explains the crisis point came when he was writing his exposition on Galatians chapter four:
As I have previously stated, my initial goal in writing this review of Galatians was to resolve the apparent discrepancies between Yahweh’s Word and Pauline Doctrine. But once I reached the fourth chapter of this epistle, that goal was no longer possible, because the differences became irreconcilable.
Turning to his analysis of Paul in his chapter one, I like this quote:
For Christians, solely as a result of Paul’s epistles, hell awaits everyone who observes the Torah, while heaven embraces all those who place their faith in Paul’s Gospel of Grace. (Chapter One.)
For CW the key epistle is Galatians:
Without Galatians, Yahweh’s Torah remains the means to liberate humankind from religious and political oppression. But with Galatians, the Torah is mankind’s foe, the path to enslavement and condemnation. Id.
Mr. CW cogently sets up the dilemma between God's Word that says the Torah is a blessing to those obey it and a curse to those who disobey:
Reason dictates that if the following KJV and NLT translations are accurate, then the "Law," better known as the "Torah," is God’s way of cursing humankind—not saving us. And if this is true, Yahweh and Yahshua are liars. The King James reads: "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." (3:10)
More clearly presented, albeit, less aligned with the Greek text, the New Living Translation published: "But those who depend on the law to make them right with God are under his curse, for the Scriptures say, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the commands that are written in God’s Book of the Law.’ (3:10) If they are correct, God’s Word is God’s curse.
CW shows Galatians in an amplified translation he provides is a quote of the Torah, but as he proceeds, he will show it is a misquote. First, here is the amplified version of Galatians 3:10
Based upon the words Sha’uwl selected, this is what he actually said: "For as long as they exist by means of doing the assigned tasks and activities of the Torah, they are under a curse, because it is written that: ‘All are accursed who do not remain alive in and who do not persevere with all that is written in the scroll of the Torah, doing it.’" (Galatians 3:10)
CW relies upon the oldest manuscript evidence for Galatians, and says the KJV and NLT significantly vary from it: "Recognizing that the preceding translation is a literal rendering of Papyrus 46, the oldest extant manuscript of Sha’uwl’s letter (dated to the late first or early second century), it’s hard to explain the KJV’s and NLT’s considerable variation from it."
This is important. CW explains:
Rather than saying that "those who depend on the law to make them right with God are under his curse," Sha’uwl cited a Torah passage which says the opposite: "All are accursed who don’t remain alive in all that is written in the scroll of the Torah, doing it." According to the Scripture passage Sha’uwl quoted, without the Torah, there is no life.
Sha’uwl misquoted Deuteronomy 27:26, which reads: "Cursed (invoking harm upon oneself) is whoever is not established (restored and supported) by the words of this Torah (towrah – law, prescriptions for living, directions, teachings, and instructions), observing and accomplishing them. And the entire family said, ‘This is true, acceptable, and reliable.’" (Deuteronomy 27:26)
I found another witty and analytical comment by CW that shows Paul, if true, destroys the entire root of Christian faith which must be Torah:
Can Paul’s thesis, his faith, his religion, be "very different from the way" delineated by God in the Torah and still reconcile fallen man into a relationship with that same God? Has God endorsed a revised plan which is counter to the one He originally authored? And yet if He did such a thing, wouldn’t it make Him untrustworthy and unreliable?
After meticulously exposing 4 misquotes by Paul in Galatians chapter 3 of the Torah, CW deftly concludes:
We have also learned that Paul has misapplied and misquoted Scripture, which is troubling. All four citations were abridged, taken out of context, and altered to make it appear as if Paul’s message and God’s were in sync. This will become a bad habit, one which many Christians have come to emulate to justify their religious views. And it is also curious that each of the four Scriptural passages Sha’uwl cited actually affirmed the value and enduring nature of the Torah, and thus undermined the [Pauline]-Christian religion. And that suggests Paul had very little respect for the intelligence of his audience.
CW then compares Jesus' words onTorah / the Law in Matt 5:17-19, and the 'least' is someone who annuls it, and then asks:
But it raises a question: since this is Yahshua’s assessment of those who dismiss the Torah, how would you evaluate Sha’uwl’s standing with Yahweh if he convinced the world that he had done this very thing—and all with God’s blessing? Said another way, is there even one chance in a billion that God inspired, even condoned and endorsed, the writings of a man who invalidated the Torah in light of this statement by Yahshua? Do Christians honestly believe that Paul can contradict God and still be trusted?
I love what he then says a bit further on:
But why is it that not one Christian theologian has the character, courage, and intellectual integrity to say that Paul’s position, if Christians have interpreted it correctly, is diametrically opposed to Yahshua’s teaching on the subject of salvation, and his statements are in direct conflict with Scripture?
The author of Questioning Paul then addresses the typical Pauline response is to assume there is some defect in translation. To this he responds:
let’s pause a moment and consider the options at your disposal regarding Paul’s Scriptural misquotes. You can ignore them based upon the notion that you believe that I have misrepresented Paul’s or Yahweh’s statements. But this approach is easily resolved....just compare standard English translations of the Scripture passage and Sha’uwl’s quotation and note the differences.
...you can accept the fact that the citations are different, but attribute their divergence to an inadvertent mistake on Paul’s part. But if you do, you must also abandon the notion that Paul’s letters are Scripture—the inerrant Word of God. And with that realization, the foundation of [Pauline] Christianity crumbles.
You can admit that there is a pattern of malfeasance with regard to all of Paul’s Scriptural citations, and recognize that they are misquoted and then twisted to support Pauline Doctrine, which means that he intended to misrepresent them. But if you take this path, you will be compelled to label Paul a false witness. And at that point, [Pauline] Christianity becomes a false religion.
CW brings us into the end having to make a harsh decision:
...the Messiyah Yahshua’s testimony is in complete harmony with Yahweh and it is in total conflict with Sha’uwl’s epistles. Simply stated, the [Pauline] Christian position is unsupportable; it is ignorant and irrational. So the question remains: are you?
As we proceed, CW acknowledges that God was in Jesus, but he cautions us not to make Jesus' contain the entirety of God.
While Yahshua came from Yahweh, they are not equivalent. Yahshua cannot equal Yahweh because Yahshua, by His own admission, and by necessity, is the diminished manifestation of Yahweh. All of God cannot fit into a human form, and the undiminished presence of God would incinerate our planet.
If the human manifestation of God was equal to God, what’s known as the "Lord’s" prayer would have Yahshua saying: "Pray to Me who is in heaven, set-apart is My name, My kingdom come, My will be done..." So, now with the Son having returned to the Father, it’s curious that Paul saw himself representing the representative.
CW follows my similar approach which is to apply Deuteronomy 13:1-5 and 18 to Paul. He is a bit more exhaustive, so let's hear how he does so:
And since Paul claimed to speak in the name of the Messiyah Yahshua, we are compelled to consider his statements in light of the Deuteronomy 18 test established by God to evaluate the authenticity of such assertions. There, Yahweh delineated the six signs of a false prophet: they speak in His name, they are arrogant, overstepping their bounds, their words are inconsistent with the Torah’s instructions, they recite the names of foreign gods, and their historical presentations are inaccurate, and their prophetic promises fail to materialize.
