But I Paul Say? ~ Who Gave Him That Authority And Why ~ Appalling Twistianity Sixty~Three

Yada Yahowah

Who gave Paul that authority, what exactly did he mean in Galatians 1, and why did he curse any rival message, even one from heaven? This episode examines when Paul first asserted his own gospel, how his wording reshaped the debate, and where the Towrah defense is conspicuously missing. By exploring who Paul positioned himself against, why he elevated his personal proclamation, and how Christianity’s foundation formed around that claim, you are invited to question everything you thought you knew.  00:00:00 ~ Intro ~ Verbatim 00:04:17 ~ "This is the basis of Christianity, but I, Paul, say." 00:04:51 ~ "Every citation from Yahowah to prove his point, he misappropriated, twisted, perverted, and misrepresented in every possible way." 00:10:55 ~ "That is the only rational deduction from this." 00:15:32 ~ "All this says is that I'm always right and everyone else is wrong, even if they come up with the same answer." 00:24:23 ~ "No reference to a Christo anywhere in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms." 00:46:23 ~ "God lays outside of the opportunity." 00:47:22 ~ "This is the foundation of the religion of Christianity." 01:04:47 ~ "The evidence will demonstrate Paul's rage was universally misplaced." 01:07:13 ~ "If I still were pleasing men, then I would not be a servant of Christ." 01:10:55 ~ "If his proposal and individual revelations are not true, and they aren't, the religion he conceived is wholly unreliable." 01:13:02 ~ "He claimed that the gospel was his own." 01:17:11 ~ "The use of mere implies that human reasoning was a contributing factor." 01:17:56 ~ "He is saying that he was not influenced by any human agenda or institution." 01:21:46 ~ "I have written 4,200 pages of irrefutable evidence that Allah was not a god and Muhammad was not a prophet."  https://yadayah.com/ https://x.com/YadaCraig 🎙️ New to streaming or looking to level up? Check out StreamYard and get $10 discount! 😍 https://streamyard.com/pal/d/6451052384485376 https://linktr.ee/yadayah Music, lyrics, and video provided by Craig Winn, and used with permission from the YAHOWAH MUSIC GROUP through CC 4.0.  ButIPaulSay, PaulAuthorityQuestioned, WhoGavePaulAuthority, Galatians1Explained, PaulCursesRivalGospel, IsPaulAboveGod, ChristianityOriginsDebate, PaulVsTowrah, SelfAuthoredGospel, DidPaulInventChristianity, BiblicalAuthorityExposed, NewTestamentContradictions  #ButIPaulSay #PaulAuthority #Galatians1 #PaulVsTowrah #SelfAuthoredGospel #BiblicalAuthority #ChristianityOrigins #NewTestamentStudy #TowrahTruth #ExposingReligion #DowdIsMashyach #ScripturalAnalysis

Transcript

00:00:28Welcome back to the

00:00:29Rainbow Studio and this edition of Appalling Twistianity. I am Yada and this is the

00:00:35Wookiee here and we're going to jump back into Paul's letter to the Galatians. It is the first

00:00:42letter written in the beginning of Christianity. Yeah, those who believe that Matthew was the first

00:00:49book and that it's all organized as it was decreed by God have been played for fools. The first book

00:00:58of the Christian New Testament as in the order that it was written was Galatians. It was written

00:01:03in 52 CE. At the time, there was no Jesus. He was invented for this letter. Paul pursued him in

00:01:10his

00:01:10next 14 letters. In fact, Paul's 14 letters became the first 14 books of the Christian New Testament.

00:01:18It wasn't until 10 years after Paul's last letter, that to Timothy, where he admitted that

00:01:25he was all alone and everyone had rejected him for good reason, by the way. It was 10 years after

00:01:31the fact that the book of Mark was written, five years after that. Luke and Acts, they were both

00:01:39written by non-eyewitnesses. They were both written by men who weren't even in proximity to anyone.

00:01:48They weren't even secondary witnesses. They were never in proximity to anybody who had actually

00:01:52witnessed any of the events that took place in 33 CE. Luke is heavily plagiarized

00:02:00from Mark. They were written in 75 to 80 CE in likely Rome. Then Matthew and John were both written

00:02:15by misnomers. We have no idea who the original author was. We think one was written in Rome and

00:02:20the other one probably in Ephesus, a very long way away, three generations removed from the facts.

00:02:27Matthew is 100 percent plagiarism, comes from three sources, Mark, Luke, and the Ebonim, the Ebonites.

00:02:35And John is who knows what. But it was also written between 95 and 100 CE in Ephesus, certainly not

00:02:44by

00:02:44somebody who had spent any time around Dode as he is the actual Messiah who fulfilled the events in 33

00:02:52CE.

00:02:53The Christian New Testament is really just a pile of rubbish. But proving it and saying it are two

00:02:59different things. So we are proving it in this program. Paul's run-on sentence as he was establishing

00:03:08Christianity, Christianity, the religion his way, read, as we have said before. And no, this is the first

00:03:18letter. There was no said before and there was no we. Paul was absolutely alone at this point. He was

00:03:26a

00:03:26lone wolf, literally a lone wolf because he was a Benjamite. As we have stated before, that is a lie

00:03:33twice over.

00:03:34No we and no stated before. And even just now. OK, well, you can get that one right. I'll give

00:03:40you a

00:03:41credit for that one. You are stating it just now also. So why why would you have as

00:03:52previously stated just now also? Why don't you say what you're going to say?

00:03:58I mean, why do you have to have four introductory concepts? Although, uh, perhaps, uh, all together

00:04:08through, why not? I mean, it's terrible writing. I say. OK, not God says. I say. This is the basis

00:04:21of Christianity. But I Paul say. I say. And who's I? He's a piece of crap. He was a failed

00:04:29rabbi. He was a sexual pervert by his own admission. He admitted he was demon possessed. He is guilty of

00:04:38every possible rational fallacy. He couldn't keep his own life history accurate and messed up everything

00:04:47else. He never once quoted the character that became Gospel Jesus. Never once. Every citation from

00:04:56Yahweh to prove his point. He misappropriated, twisted, perverted, uh, misrepresented in every possible way.

00:05:05He is literally a piece of S-H-I-T. And yet you want to believe. But I say. No.

00:05:15I say that he is an idiot. So as we have said before, lie lie just now. Also, I say.

00:05:28I say. You just got to believe. 2.5 billion people believe the religion that this man conceived

00:05:36with these stupid letters. As we have said before, even and even just now. Also, I say. If

00:05:50someone delivers a unangelizo, a gospel, a helpful messenger, a communicates a useful message,

00:06:02it's from you to be good, beneficial, and angelo, which is either message or messenger. Take of that which

00:06:11you will. To you. Similar or contrary to, in opposition with, or just positioned alongside,

00:06:21parah, which means close to, besides, approximately the same, near, beyond, or greater than, in the

00:06:28opinion of some, even associated with. So parah is not much of a contrast. It is much more of a

00:06:36comparison.

00:06:37So if someone presents a message that is somewhat similar, positioned alongside that which you

00:06:47received, and that would be, he is talking about what he received from whom, Paul? Not from God.

00:06:56From himself. From himself. Can't be from Jesus, because Jesus didn't exist yet. Jesus never

00:07:01talked to even gospel Jesus, never ventured to Galatia. So it's from himself. You received.

00:07:09You bought in. You associated with. You related to. Which, by the way, happens to be another lie,

00:07:14because they rejected him. He made that clear in his previous statement. It shall be. It will. This is

00:07:22written as, I wish or command. It shall exist as. The present tense means that this state currently exists,

00:07:30and that it will continue for an undisclosed period. The active voice means that the subject,

00:07:36Paulos, who is the speaker, is actively engaged in bringing about the curse. And the imperative mood

00:07:45serves as either a command or an expression of the speaker's desire, or both. I want a curse to exist,

00:07:54and I demand that a curse exists, with dreadful consequences. Galatians 1.9. So Paul is putting

00:08:03everyone on notice that he is the god of his religion, and he will not tolerate a rival. He would

00:08:10remain vengeful,

00:08:11and dreadful results would follow for anyone that would dare say that he was a piece of SHIT.

00:08:21He. Cursing the Jews? Ah, no problem. But if the Jews responded to him, oh, they were demonic.

00:08:34He would not prevail through evidence and reason. No, there was no differentiation here, was there?

00:08:40There was no, listen, I know I presented a message to you that I cited out of the Torah,

00:08:47Torah, and you had already heard or somebody else presented a message to you that was presented out

00:08:54of a different book of the Torah or from a prophet, and their interpretation was slightly different than

00:09:00mine. And let me explain that I based my definition on an explanation on these words conveyed in this

00:09:09context this way, and they chose to interpret those words differently. And so I'm going to tell you that

00:09:17both ways have some merit, but the reason I think my interpretation makes more sense is when you

00:09:25look at the etymological history of these words and you view them in this context and you consider

00:09:31them with what else God conveyed throughout the Torah and prophets, this interpretation makes more sense

00:09:37than the other one. But it isn't a curse, it's just that we have a difference here in our

00:09:45conclusions regarding this evidence, but I'm taking the time to explain to you how that difference is

00:09:52manifest, and then you can make a reasoned decision as to what you choose to accept. Did he say any

00:09:59of that?

00:10:00No. No. He just said, I had a unjelizo, a good or beneficial message or messenger,

00:10:10and somebody now has a, well, might be very similar, might be quite different, but alongside mine,

00:10:17somebody else came up with one and because they challenged mine, even if they were the same,

00:10:24the fact that they said it versus I said it, a curse now exists. I'm not going to tell you

00:10:30what

00:10:30the argument was over. I'm not going to tell you where we disagreed. I'm not going to even tell you

00:10:33what I told you, nor am I going to express what they said in contrary to what I told you.