In Chapter 3, CW revisits this issue, and explains one sign of a false prophet is one who speaks arrogantly and presumptuously which explains why their prophecies do not come true:
If that statement (dabar) which (‘asher) is spoken(dabar) by the one who proclaims the message (naby’ – prophet) in Yahuweh’s (YaHuWeH’s)name (shem – reputation and renown) does not (lo’) exist (hayah – did not happen), and does not(lo’) come to be (bow’ – arrive upon the scene), the message (dabar) which (‘asher) he (huw’) has spoken (dabar) is not (lo’) Yahuweh’s (YaHuWeH’s). He (huw’) has spoken (dabar) in (ba)arrogance and presumptuousness (zadown – imprudently insulting contemptuous and shameless speech, taking great liberty while overstepping all due bounds, in disobedience to the law and judge). His (huw’) message (dabar) is not (lo’) prophetic (naby’ – is not a message from God). Stir up trouble for and quarrel with (guwr min) him (huw’)." (Deuteronomy 18:21-22)
Hence, the fact one speaks confidently of the future bespeaks a strong possibility of arrogance and presumption rather than spiritual communication with God is the source.
I find it very important that CW, who examined the earliest manuscripts, noted OY was a shorthand reference in Paul's epistles for YAHWEH, yet this is not rendered at all in any translation:
Often overlooked, four of the most common Divine Placeholders for God’s names and titles were used in this passage. The ???, ???, ??, and ??? represent: "Messiyah, the Implement of Yah," "Yahushua," meaning "Yah Saves," "Yahweh," or "Elohym-God," and His favorite title "’Ab-Father," based upon the first word in the Hebrew lexicon.
Examples of placeholders not used in this particular verse, but ubiquitous throughout the rest of the Renewed Covenant, and universally found in every first-, second-, third-, and early fourth-century Greek manuscript, describe the "Ruwach-Spirit," the "’Edon-Upright One," and the "Upright Pillar." And Placeholders for "Mother" and "Son," like "Father" are also common, but not universal.
While codices dating to the first three centuries differ somewhat among themselves, and differ significantly from those composed after the influence of General Constantine, the use of Divine Placeholders is the lone exception to scribal variation among the early manuscripts. These symbols for God’s name and titles are universally found on every page of every extant codex written within 300 years of Yahshua’s day, without exception. But, nonetheless, they are universally ignored by Christian translators, writers, and preachers. By including them here in the text, as all of the Renewed Covenant authors themselves did, it is incumbent upon us to correct 1,700 years of religious tampering and corruption. (Ch. One.)
How did CW deduce the placeholder for Yahweh in Paul's and other NT writings?
Kappa Sigma and Kappa Upsilon, in capital letters with a line over them, were used to convey Yahweh’s name and Yahshua’s "Upright One" title, even though every English bible replaces these symbols with "Lord." The fact Kappa Sigma conveys "Yahweh," the preponderance of the time it is used, is something I discovered when translating Greek quotations of Hebrew passages cited by Yahshua and His apostles in the Renewed Covenant.
The Sigma Upsilon in capital form is [see his website for image].
And as I mention about the Septuagint discoveries -- that the earliest mss had YHWH, Winn says that this evolved in the 3d century CE to the ??:
This obvious conclusion has been reaffirmed recently by the publication of early Septuagint manuscripts. In them we find a transition from writing Yahweh’s name in paleo-Hebrew in the midst of the Greek text throughout the first and second centuries, to using the symbolism of Kappa Sigma to represent Yahweh’s name beginning in the third-century. So, we now know for certain, what seemed perfectly obvious: the Divine Placeholders[image] and [image] were used to designate Yahuweh’s name in a language whose alphabet could not replicate its sounds.
CW digresses even further into name usage, which we look forward to studying. We added quotes from CW to our study of the names of Yahweh and Yashua.
The author continues in chapter two, and says that Paul could not gain traction in the early church because enough Jews were present to see the disconnect:
The other reason that Paul had so much trouble with his first three assemblies, the Galatians, Thessalonians, and Corinthians, is that his message was so radically different than Yahweh’s, Yahshua’s, and the Disciples. And since the overwhelming preponderance of the first followers of "The Way" were Yahuwdym (better known as Jews), they not only knew the Torah, they had come to recognize Yahshua through the Torah. And they realized that Sha’uwl lacked the authorization to annul any part of it. So it became a credibility issue. They could trust Yahweh or believe Paul. And initially, based upon the evidence contained in the epistles to the Galatians, Thessalonians, and Corinthians, the people chose God over Paul.
In chapter two, I believe the author digressed too deeply into the word "evangelion," and to seemingly too insignificant a point. Regardless, the author is extremely thorough. This is more a commmentary then on every word in Galatians than simply questioning Paul in any methodical fashion. Yet, I understand that if we are to start anywhere, it has to be a 100% accurate view of Paul's words. So if you can read in this detail, you will have a 100% grasp on the issues.
The author gets back on track soon enough, and he shows Paul is attacking and undermining everything to do with Jesus' true message and the 12 apostles;
Offensively, Paul would soon undermine, belittle, and besmirch the Torah, separating Yahshua from it so as to nullify His sacrifice. And before long, we will witness him undermining, belittling, and besmirching Yahshua’s Disciples, effectively nullifying the Messiyah’s message. These things done, he substituted his own doctrine in God’s name.
CW then deals with Galatians 1:8 where Paul calls down a curse on even angels from heaven if they preached a different gospel from Paul. To which Paul brings home the tragic implication:
The one thing all of the translations have in common affirms that Paul wanted his rivals cursed. And by his definition, his opponents were those whose message was contrary to his own. And as we will discover as we make our way through this letter, Sha’uwl’s rivals will come to include: Yahweh, His prophets, Yahshua, and His Disciples. They all preached a message which was contrary to Sha’uwl’s.
CW then comments that Paul was not simply attacking God's foes, but was attacking his own enemies which Christ taught us to Love. Power very astutely comments:
But what’s happening here is that Paul is lashing out at everyone, while individually attacking those he perceives are his enemies. In this regard, his tone will become vicious—stunningly uncivilized. Moreover, as the evidence will demonstrate, Sha’uwl’s adversaries were leading the Galatians to Yahweh while Sha’uwl was taking them for a ride in the opposite direction.
Winn points out that Paul found his message from sources outside the Torah, Prophets and Yahshua, then cogently brings home what this means:
Beyond the fact that I now understand that the underlying purpose of Galatians was to separate Yahshua from the Torah, and thereby negate His sacrifice while nullifying the means to our salvation, to say that he "was not taught" his message, is to say that he did not learn the truth the same place Yahshua directed all of us to go for understanding: the Torah, Prophets and Psalms. Neither Sha’uwl, you, nor I need private instruction considering the nature of God’s public disclosure. (And to the Christians out there who may say that this isn’t necessarily true because Yahshua was the Word made flesh, and thus He revealed the truth to Sha’uwl, the basis of your argument is invalidated by the fact that Galatians was written in opposition to the Torah.)
Commenting on Galatians 1:13 with its derogation of the "Jews' religion" and 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 which says Jews oppose all "human beings," Winn aptly explains:
While I have attempted to hold Paul himself accountable for the severe character flaws required to perpetrate savagery on innocent kin, he must also bear the burden of his legacy. His positioning of Judaism as a ruthless enemy of "God’s church" has fanned the flames of anti-Semitism and caused horrible and needless suffering. Translations exacerbated the problem to be sure, but it was Paul who presented Judaism as the enemy of his faith: Christianity. The foreseeable and inevitable consequence was to rally Christians to persecute Jews out of a misguided sense of divine retribution....[Paul's] repositioning of Yahweh’s Chosen People as being permanently disinherited, and as being the enemy of all humankind, as being completely evil, has the Adversary’s fingerprints all over it.
CW then discusses the likelihood that Paul would see disciples of Yashua right after his Damascus experience but then when he arrives at Jerusalem, they are afraid of him:
Further, the notion that Yahshua’s Disciples met with him in Damascus in Acts 9:19, but were then afraid of him in Jerusalem in Acts 9:26, isn’t realistic.
I would conclude it is most likely Paul did not meet any disciples, and when he arrived 3 years later, this explains why there was fear of him upon meeting him.
Then CW questions the message of the "Jesus' Paul met:
And if we are to believe Sha’uwl’s testimony here, the three years Yahshua spent with His Disciples was a colossal waste of time. All of the prophecies and instructions the Messiyah spoke to Shim’own were false. Further, this statement contradicts Sha’uwl’s testimony throughout Galatians, where he divides the world, giving Shim’own, Ya’aqob, and Yahuchanan responsibility for the children of Yisra’el, while he assumed authority over the nations and races.
Rarely is it openly discussed why Jacob, clearly transliterated into Greek, is always rendered as James. It was done to please King James, for it appears nowhere earlier as "James." CW makes a blunt critique:
Ya’aqob (Iakobos – a transliteration of the Hebrew Ya’aqob who became Yisra’el), the (tov) brother (adelphos – male sibling) of the Upright One (??)." (Galatians 1:19)
***
The reason this verse should be troubling to Protestants, is that it undermines the credibility of the King James Bible, and indeed the credibility of every English translation since that time. While Sha’uwl correctly transliterated the name of Yahshua’s brother, Ya’aqob, [King James' translators] changed his name to match that of his king’s. The King James Version therefore reads: "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother."
The mindset required to justify altering the name of Yahshua’s brother, Ya’aqob, so that he became known by the name of the reigning English monarch, is the same mindset needed to copyedit God and His messengers whenever it suits a political purpose. Such men cannot be trusted—nor can their translations.
But what does this say about the mindset of those who know that this was done, and yet have done nothing to correct the record? Even to this day, King James’ name sits atop the letter written by Ya’aqob.
This literary fraud, and its perpetuation, exposes the lack of moral character manifest by Christian leaders who continue to accept the wholesale infusion of Babylonian religious rites and symbols into Christendom. While it’s just a name, it’s indicative of...how Passover, Unleavened Bread, and FirstFruits became "Easter," how the Sabbath became "Sunday," how Yahweh became "the Lord," and how the Messiyah Yahshua became "Jesus Christ."
Then CW exposes the misprepresentation of Mary as perpetual virgin led to obviously disingenuous commentary added to Scripture of the Vulgate by Jerome:
But this verse clearly states that Ya’aqob was Yahshua’s brother, as do many other passages. So Jerome was in a pickle. Therefore, after writing: "But I saw none of the other apostolorum, except Iacobum, the brother of the Domini," Jerome was forced to add the following to the Latin Vulgate: "This Iacobum is Iacobum the Less, who stayed in Ierosolymam, while the other apostolorum went out to preach the evangelium to the world. He functioned as the spiritual leader of the city where Christi preached and died; he was the Bishop of Ierosolymam. He was called the brother of the Domini because he was a cousin of Iesu, and also because he was similar in appearances to Iesu." It was all untrue, every word of it, and Jerome knew it. But religious leaders will say and do anything to perpetuate their power.
CW is adamant that any male who wishes to see heaven must be circumcised. He does not cite any Bible verses. But I would point out that in Leviticus 12:1-3 where the circumcision command exists, it is only upon the sons of Israel, and not Gentiles. Regardless, here is what CW says:
If you want to be included in the Covenant, if you want to be adopted into Yahweh’s family, and if you want to enter heaven, if you are not currently circumcised, get circumcised. As we shall see, with Yahweh, male circumcision is a life and death issue, one in which He is unwilling to compromise. So, my point is simply that we should seek to understand all of Yahweh’s signs in the light of His plan of salvation. (Chapter Three.)
CW discusses the validity of Paul's mention that the 12 apostles agreed to give Paul the exclusive domain of evangelizing gentiles, and they alone to Jews. CW's words are stirring and make us wonder about Paul's claim:
Galatians 2:7 is ... about divvying up the world, with Paul taking a 99.99% share for himself....So he was telling Yahshua’s Disciples to capitulate—to see things his way, to accept their fate and his, and to live with it.
From henceforth, Sha’uwl would be the Torah’s principle antagonist, and in pursuit of his new faith, he would do everything in his power to keep those who disagreed with him away from his target audience—the world apart from Jews. And in so doing, from Sha’uwl’s perspective, Jews became competitors and opponents—his rivals and thus enemies. So while Yahweh’s Chosen People had faced the wrath of the Egyptians, the Philistines, the Hittites, the Babylonians, Assyrians, Greeks, and Romans, Paul would be their most formidable foe. The religion he conceived with this statement and with this letter would be a two-thousand-year curse and lead directly to the death of more Jews than any villain in their history.
With similar sharp wit, CW adds later:
But as a result of Sha’uwl’s mindset and this meeting, his new faith would reflect his views, and drive a wedge between Jews and Gentiles. Paul’s "church" would henceforth view Yahweh’s Chosen People as a conniving and ruthless enemy, and they would come to discount their God, His Land, and Word.
CW also has a very correct assessment of the Epistle to the Galatians:
Therefore, I am convinced that Paul’s letters are from Paul, not God. And Paul, like all of us, experienced good days and bad ones. Galatians reflects one of the darkest episodes in this controversial man’s life—and thus this epistle remains his most haunting legacy.
And I love CW's conclusion:
[W]hile Paul’s letters are worthy of consideration, I don’t need his epistles to be Scripture to know what Yahweh revealed and promised, or what Yahshua said and did. My salvation is not predicated upon Paul, his credibility, his letters, or his mission, but instead upon Yahweh, His credibility, His Word, and His mission.
CW continues by assessing what he believes is God's response to Pauline Christianity:
Pauline Doctrine, by severing the connection between the Messiyah and the Torah, rendered Yahshua’s sacrifice irrelevant and of no effect for billons of Gentile Christians. While Sha’uwl has invited people of every race and place into God’s family and home, Yahweh has put us on notice that Paul’s invitation was a fraud, and that the self-acclaimed Apostle was the greatest abomination in human history.