00:10:40I'm just going to tell you that if anyone conveys a message that whether it's different than mine

00:10:46or exactly the same as mine, no matter how good it is, a curse exists because it's not from me,

00:10:57myself and I. That is the only rational deduction from this. And I'm here to tell you, that's damning.

00:11:08It's like suing somebody for criticizing you. Yes. The president does.

00:11:17Yeah. This is the exact approach that Donald Trump has. Yeah. That if anybody isn't wholeheartedly

00:11:25saying, oh, Trump, winner, winner, chicken dinner, then they're scum. And if you even take a breath of

00:11:32air and say, you know, I didn't applaud at the right moment there, I wasn't quick enough in my

00:11:37standing ovation, you know, you are chicken liver with Donald Trump. That's the same thing here.

00:11:43Yep. No, no reason. The total confabulation. There's no correlation between what he said in reality.

00:11:51But what he has done here is to say that there is a difference of opinion.

00:12:00I have one. Somebody else has another. I'm not going to identify who the others are.

00:12:04I'm not going to tell you what my opinion was. I'm not going to tell you what their opinion was.

00:12:08I'm just telling you that there's a difference of opinion and I'm the one conveying one of the two

00:12:13opinions. And there's a difference of opinion that a curse exists. That is what he just said.

00:12:20And there are 2.2 or 2.5 billion morons that adhere to this nincompoops religion.

00:12:33It's obviously easy to fool most of the people most of the time.

00:12:38This is Paul's first letter. So, as we have said before, is only potentially a reference to the

00:12:49previous sentence. But does he have a frog in his pocket? Something he makes clear by way of

00:12:58arty, simultaneously and immediately thereafter. As a result, since Paulos is writing exclusively under

00:13:05his own chosen name, no longer under his given name, Shaul, we must consider what he is trying to

00:13:14accomplish by using we, then ponder why he felt it was necessary to transition back to I in the same

00:13:25sentence. Who were his partners? And why at times did he include some and exclude them? He doesn't

00:13:37tell you, does he? Now, it is revealing, therefore, that Galatians 1.6 begins, I am amazed, first person

00:13:46singular present tense, but then transition to, we delivered, first person plural past tense,

00:13:54in Galatians 1.8, when ranting about the same issue that they rejected him. Paul's recent visit to Galatia

00:14:05was with Barnabas, according to Acts, which, by the way, contradicts Paul's letters, perhaps

00:14:13accounting for the prior and plural message delivery. But the short period between Jerusalem

00:14:20and that summit where he was brought in and said, are you full of it? And the time that his

00:14:26letter was

00:14:27dictated, Barnabas and Shaul had had a heated argument and had gone their separate ways. And

00:14:35according to the present singular perspective, well, that was all reflected over the course of a sentence

00:14:42without telling you who it was, or what happened, or why.

00:14:48I mean, I can tell you why Paul was an asshole. At least, that would be the case

00:14:57had Galatians 1.9 not included we and I in immediate succession.

00:15:06Also interesting, Shaul will take a mean-spirited swipe at Barnabas before this letter is through,

00:15:14just as he condemns Peter within it. All was not good within Christendom.

00:15:21As is the case with everything Paul writes, he never bothers to explain the nature of the argument.

00:15:29Ever. Not once. Ever.

00:15:35All this says is that I'm always right, and everyone else is wrong, even if they come up with the

00:15:43same answer.

00:15:46Sounds familiar.

00:15:48As such, even if Shaul's opinions were right, and they're not, ever, without a basis in fact, this would not

00:15:58be helpful.

00:16:00Thus far, and indeed throughout Paul's letters, we will be exposed to Paul's opinions, but I, Paul, say.

00:16:07And we will be appraised of his attitude, but I, Paul, condemn, but nothing else.

00:16:15Other than omitting the accusative, contrary, or in opposition to, adding preach without justification,

00:16:25replacing the verb euangelizo with the noun gospel, which has no basis other than it's got's spell.

00:16:33Got would be a pagan god, and spell is a curse.

00:16:37And adding the pronoun at the end of the verse, the King James got most of this right, as we

00:16:44said before.

00:16:45And so, I now, again, if any man preach other than gospel to you, then that ye have received, let

00:16:56him be accursed.

00:16:59There you go.

00:17:00To make that seem quasi-literate, they had to write their own text that had considerable differences from what was

00:17:14actually written.

00:17:16You know, gospel and what we have preached, from exactly the same word, spelled exactly the same way.

00:17:23One can't be gospel, which is a made-up term that didn't even exist at the time.

00:17:29And the other one preached, which was also a made-up term, neither one of which were used.

00:17:36Their inspiration was obviously Jerome's Latin Vulgate, just as we have said before.

00:17:41So, let me say again, if anyone has you and jelly verette to you, other than that which you have

00:17:49received, let him be athema.

00:17:54A new living translation, which is new, but not living and not a translation, actually a paraphrase.