CW in chapter four says that Peter in Acts 15 says that the apostles learned "not to make a distinction between" Gentiles and Jews to extent of the message that cleanses the hearts. Acts 15:8-9. This is at odds with the veracity of Paul's claim in Galatians 2 that the 12 apostles gave Paul the exclusive ministry to the Gentiles:
Also in direct contrast to Sha’uwl, the Rock said that "no one should make a distinction between us and them," which was to say that the world should not be divided between Yahuwdym and Gowym. All of Yahweh’s Spirit-filled troubadours are called to share God’s healing and beneficial message with everyone—regardless of race or place.
I greatly love CW's perception that the fact Paul had signs and wonders is a negative, not a positive.
But we must be careful with regard to Paul’s claim to have produced "signs and wonders." Rather than serve as proof of his ministry, it may actually be another nail in his coffin.
In Matthew 24:4, seventeen years in advance of the day they would benefit from this advice, Yahshua warned His Disciples to be especially wary of the likes of Paul. His Olivet Discourse begins with: "And Yahushua (??) responded judgmentally (apokrinomai – used discernment to separate fact from fiction; a compound of apo, separate, and krino, to separate, choosing right from wrong), telling (eupen) them (autos), ‘Pay attention and be perceptive (blepete – look closely and watch out, be careful and discerning, think and understand), lest (ue) someone (tis) will cause you to wander away from the truth (planaomai umas – deceive and delude you, leading you astray)." (Matthew 24:4)
In a private meeting in which only His Disciples were present, Yahshua "told them to pay attention and to be careful, lest someone will cause you to wander away from the truth, deceiving and deluding you." Since this warning was stated specifically to and for the Disciples, might this someone be Paul, and the occasion be the Yaruwshalaym Summit? And if not him, who? If not then, when?
Next CW comes across Matt 24:5 which he expands to explain it possibly means someone coming "in My Name" saying "I exist as Messiah." I quote from his chapter four:
Moving on to the next element in this imminent prophetic warning: "For (gar) many (polys) will come (erchomai) in (en – [from Papyrus 70; whereas the more recent NA27 reads "by means of (epi)"]) My (ego) name (onoma – reputation), saying (lego – claiming), ‘I (ego) exist as, belong to, or represent (eimi – I am and I stand for) the (o) Messiyah (?? – the Implement of Yah). And (kai) many (polys) will wander away from the truth (planaomai – will be deceived and deluded).’"(Matthew 24:5)
Since it is easy to blend Yahshua’s thoughts together, let’s consider them one at a time. Initially He said: "many will come in My name," and indeed, many have, but not all of those who have claimed to represent God have been deceitful.
CW clarifies: "The most literal rendering of eimi in the middle clause of this next verse, would suggest that Yahshua predicted that many people would say 'I am the Messiah.'"
CW continues in this great exposition from Matthew 24.
Continuing with the Olivet Discourse, Yahshua’s warning to His Disciples was advanced twenty verses later with: "Then (tote) if (ean) someone (tis) says to (eipon) you (umeis), ‘Behold(idou – indeed, suddenly now, look) here in this place (hode – in this case positioned near the speaker) the Messiyah ([Hebrew font]),’ or, ‘in this case here (hode),’ do not (me) think that they are trustworthy or reliable (pisteuo).’" (Matthew 24:23) Paul claimed to have seen the Messiyah on the road to Damascus, and then again in Arabia. The sandal still fits. And it fits Sha’uwl alone, as no one else made such claims during the lifetimes of Yahshua’s Disciples.
****
But, Yahshua would be even more specific regarding Paul, tailoring the prophetic prediction to reflect the wannabe Apostle’s boast that he met with Yahshua in Arabia, the ultimate Scriptural "wilderness." Listen to God: "Look (idou – indeed, telling the listener to pay attention to this subject), I’ve told you this beforehand, forewarning you (proeipon umin – I have spoken to you about this previously, predicting in advance that it will occur in your future). If and when (ean) therefore (oun), someone says (eiposin) to you, ‘Look, indeed (idou), He exists (estin – He is (third person, singular and thus "He exists," and not "I exist") in (en) the (te) wilderness (eremos – uninhabited desert),’ behold, do not (me) leave (exerchomai – go away from) your place in (en) the treasured inner room of the home (tameion – the reserved and secure chamber of a household and storehouse where [the Spirit] will be distributed). You should not (me) trust him (pisteuo – think that what he has said is true)." (Matthew 24:25-26)
Juxtapose this with Paul’s claim to have encountered the Messiah on the road to Damascus, and then to meeting with Him in Arabia. Once again, Paul is not only a perfect fit for this warning, he is the only candidate who made these claims within the lifetimes of Yahshua’s audience. Yahshua specifically warned His Disciples about Sha’uwl’s deceptive message—and us through them. Are you listening?
And CW continues, mentioning Jesus adds every eye will see Him if he truly is visible on earth again.To this CW dissolves any honest Paulinist's trust in Paul's Jesus being the true Jesus. CW concludes:
While it’s a big picture item, it is also worth noting that in the Olivet Discourse, in the context of warning His Disciples..., Yahshua said that when He returns, He will be seen by everyone from the horizon in the west to the east, and not just by a one fellow in the company of a handful of others. If Yahshua was telling the truth, Paul was lying [SIC: deceived, I contend].
Elsewhere, in chapter twelve, CW revisits the point, and puts it well:
Juxtapose this with Paul’s claim to have encountered the Messiah on the road to Damascus, and then to meeting with Him in Arabia, and we discover that once again, Paul is not only a perfect fit for this warning, he is the only candidate who made these claims within the lifetimes of Yahshua’s audience. So either Yahshua erred in this prophecy, or He was warning, telling us not to trust Sha’uwl’s claims. And let us not forget, Yahshua told His Disciples that when He returned, everyone on earth would see Him, not just one man.
CW believes that these clear prophecies from Christ explain clearly why the Ebionites concluded what they did:
However, since we are considering the possibility that Paul was a perfect fit for Yahshua’s warning, it is instructive to know that the Ebionites, who were first-century followers of The Way, specifically excluded Paul’s letters from their canon, as they considered him to be a false prophet. It wasn’t until Marcion in the early second century that Paul was canonized, even promoted as "the only true Apostle," bequeathed with the foreboding distinction of being "God’s chosen Messenger."
Then CW turns to Matthew 24:24, and again sees a fit with Paul:
Translated from a mix of Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek, and then Greek to English, this is what the only Messenger who was God, said: "Because (gar) pseudo-christs (pseudochristoi – false-messiahs) and (kai) pseudo-prophets (pseudoprophetai) will stand up and arouse(egeiromai – will rise up, awaken, and stir the comatose), doing (didomi) great (megas) signs(semeion) and (kai) wonders (teras – portentous events) in order to (hoste) delude and deceive (planao – causing people to stray from the path), even (kai) if it were possible (ei dynatos – if they were able), those who were chosen (eklektos – those who select and are selected, from ek, out of, and legos, the Word)." (Matthew 24:24)
When Paul got up before the Yaruwshalaym Ekklesia and tried to impress them by bragging about the "signs and wonders" he had performed, using the exact same phrasing Yahshua had warned about, the Disciples should have remembered this conversation regarding someone who would "planao – lead them astray, deceiving and deluding them," and responded appropriately. Paul has now failed three tests: Yahshua’s and Yahweh’s. (CW, Questioning Paul ch. 4.)
Later CW in chapter twelve revisits this point, and aptly puts his analysis this way:
When Paul got up before the Yaruwshalaym Ekklesia and tried to impress the Disciples by bragging about the "signs and wonders" he had performed, using the exact same phrasing Yahshua had warned about, they should have remembered this conversation and responded appropriately. Paul has now failed two tests: Yahshua’s and Yahweh’s. (CW Questioning Paul, Ch. 12.)
CW puts in context "even if possible, those who were chosen" as a clear reference to the apostles. They were not to think it was impossible that they too were capable of being deceived. CW comments:
I have always seen the humor in Yahshua’s style. Here, rather than just saying that a person would rise up and arouse people, claiming to speak for Him while doing signs and wonders, in order to deceive, He said that "if it were possible," he would delude "even those who were chosen." While all of us are given the opportunity to choose God, there were twelve individuals who were chosen by God. So by augmenting his false-prophet warning with this particular hypothetical in front of this unique audience, the Word was elbowing the Apostles in the ribs—"Hint, hint, I’m talking to you."
CW says the English translation of Paul's remark in 2 Cor. 12:6-7 conceals rather than reveals a link to Jesus' comments in Luke 10:18-19. When you see the link, as CW attempts to expose, CW says it is "chilling in the extreme."
First, CW starts with the amplified translation of the passage Luke 10:18-19 which turns out to be somewhat off kilter. Later CW will take the reference to "lightning" and "scorpions" and make a major point:
While we are on the topic of Paul hanging himself with his own words, I’d like you to consider his "conversion experience" alongside Yahshua’s statement regarding Satan. In Luke 10:18, we read: "Then He [Yahushua] said (eipon) to them [the seventy witnesses He had sent out], I saw(theoreo – closely examined) the Adversary, Satan (Satanas – the one who opposes) falling(pipto – descending and prostrating himself) as (hos – similar to) lightning (astraphe – as a bright beam or ray of light) from (ek) heaven (ouranos – the sky). Behold, I give you the authority to trample upon (pateo epano – tread upon, crush and devastate) serpents (ophis – snakes which serve as a metaphor for demons) and scorpions (skorpios – poisonous animal, from skopos, skeptics who conceal) and upon the whole of (pas) the hostile enemy’s (echthros – the hated and odious one’s opposing) power (dynamis). And absolutely nothing will harm you (adikeo – nor will you be doing anything wrong or unjust)." (Luke 10:18-19)
With that base set forth, then CW connects Paul's Road to Damascus experience of lightning to what Jesus says in Luke 10:18-19:
Now for Paul’s depiction of what he experienced: "It happened. I was traveling and approaching Damascus, around noon, then suddenly and unexpectedly (exaiphnes) nearby a burst of lightning (periastraphai – a flashing light, from peri, about, near, concerning, and on account of, and astrape, lightning, a beam or ray of bright light) from (ek) heaven (ouranos – the sky), an intense (hikanos – sufficient and adequate) light (phos) about (peri – near, around, and concerning) me (eme)." (Acts 22:6) Paul’s depiction is exactly as Yahshua had described the fall of Satan. Sha’uwl even used the same words.
CW rhetorically asks: "Was his bout with the lightning bolt actually an encounter with Satan disguised as Yahshua?" As Paul himself knew or should have known, CW translates 2 Cor 11:14:
"And(kai) [do] not (ou) wonder (thauma – marvel at this miraculous vision, nor be amazed in admiration) [at this], for indeed (gar), he (autos), the Adversary Satan (Satanas) changes his appearance (metaschematizo – masquerades, disguising himself, transforming his image) into(eis) a spiritual, heavenly messenger (angelos – divine representative) [of] light (photos)." (2 Corinthians 11:14)
Then CW elucidates why he left in the portion of Luke 10 that discusses scorpions:
Additionally, you may have noticed that Yahshua gave His witnesses the express "authority to trample upon serpents and scorpions" in the context of confronting Satan’s power. We know that the Scriptural metaphor for Satan was established as a "serpent" in the Genesis presentation of the fall of man in the Garden of Eden. This symbolism was then reinforced four thousand years later by Yahshua when he said that religious clerics were the children of poisonous snakes in Matthew 23.
And while that explains the association between Satan and "serpents," why did Yahshua add "scorpions" in the context of His prophetic portrayal of Sha’uwl’s spiritual encounter? Those who were paying close attention know the answer. You may recall that Sha’uwl claimed that his enormous ego was held in check because: "I was given a sharp pointed prod (skolops – scorpion’s stinger) in the flesh of my physical body and human nature, Satan’s spiritual/demonic representative, in order that he would strike and torment me in order that I not become overly conceited." (2 Corinthians 12:6-7) In addition to being a "sharp pointed prod,"skolops means "scorpion." In a criminal trial, as in this evaluation, the details tell the tale. And rest assured, there is yet another convicting detail hidden within this confession.
I would just point out that I could not prove skolops only means a scorpion's stinger, as this appeared to suggest. It means "any pointed" object, and would likely be the way to describe a scorpion's stinger. Yet, it could depict other sharp objects as well. But Questioning Paul makes the point far stronger, as if it only could mean a scorpion's stinger.
Then CW says Paul "said that the spirit of Lawlessness was functioning at this present time—something he knew personally, because he admitted to being restrained by it in 2 Corinthians 12."
CW then explains in chapter five with more detail on a possible connection between the "kick against the pricks" remark and the "skolops" that kept Paul under restraint later. I think Paul may not have seen the connection, and not realized his "Jesus" meant the "skolops" that Paul later admitted Satan used to afflict him:
"Skolops – a sharp pointed stick used as a prod, a stinger, and a scorpion" is clearly associated with Paul’s use of "kentron – a sharp pointed stick used to prod animals and control them, the poisonous stinger of a scorpion" in Acts 26:14, where Paul says that he was told by [Satan], in the guise of "Jesus," that it would be hard to rebel against him. And that means that Acts 26:14, which describes Paul’s meeting with the flashing light on the road to Damascus where he was told that he could not repel, and Second Corinthians 12:7, which describes the way Satan possessed and controlled Paul, are related. The common denominator is a false god and a wannabe god—Satan.
Since this passage is so incredibly incriminating, you might be interested to know that Greek words which are related to "skolops – a sharp pointed prod," include skopeo: "something dangerous to be on the lookout out for, to notice by being carefully observant, and to be very concerned about." Skopos: "a goal toward which someone is being directed, striving for a specific purpose." Skorpizo: "to scatter, disperse, and separate." Skorpois: "a supernatural demonic power and stinging scorpion." Skotia: "a dark and evil realm." Skotos: "the abode of evil and demonic spirits." And skolios: "to be unscrupulous and morally corrupt, to be perverse and deceitful, and to warp a path making what was once straight crooked."