00:18:02Wrote, I say again, what we have said before, if anyone preaches any other good news other than the one

00:18:11you welcomed, let that person be cursed.

00:18:15All three versions were unable to translate para, meaning close, but yet somehow in opposition, appropriately when it was used

00:18:28in conjunction with their gospel and good news.

00:18:31But by changing para-lambano to welcomed, the new living translation was once again the least accurate.

00:18:41Now, before we move on, I want to underscore a deficiency associated with the previous statements and indeed with all

00:18:48of Shaul's letters.

00:18:49For this to be an effective warning, for it to be instructive and useful, we must know what Paul told

00:18:56the Galatians, and we don't.

00:18:58And also know how his preaching, if you want to use that term, differed from those he was cursing.

00:19:06And why did they deserve a curse?

00:19:09Did they do something that God said is deserving of a curse or just something Paul said was deserving of

00:19:15a curse?

00:19:16Yeah, that would be the answer.

00:19:17We don't have a face cam here for Richard or you would see him.

00:19:22So obvious.

00:19:24Yes, with this information, or without this information, I'd say speculation reigns supreme and false interpretations are far too readily

00:19:34developed, both of which are Paul's fault in their entirety.

00:19:40He was a crappy communicator.

00:19:42Well, maybe that was his agenda.

00:19:45He wanted to communicate crap.

00:19:48As it stands, all we have is that anyone who delivers a message which differs in any way from Paul's

00:19:56should be cursed, all of which sounds hauntingly similar to Allah's response in the Quran's never-ending argument.

00:20:02And while that was designed to censure debate, and while it has kept most critics at bay because they don't

00:20:12want to have Allah threaten to burn their britches in hell, by repeating this, Paul has tipped his hand.

00:20:20He has said that his skin and doctrine are so thin that neither can tolerate criticism.

00:20:29That is a sign of insecurity.

00:20:33When I made the decision to write my Amplified Translations in the form I did throughout the 35 books of

00:20:41the Yadiyahua series, 25,000 pages of information, I decided to do exactly the opposite.

00:20:49I decided to tell you everything you could possibly know.

00:20:52I gave you the full definition of every word and then provided the transliteration of the generic form of that

00:21:01word that you can put into any search engine and validate that translation on your own.

00:21:06And if a word was unique or there was a question as to what it might meant, I'd write a

00:21:12paragraph about it and say, you know, here's your options.

00:21:14I've chosen this option for the following reasons.

00:21:18And then I would make connections between what was said in this particular case, always quoting the word of God.

00:21:26So our strategy was 100% different.

00:21:29I wrote all of my books saying, this is what God said.

00:21:32This is what this means and how it applies to your life.

00:21:36Paul never once did that.

00:21:37He only quoted inaccurately Yadiyahua without ever naming him or ever crediting him for the statement to justify something Paul

00:21:48had said.

00:21:49And then he had to misappropriate what Yadiyahua actually said.

00:21:53My goal was rather than create as inaccurate a rendering of God's testimony as was possible and to always pull

00:22:00it out of context, to always provide the opposite intent.

00:22:04My goal was to do exactly the opposite of that.

00:22:06And it was never to prove my agenda.

00:22:08It was always start with what God said, present it as accurately and completely as possible, always do so in

00:22:15context, and then deduce conclusions based upon what he said.

00:22:21Paul took exactly the opposite approach.

00:22:24I, Paul say, I validate it by taking a snippet of what God said out of context and misrepresenting it.

00:22:32They are the opposite approach.

00:22:35And if you want to trust Paul over what I have done, you're an idiot.

00:22:41Yadiyahua.com.

00:22:42It's all there for you.

00:22:45Those who cannot defend their message attack those who are critical of it.

00:22:52In politics, this strategy is known as killing the messenger.

00:22:57Now, introduction aside, here's a quick review of Shaul's second and third sentences.

00:23:03I marvel and I am amazed, even astonished, that in this way how quickly and in haste you changed, deserting

00:23:11and becoming disloyal apostates,

00:23:14traitors away from your calling in the name of Charis, the cute little naked goddesses, to a different healing message

00:23:23and beneficial messenger,

00:23:24which does not exist differently, if not hypothetically, negated because perhaps some are stirring you up, confusing you, and also

00:23:34proposing to change the healing messenger and the good message and the beneficial message of Christo,

00:23:43who, by the way, by the way, by the way, by the way, did not exist.

00:23:45There was no Christo in first century Yahuda or until centuries thereafter.

00:23:53And then it was only backdrafted to pretend that there was somebody named Mr. Christo or Christos or Christone.

00:24:04Never existed.

00:24:06Complete misnomer.

00:24:07And based upon a nothing prophecy that was actually delivered by the actual Masayak and spoke of what he himself

00:24:20was going to do,

00:24:20none of which the imaginary Christo actually did.

00:24:25No reference to a Christo anywhere in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms.

00:24:28So you can't have a Mr. Christo as a fulfillment of prophecy or having anything to do with the Old

00:24:35Testament.

00:24:35If you want to make up your lies and create a myth of a Iusu Christo and equate him to

00:24:44Dionysus and Zeus,

00:24:46you know, have at it.

00:24:48You can do that.

00:24:49But to attribute them to Yahweh, his Torah and Prophets,

00:24:54and to say that he spoke of them and that they are a god

00:24:58and that they are associated with the god who scribed the Torah and Prophets, inspired them,

00:25:06you can't do that without presenting yourself as a complete fraud.

00:25:10And that's what he did.

00:25:11So it says then, but to the contrary, if we are a messenger out of heaven conveys a healing messenger

00:25:19or beneficial message to you,

00:25:21which is approximately the same or contrary to or even positioned alongside what we have delivered as a beneficial messenger

00:25:28or announced as a healing message to you, then a curse with dreadful consequences exists.

00:25:35That means that somebody speaking directly out of heaven, Yahweh, for example, whom he doesn't know by name,

00:25:43and they were to say something that is different than what Paul said, then there would be a curse on

00:25:48Yahweh, placed by Paul.

00:25:52Let me know how that works out.

00:25:53Yeah, tell me how that works out for you.

00:25:55I can tell you how that works out for you.

00:25:57There's a place for that.

00:25:58And it's named after, that's Shaul, he got naming rights because it's called Sheol, written exactly the same way in

00:26:05the Hebrew text.

00:26:06Maybe there's a message in that.

00:26:09As we have said already and just now, said just now, immediately thereafter, repeatedly, I say,

00:26:17if under the condition someone delivers a helpful messenger or communicates a useful message to you,

00:26:23similar to or contrary to an opposition with or just positioned alongside,

00:26:27I know you think I'm repeating myself, but this is what he wrote.

00:26:29No matter if it is close to or greater than that which you receive, it shall be, and in fact,

00:26:36I command and want it to exist as a curse with a dreadful consequence.

00:26:41That's 1.9 after 1.8.

00:26:45Yes, he repeated himself.

00:26:47Why?

00:26:48If you're going to take that many words, why wouldn't you actually present what the difference was?

00:26:54Why wouldn't you name who the rivals were?

00:26:57Why wouldn't you explain why it was important that one message was valid and the other wasn't?

00:27:02Why wouldn't you validate your approach on something that Yahweh had said?

00:27:08Like in the Torah, Yahweh says that the covenant is essential and that it delivers these benefits and it requires

00:27:18these acceptances from us.

00:27:21He can't.

00:27:22He can't explain his own.

00:27:24No, because what he is creating is a religious construct that can only be believed through faith and cannot ever

00:27:32be proven by fact.

00:27:33And in fact, Jesus Christ, his construct is nothing but a product of identity theft.

00:27:40He never existed.

00:27:50Now, living life to its fullest and the loving embrace of the most wonderful woman I have ever met, sitting

00:27:57in my study in America's paradise,

00:27:58overlooking the turquoise waters of the Caribbean Sea and the U.S. Virgin Islands, while translating Yahweh's Torah and prophets,

00:28:06including my King's song,

00:28:09I am proof positive that the only thing Paul cursed was himself and those he beguiled.

00:28:16But don't take my word for it.

00:28:19Read the 35 books, all presented free at yadayyad.com.

00:28:23There's five devoted to ripping Paul to shreds very effectively.

00:28:28All I had to do is report what Paul said and approach what Paul said historically, logically, and in comparison

00:28:39to what Yahweh said.

00:28:40And when he quotes something from God, whose name he never mentions, to prove a point that he's trying to

00:28:47make, and he misquotes him, proof.

00:28:51Poof.

00:28:52And I do that hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times.

00:28:57So as we move to the next statement, while the interrogative required to frame the question presented in most English

00:29:04translations does not actually appear in the Greek text.

00:29:07It is implied because Paul is asking us to choose, but he didn't know how to write a question.

00:29:16These questions, however, are rather odd, considering that Paul has pitted his message against God.

00:29:22He said that the Torah was pornography in his opening statement.

00:29:25He said that the whole purpose of his caricature, Iusus Christu, was to rip us away from that Torah.

00:29:34So that's his competition, is God.

00:29:39Who is the same God that he says is inspiring him and has appointed him to be the mighty apostle

00:29:45to the world?

00:29:45That would be pretty stupid, wouldn't it, for God to say, yeah, I want to appoint somebody to speak to

00:29:51the world for me.

00:29:52And what they're going to say is that what I've written is pornography, it's trash, it cannot save, and that

00:29:57he's going to create a religion using a misnomer whose job it is to rip you away from everything that

00:30:03I have previously said is true.

00:30:06But if you're a Christian, that is your scenario, live with it.

00:30:11Also, the first approach is advanced through a very peculiar verb.

00:30:21It's one that runs the gamut from perplexing to inappropriate, from conceited to bewildering, but Paul wasn't the greatest wordsmith.