In chapter four, CW continues. He says Paul himself recognizes that it is possible that false prophets would claim to be Jesus' apostles, and since Jesus said by the same measure you measure, it will be measured back to you, then we must take Paul's words as a possible self-indictment. Paul wrote:
Paul alone seemed to know [the possibility that the Christ he met was Satan]: "For such are false prophets, treacherous and deceitful (dolios – tricky and clever) workmen (ergates – perpetrators) masquerading as (metaschematizo – converted and transformed so as to appear, disguised and pretending to be) [the] Messiyah’s (?P?) Apostles (apostolos – prepared messenger who is sent out)." (2 Corinthians 11:13)
One of the most astute observation by CW is he answers why does Paul receive messages from his "Jesus" to disparage Satan. CW explains why:
So you may be wondering why Satan would be this overt regarding his relationship with Paul, and why he would encourage Paul to disparage the "Adversary" in the same text. But the answer is obvious. By disparaging the Adversary, Satan makes it appear as if he isn’t the Adversary.
Likewise, this is why Paul is inspired by his Jesus to describe Satan as capable of counterfeit signs and wonders so that those who have true signs and wonders are mistaken for Satan's workers while Satan's workers are misunderstood as God's workers. In this way, you would not suspect Paul was being precisely the one whose signs and wonders are from Satan:
Let’s listen to the man he inspired:"Which (ou) exists as (estin) the presence (parousia – the personal arrival) according to (kata – the name of the opposite of, that which is against and beneath) the functioning (energeia – the efficacy and power, the influence and operation) of the Adversary Satan (Satana – the one who opposes) in (en) all (pas – every) ability and power (dynamis – miracles and supernatural deeds, resources and capability) and also (kai) signs (semeion) and intentionally counterfeit (pseudo – conspicuously false and misleading imitations in the form of) wonders (teras – foreshadowing significant omens)." (2 Thessalonians 2:9)
So besides associating "signs and wonders" with Satan, what else is Sha’uwl inferring here? Why is he praising Lucifer, the "glorious and radiant divine manifestation of power and light," while at the same time, predicting the demise of the "Adversary Satan?" The answer is clear, at least once you come to understand the Deceiver’s strategy and motivation.
Satan doesn’t want to be known as "the Adversary;" he wants humankind to confuse his "gloriously brilliant appearance" with God. His goal is to have his "intentionally counterfeit foreshadowing wonders" be considered religious truth. Lucifer (from Latin meaning Light Bearer) or Halal ben Shachar (from Hebrew meaning Arrogant and Brilliant Son of the Rising Sun) inspires his messengers to promote him as God, making his adversarial title the enemy. By condemning Satan, Lucifer is delivered from this Adversary epithet.
A similar misdirection appears in this passage from Paul in 2 Thessalonians:
"In (en) every (pas) deception (apate) [and] unjust deed (adikia) they disappear and are destroyed (apollymai – they are unaware and thus lost) instead of (anti – against which) not (ouk)accepting and believing (dechomai) the love (agapen) [of the] truth (aletheia) to (eis) save (sozo)themselves (autous). And (kai) through (dia) this (touto), he sends to (pempo) them (autois) the(o) God (theos) facilitating (energeia – empowering and effecting) deception and delusion (plane– perversion and moral corruption, leading people away from the path into error) in (eis) their(autous) belief (pisteuo – meaning thinking regarding that which is trustworthy and true, but redefined by Paul to mean faith) [in] the lie (pseudo – counterfeit and intentional imitation)." (2 Thessalonians 2:10-11)
CW comments on this: "I’m not sure what this means, but it’s not good."
CW then refers to another passage where Paul refers to what is translated as the "man of Anomos" in 2 Thessalonians which many interpret as Anti-Christ. This is key for Paul himself admits elsewhere he is Anomos. Here is how CW makes this interesting observation even while disputing the accuracy of the translation of Thessalonians:
Christian eschatologists are wont to make anomos "the man of Lawlessness," or "the Lawless one," and thus serve as the name or title of the Antichrist, but there is no reference to "man" or "one" in the text, and anomos is an adjective, not a noun. But that’s hardly the end of the bad news for [Pauline] Christians. In Corinthians 9:21, Paul will brag: "To the lawless (anomos), I was like the lawless (anomos)." It is yet another chilling confession.
CW then provides his corrected translation of 2 Thessalonians which brings home the connection nevertheless:
"And then (tote) Lawlessness/Torah-lessness (anomos – the negation of the Torah) will be revealed and disclosed (apokalypto – uncovered and unveiled) whom (on) the Lord (kurios)‘Iesous (‘Iesous )– will do away with or accept (anaireo – remove the validation or adopt, abolish or lift up, kill or take for himself) the (to) spirit (pneumati) of (tou) his (autou – [could be referencing ‘Iesous’ or the spirit of Torah-lessness’]) mouth (stomatos – speech) and (kai) put an end to (katargeomai – invalidate or release from prior obligations, abolish or free) the glorious appearance (epiphaneia – the divine manifestation of his power and light; from epiphanies, to be conspicuous and illustrious) of his (autou) presence (parousia – coming arrival in person)." (2 Thessalonians 2:8)
CW then quotes a passage from Paul that justifies hypocrisy which CW then draws in sharp contrast to our Lord's words:
He was a chameleon, changing his colors to take advantage of his audience. He even admitted to this very thing (in his own pathetic style): "To the Jewish, I came to exist like (os) a Jew, in order to (hina) take advantage of and profit from(kerdaino – procure an advantage over) Jews. To those under the Torah (nomos), I acted as if(os) I was under the Torah—not that I, myself, actually existed under the Torah—in order to(hina) take advantage of and make a profit from those under the Torah. To the lawless (anomos – the Torah-less), I was like the lawless (anomos – the Torah-less), not being God’s (??) lawless, but to the contrary, subject to the law (ennomos – bound to the law) of the Messiyah (??), in order to (hina) take advantage of and profit from (kerdaino – procure an advantage over)the lawless. I became weak and sick (asthenes – incapable, infirmed, feeble, hopeless, helpless, and morally inadequate) to the weak in order to (hina) take advantage of and profit from (kerdaino – procure an advantage over) the weak. I became (ginomai) to every kind of (pas)person, every kind of (pas) person, in order to (hina) save (sozo) everyone (pantos tinas)." (1 Corinthians 9:20-22) Even Machiavelli wasn’t this bold.
As if he were speaking directly to Paul, Yahshua used kerdaino to say, "What do you benefit if you gain (kerdaino – take advantage of and profit from) the whole world, but lose your own soul?" (Matthew 16:26) It is stunningly appropriate.
CW cogently remarks that this passage in 1 Corinthians justifies trusting nothing Paul says:
This tactic is what we might expect for an unscrupulous politician or businessman, who will say and do anything, no matter how deceptive or fraudulent, to garner an unfair advantage, but not from someone claiming to speak openly and honestly on behalf of God. Yahshua, never once pretended to be other than He was and is. But by admitting this, Paul has just told everyone that his words, his behavior, and claims (such as representing the Messiyah), cannot be trusted.