00:30:33If I may, since the writing quality is so poor, let's begin with Nestle Allen's McReynolds Inner Linear.

00:30:40Now for men, I persuade, or the God.

00:30:46Now for men, I persuade, or the God.

00:30:51Or I seek men to please.

00:30:56If still men, I was pleasing of Christ, slave, not I was.

00:31:05Huh?

00:31:08I've got a headache.

00:31:10I'll read that again.

00:31:12This is the most scholastic of all possible renderings.

00:31:17It's literal from the Nestle Allen's 27th edition, which is a composite text of manuscripts.

00:31:29Unfortunately, they never adjusted their text to the 69 pre-Constantine manuscripts because, well, there's 300,000 known variances between

00:31:41those and the text that they have delivered themselves.

00:31:46And they don't tell you how many differences there are, and the fact that there's twice as many differences as

00:31:53there are actually words in the New Testament.

00:31:55But they don't want you to know any of that.

00:31:57But nonetheless, that is the most scholastic approach you can take is, now for men, I persuade, or the God.

00:32:06Or I seek men to please.

00:32:08If still men, I was pleasing of Christ, who, by the way, didn't exist.

00:32:13Slave not, I was.

00:32:17Well, that's clear as mud.

00:32:19So then, amplified and even more literal.

00:32:24And I have done this throughout every verse that is presented because I have access to the 69, 1st, 2nd,

00:32:37and 3rd century manuscripts, even the early 4th century manuscripts.

00:32:43And, therefore, can render this exactly as it was testified to in the manuscripts prior to Constantine and Yusubius writing

00:33:00their own text the way that they saw fit.

00:33:03And, therefore, it reads, for, which is gar because, currently, arty, or simultaneous, just now.

00:33:13For, men, I persuade.

00:33:17Now, they want to turn this into a question because the only way it works is as a question.

00:33:22But, it is it, does not actually appear in the text.

00:33:27It just reads, for, currently, men, I persuade.

00:33:35This was Pitho.

00:33:37I presently, actively, and actually use words to win the favor of.

00:33:42I seduce, mislead, coax, convince, appease, and placate.

00:33:46Introducing someone through words to believe so that they strive to please me by tranquilizing them would be a complete

00:33:55definition of the word in the tense that it was written.

00:33:58And look it up yourself.

00:34:01Or, alternatively, the God.

00:34:06Or, by the way, God didn't have a name.

00:34:11You know, all gods have a name.

00:34:13Dionysus had a name.

00:34:15Amin-Ra had a name.

00:34:17Zeus had a name.

00:34:19Jupiter had a name.

00:34:21All the gods had a name.

00:34:23Why doesn't Paul's god have a name?

00:34:25Poor Paul god doesn't have a name.

00:34:28Paul's got two names.

00:34:30Shaul and Paul.

00:34:31In Paul's words, he is God.

00:34:34Yeah, well, of course.

00:34:37Poor Pauling God doesn't have a name.

00:34:41Or, the God.

00:34:43Or, and do I, does not exist.

00:34:46Or, I seek to please and accommodate men.

00:34:50I oblige men.

00:34:52Humans.

00:34:54Yet, nevertheless, I don't know how do you get there, nevertheless from there.

00:35:01But, yet, nevertheless, if, boy, the conditional clauses here are just would choke a cow.

00:35:08Yet, nevertheless, if men, I was pleasing and accommodating slave of Christou.

00:35:19Certainly, not was me.

00:35:23This is where they got the speaking style of Yoda from Star Wars.

00:35:29You're going to demean Yoda this way?

00:35:32Oh, I'm sorry.

00:35:34You're going to demean Yoda.

00:35:37All right.

00:35:37So, the initial verb, pithop, was written in the first person singular, present, active, indicative,

00:35:44which not only means that Paulos is, again, operating on his own,

00:35:49but also that the opening sentence literally reads,

00:35:53because currently, men, I presently, actively, and actually use words to win the favor of.

00:35:59I seduce, I mislead, coax, appease, and placate.

00:36:04Inducing belief through words, pleasing to me while tranquilizing them.

00:36:10Or, the God.

00:36:12So, regardless of which option we choose,

00:36:16this question poses a series of rather serious problems.

00:36:21Well, only a problem if you're a twisty.

00:36:25I'm not, so it's not a problem for me.

00:36:27It's an opportunity for me.

00:36:28First, the transition from we as the sources of the lone acceptable message,

00:36:35which was never, by the way, articulated,

00:36:37but it was associated with those cute little girls,

00:36:41and they were adorable.

00:36:42The cherries, which are rendered, and the Latin is gratia,

00:36:46and became the graces, and grace, and English.

00:36:51They're little, they're party-hardy animals.

00:36:54They were the cutest little girls in both the Roman and in the Greek religion.

00:36:59They were always naked, and they were always up to, well, mischief,

00:37:05if you're into Christendom's standards of sexual behavior,

00:37:10because they were encouraging all manner of sexuality and party-hardy.

00:37:18Romans loved them, and the Greeks loved them,

00:37:21because, you know, that fit right up into their alley.

00:37:23So, the cherries and the gratia were very popular,

00:37:27and this was the gospel of the gratia,

00:37:31a gospel according to those cute little girls.

00:37:33Now, having read a fair amount of Greek and Roman mythology,

00:37:41the, it's a funny thing, the gratia and the graces, they were cute.

00:37:47They had a good time.

00:37:49They didn't have a gospel.

00:37:52They didn't have a message.

00:37:53They don't have a message.

00:37:57They traded on emotional responses

00:38:01and were fixated on things that were about skin deep.

00:38:05Just like the religious do.

00:38:07Yeah, they're not, they were not into a gospel.

00:38:10They were not into delivering a message.

00:38:15They were their message.

00:38:19So, rather than partnering with men, as we might imply,

00:38:25is Paul opposing men in some sort of grand debate?

00:38:30Or, rather than partnering with God, as we might also suggest,

00:38:35is Paul actually arguing against him?

00:38:40Those are your options.

00:38:41And while Paul's personal confessions, his side here,

00:38:48his positions on his approach affirm that,

00:38:52well, if you read to the bitter end, he has a partner.

00:38:56He said there was a messenger, a gelos.

00:39:02He would use the Greek, a messenger.

00:39:04This would be like a malak.

00:39:06Hasatan is a malak.

00:39:08He said there was a malak from Satan that controlled him.

00:39:14That's his partner.

00:39:18End of 2 Corinthians, if you want to verify that fact.

00:39:22There is a hint of delusional arrogance here in this transition.

00:39:26Just a hint back to I,

00:39:28because no matter how we translate pitho,

00:39:32Paul is implying that his rhetoric and reason are sublime.

00:39:35It is as if he wants us to believe that he was so much smarter than everyone else

00:39:41that he could take on God and men single-handedly,

00:39:45one hand tied behind his back, half a tongue working.

00:39:50Second, winning favor among, with,

00:39:56along with, I should say, persuade and convince.

00:39:59So winning favor, along with persuade and convince,

00:40:03is the best we can do with pitho.

00:40:05Every other connotation makes this question,

00:40:09or pretense of a question,

00:40:11substantially worse,

00:40:12because it would read,

00:40:14I presently, actively, and actually seduce,

00:40:16mislead, coax, appease,

00:40:18and placate men.

00:40:20Or God.

00:40:21Take your pick.

00:40:23Third,

00:40:24in spite of what the religious zealots have been led to believe,

00:40:29we are not called to win the favor of men.

00:40:32Not once,

00:40:33not ever,

00:40:34by God.

00:40:35He does not want us to win the favor of men.

00:40:40Men can earn the favor of God,

00:40:44but

00:40:47we are not called to win the favor of men.

00:40:51If your goal is to have men favor you,

00:40:55and to like you,

00:40:56then I can assure you,

00:40:58you're not speaking for God.

00:40:59Ever.

00:41:00You want to know the fastest way to have men disavow you?

00:41:04Speak for Yahweh.

00:41:06Guarantee it happens 100% of the time.

00:41:08There really isn't an exception to that.

00:41:10Look at every one of his prophets,

00:41:12look at all the key players in his story,

00:41:14100% of the time,

00:41:16always the same.

00:41:17If you're speaking for God,

00:41:18you are not winning the favor of men.

00:41:20It is always the opposite.

00:41:25We're not even called to persuade and convince men.

00:41:28No.

00:41:30We are called to know what Yahweh said,

00:41:35to

00:41:36understand it,

00:41:38and then once we know it and understand it,

00:41:41to share it.

00:41:42What people do with it is completely up to them.

00:41:47And the notion of persuading and convincing God,

00:41:50it will,

00:41:52apart from Paul's letters,

00:41:53that would be nonsensical.

00:41:56I've had a few arguments with God.

00:42:00I've said,

00:42:00you know,

00:42:00God,

00:42:01this is,

00:42:01you're making this really hard.

00:42:04Could we have this,

00:42:05could we have a,

00:42:05a little bit easier than it is?

00:42:09And he said,

00:42:10nope.

00:42:11You want to have an,

00:42:12a,

00:42:12an argument with God?

00:42:13You're going to get a lot of,

00:42:15nope.

00:42:16No.

00:42:17And then,

00:42:17and then after a while,

00:42:18you,

00:42:19you grow up and you say,

00:42:20oh,

00:42:21now I realize why it's hard.

00:42:22It has to be hard.

00:42:23If it wasn't hard,

00:42:24idiots like this would appear in heaven.

00:42:27And then heaven would be filled with idiots like this.

00:42:29And then hell would,

00:42:30heaven would be like hell.

00:42:31So it can't be easy.

00:42:33You've got to have the want to,

00:42:35you've got to have a desire to pay attention to what God says.

00:42:38You've got to have your mind working.

00:42:39You've got to think it through.