CW then draws a comparison between Paul's remark about what is interpreted as anti-Christ by some and Paul's own behavior:
And if that were not enough, Paul specifically states that he "was like the ‘anomos – lawless,’" a condition he explicitly associated with Satan in his previous 2 Thessalonians 2:7-9 statement and letter. That was akin to proclaiming: "I Paul, am just like the Antichrist."
CW mentions that James in Acts 15:15-16 quotes Amos:
These then are the words which Ya’aqob quoted at the Yaruwshalaym Summit:
"In (ba) that (huw’) day (yowm) I will stand, rise up, and establish (quwm – will stand upright, enabling) the Sukah (sukah – seventh Miqra’, meaning sheltered dwelling place and protective covering, tent and tabernacle) of Love/Dauwid (dauwid – the beloved), which has fallen (napal – been neglected). I will repair and restore (gadar – rebuild) their (henah) cracks and breeches(peres – that which is exposed, broken, or torn, that which is foolhardy and dissipates), and that which is in a state of disrepair (harycah – is lying in ruins). I will raise Him up (quwm huw’ – cause him to stand) and (wa) rebuild and restore (banah – renew and reestablish) Her (hy’) like(ka) days (yowm) everlasting (‘olam – of antiquity and forever into the future)." (Amos 9:11)
CW comments: "This is Yahweh’s promise to restore Yisra’el and to establish the Millennial Sabbath in harmony with the prophetic symbolism of the Miqra’ of Sukah. The timing of this anticipated reconciliation coincides with His return on Yowm Kippurym."
Then he quotes the next line which James aka Jacob quoted:
Luke’s transcription of Ya’aqob’s citation of the next verse in Amos reads: "So that (hopos) it is possible (an) the remnant (kataloipos – those who remain) of mankind (anthropos) will diligently seek (ekzeteo – search out, investigate, scrutinize, and desire) the (ton) Supreme Master (KN – placeholder for ‘edon, the Foundation and Upright Pillar of the Tabernacle using the Greek kurion), and (kai) all (pas) the races and nations (ethnos) upon (epi) whom (ous) My (mou)name (onoma) is called (epikaleomai – summoned) upon (epi) them (autous), says (lego) Yahuweh (?? – placeholder for Yahuweh’s name using the Greek kurios) doing (poieomai – performing) this (tauta) which was known (gnostos – is that which could be known) from (apo) world and universal history (aionos – from long ago and at all times since)." (Acts 15:17-18)
To this CW comments:
In Hebrew, Amos 9:12 reads: "So that (ma’an – for the purpose and intent that) those who(‘asher) have summoned (qara’ – called and invited) My (‘any) name (shem – personal and proper name) upon (‘al) them may inherit (yarash – receive as an heir and possess) the remainder of(sha’eryth – remnant and rest of) ‘Edowm (‘edowm) and all (kol) the Gentile nations (Gowym), prophetically declares (na’um – announces ahead of time) Yahuweh who will perform (‘asah – do) this (zo’t)." (Amos 9:12)
Beyond the unwarranted omission of Edom, and the additions of "mankind" and "Supreme Master/Lord," in the Greek translation of Ya’aqob’s Aramaic quotation of the Hebrew passage, the Acts transcription replaced "inherit" with "seek," and turned another affirmation of the importance of Yahweh’s name into a muddled mess.
Later CW brings out the next few verses of Amos tell a complete story about God's plan for Israel:
While Ya’aqob didn’t cite the final three verses of Amos’s prophecy, there is no reason we shouldn’t consider them. They read: "Look now and see (hineh), the day (yowm) is coming(bow’), prophetically declares (na’um) Yahuweh...when I will return and restore (suwb – come back and reestablish) the property and that which makes life easier and more secure for(sabuwt – the fortunes, restoring that which is good and establishing more favorable circumstances for) My (‘any) family (‘am – people and nation), Yisra’el (Yisra’el – individuals who live with God)." (Amos 9:13-14)
CW then does a critical analysis of every part of Jame's letter. Id. CW believes the letter from James recorded by Luke left out mention of Torah to the Gentiles, and this is what created Pauline Christianity. CW however believes this was tactical: "The Disciples therefore told the truth, but not the whole truth, to accommodate Paul without disassociating themselves from Yahweh." CW then faults James for only putting the 'necessary' burdens on Gentiles, leaving off commands in Torah. CW assumes the circumcision command applies to Gentiles, but truly Leviticus 12:1-3 does not have that. Only if a Gentile wishes to participate in Passover does he have to be circumcised.
CW in chapter five addresses the Benjamite Wolf prophecy in Genesis 49:27.
Should you wonder why I referred to Paul as "a wolf in sheep’s clothing," let’s turn our attention to Genesis 49:27, where Yahweh spoke about Sha’uwl, the man who has become the most infamous member of Benjamin’s tribe.
But first, let’s affirm that Paul was from the tribe of Benjamin. The wolf in sheep’s clothing wrote: "I say therefore, that God (??) has not (ue) pushed away, rejected, or repudiated(apotheomai) His people (laos – nation or common individuals). May it never be (ue genoito). For indeed (gar), I am an Israelite (Israelites – transliteration of Hebrew Yisra’el), from (ek – out of) the seed (sperma – semen singular) of Abraham (‘Abraam – a transliteration of the Hebrew‘Abraham), from the tribe (phyle) of Benjamin (Beniamin – a transliteration of the HebrewBenyamyn)." (Romans 11:1)
CW then translates in amplified form Genesis 49:27:
Now for Yahweh’s prediction: "Benjamin (benyamyn) viciously tears apart, mangles, kills, and devours (tarap – creates his food by tearing and plucking the life out of his victim) like a wolf(za’eb – a yellow predatory animal), in (ba) the morning (boqer – early part of the day) devouring(‘akal – feeding upon) his prey (‘ad), and in the evening (‘ereb – during the dark of night and end of the day) he divides and destroys (halaq – apportions, assigns, distributes that which they have harmed and ruined) that which has been spoiled (salal – possessions of value, plunder, and prey)." (Genesis 49:27)
CW provides important insight on the "divide the spoils" in the evening because the Septuagint used watered down words. CW comments:
Halaq doesn’t just mean "divides and destroys." It also speaks of someone who is a "smooth talker," and a "slick operator," as well as of the "slippery slope" they lead their victims down to their "ruin." Halaq is "flattery, words that reflect illegitimate praise." And it describes the "use of seductive words which are deployed to persuade people in a suggestive manner." Paul was the poster child for halaq.
Additionally, halaq is a "smooth stone used as an impromptu religious altar, and as a stand-in for an imaginary god." Grace, Gratia, and Charis fit this bogus bill.
And that leaves us with "salal – the spoils," the victims and their possessions. At the end of the day, under the cover of darkness, Paul’s legacy, the Christian Church, divvies up what they have been able to confiscate from the lives of those they have destroyed.
CW then comments on the self-evident application of this prophecy to Paul, and how it lines up with Jesus' warnings:
So it is hard to miss the connections between Paul and Benjamin, and between Paul and the destructive wolf, as well as between Yahweh’s predictive description and Yahshua’s prophetic warning. Benjamin was not only the last name on Yahweh’s list, and the last prophecy in Genesis, the reference to Sha’uwl was the last prediction Yahshua would make before He returned to heaven.
At first it is not obvious why CW says Jesus' last prophecy was about Paul, but CW explains:
The reason I said that Yahshua’s prophetic warning was the last He would make before returning home, is that from heaven, Yahshua warned Yahuchanan about the wannabe Apostle. Writing to the Called-Out Assembly in Ephesus, the place where Yahuchanan’s and Sha’uwl’s footsteps and writings crossed paths, the risen Messiyah said [what we read in Rev 2:2].
For more on the Benjamite Wolf prophecy in CW's work, see our synopsis of chapter 12 below.
CW then quotes Rev 2:2 and applies it to Paul:
"I know that you cannot possibly accept, tolerate, or endure (ou dynamai bastazo – haven’t the will, ability, or state of mind to take up with, walk along side of, lift up or carry forward (i.e., advance or promote)) those who think errantly, those who are wrong, injurious, pernicious, destructive, or baneful (kakos – are incorrect, wicked, evil, harmful, noisome, morally corrupt, diseased, culpable, mischievous, demonic, or hurtful). And you have observed and objectively tested (peirazo – scrutinized, examined through enquiry) those who claim and maintain (phasko– say, affirm, profess, declare, promise, or preach) of themselves (eautous) that they are (eimi)Apostles (apostolos – someone who is prepared and sent forth) but are not. And you have found them (heurisko – examined, scrutinized, come to understand them, and discovered through closely observing them that they are) false, deceitful liars (pseudes – are pretending to be something they are not, they are erroneous deceivers)." (Revelation 2:2)
While Revelation is a prophetic book, Yahshua’s commendation was written in the present and past tense. And that is significant because Yahuchanan scribed Revelation in 69CE, seven years after Sha’uwl wrote his letter to the Ephesians, and two years after the wannabe Apostle’s death. And considering the fact that Paul and his traveling companions were the only men who claimed to be Apostles in Ephesus during this short span of time, Yahshua was calling Sha’uwl an "errant, demonic, deceitful, charlatan."
CW provides an interesting quote of Jesus mentioning a spiritual mother in Mark. I wish to include this for future study because in the Ebionite Matthew it was quoted three times (2x Origen, 1x Jerome) saying Jesus spoke about his "spiritual mother" having taken him to Mount Tabor to test him. Here is this passage which will require more research. CW says:
In this regard, Yahshua, not Sha’uwl, provided a compelling example of how the Pharisees, the ultra-religious Jews who were devoted to their traditions and Oral Law, imposed their ill-conceived rules on Yahweh’s children. "He said to them, ‘You have a finely-crafted way (kalos) to reject and invalidate (atheteo – to nullify and dispute the validity of) the commandment (entole – and precept) of Yahuweh (??) in order to (hina) establish (histamai – maintain and uphold) your(sy) tradition (paradosis – handed down teachings, or oral law). For Moseh (Mouses) said, "Recognize and respect (timao – highly value, honor, and revere) your Father (???) and your Mother (MTA)," and, "He will be separated and die (thanatos – experience the separation of the mortal soul from the body), ceasing to exist (teleutao – being finished), who reviles and denounces (kakologeo – who insults, abuses, demeans, slanders, and speaks evil of) our Heavenly Father (???) or Spiritual Mother (MTA)."’" (Mark 7:9-10)
The last line is the one at issue.
To be revisited later and summarized.
In chapter twelve, CW then discusses Revelation chapter 2 on those who say they are not apostles at Ephesus but are not.
You don’t need me to tell you that Paul and his traveling companions were the only men who claimed to be Apostles in Ephesus during the short time span covered in the Revelation 2 prophecy... "I know that you cannot possibly accept, tolerate, or endure (ou dynamai bastazo – haven’t the will, ability, or state of mind to take up with, walk along side of, lift up or carry forward (i.e., advance or promote)) those who think errantly, those who are wrong, injurious, pernicious, destructive, or baneful (kakos – are incorrect, wicked, evil, harmful, noisome, morally corrupt, diseased, culpable, mischievous, demonic, or hurtful). And you have observed and objectively tested (peirazo – scrutinized, examined through enquiry) those who claim and maintain (phasko– say, affirm, profess, declare, promise, or preach) of themselves that they are Apostles(apostolos – someone who is prepared and sent forth) but are not. And you have found them(heurisko – examined, scrutinized, come to understand them, and discovered through closely observing them that they are) false, deceitful liars (pseudes – are pretending to be something they are not, they are erroneous deceivers)." (Revelation 2:2) Frankly, this prediction is so specific, it’s a wonder Paul’s reputation survived it.
While Revelation is a prophetic book, Yahshua’s commendation was written in the present and past tense. And that is significant because Yahuchanan scribed Revelation in 69CE, less than seven years after Sha’uwl wrote his letter to the Ephesians, and within close proximity of the wannabe Apostle’s death. Since Paul and his companions are the only candidates who meet the explicit criterion associated with Yahshua’s bold statement, it is evident that God was calling Sha’uwl an "errant, demonic, and deceitful charlatan."
CW also notes the Benjamite Wolf prophecy in Genesis 49:27 which we identified as applying to Paul, which overlapped Jesus' remarks about the ravening wolf in sheep's clothing:
You don’t need me to tell you that Paul alone fulfills Yahweh’s and Yahshua’s admonition regarding the wolf in sheep’s clothing from the tribe of Benjamin... "Benjamin viciously tears apart, mangles, kills, and devours (tarap – creates his food by tearing and plucking the life out of his victim) like a wolf, in the morning, at the beginning part of the day, devouring his prey, and in the evening when it is dark he divides and destroys that which has been spoiled." (Genesis 49:27) Sha’uwl bragged that he was from the tribe of Benjamin when the wolf in sheep’s clothing wrote: "For indeed, I am an Israelite, from the seed of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin."(Romans 11:1) Please keep in mind that based upon the destruction of the genealogical records in the Temple in 70CE, Paul’s generation was the last which could make this claim.
A bit earlier CW spoke likewise:
By examining Yahweh’s test, we know for certain that Paul was a "false prophet." As a Jew, he "came to" this audience "from within." We know that Paul was effective, that he was believable, because he presented himself as the ultimate "insider." And yet while he claimed to speak for the Messiyah, he never quoted Him. As such, he "dressed himself up as" one of Yahshua’s "sheep" when he appointed himself the Messiyah’s Apostle. And as we know, Paul, more than anyone who has ever claimed allegiance with the tribe of Benjamin (something which can no longer be done in that all genealogical records were destroyed in 70CE), was the "wolf" Yahweh and Yahshua predicted would savage their flock. And then when we recognize that this warning came in the midst of a discussion regarding the eternal role the Torah plays in our salvation, the very thing Paul sought to undermine, we are left with a singular conclusion: Paul of Tarsus was the false prophet, the wolf in sheep’s clothing, the insider, who led many to their death and destruction by way of his popular path.
3/17/2012 W .. I .. N ... N