00:42:41You've got to come to reasoned,

00:42:43deductions and then act upon that and be consistent with it.

00:42:48So God's not trying to make it easy in this case.

00:42:51So as I say,

00:42:53you know,

00:42:54I remember one of the last times that a couple of times that I had a,

00:42:58an argument with God,

00:42:59I,

00:43:01I had written years,

00:43:04years,

00:43:04years ago,

00:43:0522 years ago,

00:43:06a book called the prophet of doom.

00:43:08And it's the only book that I had not gone back and,

00:43:11and edited as I learned more over time.

00:43:15And so I didn't want to go back and edit that book because,

00:43:18well,

00:43:19it was about Muhammad who was a pedophile and rapist and mass murderer and

00:43:27demonic piece of crap and his non God who was modeled after Satan.

00:43:33And so it's really dark.

00:43:35And it's like,

00:43:36you know,

00:43:36you have to go into your,

00:43:37for every day that you're in a book like that,

00:43:39you have to trounce into hell.

00:43:41And,

00:43:41and,

00:43:42and wallow in the mud with these monkeys.

00:43:45And I just didn't enjoy it.

00:43:47And I was asked to do it.

00:43:49I did it.

00:43:50I spent then two,

00:43:52three years of my life in writing it and then promoting it.

00:43:56And,

00:43:57and radio shows and had a tremendous purpose because as I would speak out

00:44:02against it,

00:44:03lots of people would listen to what I had to say about Yahweh.

00:44:06And it brought in,

00:44:07you know,

00:44:08most of the covenant family members that are,

00:44:11are with us today,

00:44:12but it was not fun.

00:44:14And so I,

00:44:15on the morning of October 7th,

00:44:1723,

00:44:17as Muslims were marching,

00:44:19not marching in,

00:44:20they were scurrying in on their,

00:44:22their tinny rompers into Israel,

00:44:24most of them with garden tools.

00:44:26I knew I was the only person in the world that knew what was happening,

00:44:29why it was happening and what the proper response would be.

00:44:32And I knew that it was in profit of doom,

00:44:34but I wasn't comfortable promoting profit of doom at the time because of the

00:44:37fact that,

00:44:38well,

00:44:39it was written 22,

00:44:4223 years earlier when I knew a tiny fraction of 1% of what I know now.

00:44:49And therefore I knew that I needed to rewrite it to be that tool.

00:44:54And I knew that was going to take a,

00:44:57another year of my time.

00:44:58And it's not fun when translating.

00:45:01I was testimony is fun.

00:45:01And so I said,

00:45:02come on,

00:45:03you know,

00:45:03we're having a great time.

00:45:04We're writing coming home volume three,

00:45:07learning a lot,

00:45:08great stuff.

00:45:09I know I'm watching this stuff.

00:45:11I know that's where the answer is.

00:45:12I know I haven't updated it in a very long time,

00:45:15but you know,

00:45:17you don't want me to go back there.

00:45:19Do you?

00:45:21Simple answer.

00:45:24I've taken care of you.

00:45:25Now you take care of my people.

00:45:29This is what happens.

00:45:30If you try to negotiate with God,

00:45:33he's just,

00:45:34he wins every argument.

00:45:36We have fun.

00:45:37Well,

00:45:38I think it's fun,

00:45:39but one does not convince God.

00:45:43God knows what's up.

00:45:44He knows what's best.

00:45:45You either do what is right or you don't.

00:45:48And if you don't,

00:45:50then you are,

00:45:51you're not going to convince God that you're right.

00:45:54I can assure you of that.

00:45:58So the notion of persuading and convincing God that Paul has written about is absolute nonsense.

00:46:04It is God's job to convince us that he is trustworthy and reliable and that he inspired the Torah prophets

00:46:12and Psalms,

00:46:13not our job to try to convince him that we have something worthy to add or to say.

00:46:19And even then,

00:46:20Yahweh is not interested in winning our favor or in persuading us.

00:46:25God lays outside,

00:46:28lies outside of the,

00:46:31or he,

00:46:31I should say,

00:46:32he lays out the opportunity and the conditions to form a relationship with him.

00:46:39He proves that we can trust him.

00:46:41He invites us to get to know him.

00:46:43And,

00:46:44and then working with his son,

00:46:45he made it possible.

00:46:46He enabled those promises by fulfilling Pesach,

00:46:50Matz,

00:46:50and Mekotim,

00:46:50for example.

00:46:52And that's really as far as God goes.

00:46:55Rest is up to you.

00:46:57Therefore,

00:46:58if we render Pitho as favorably as possible,

00:47:01if the answer to the question is men,

00:47:03Paul's approach is ungodly.

00:47:05And if we,

00:47:05if the answer is God,

00:47:07then Paul's arrogance is in league with Satan.

00:47:12Rational.

00:47:13That's the only two informed rational deductions that can be made from that text.

00:47:20And both of them mean that you need to throw out everything in Christianity,

00:47:25because this is the opening salvo.

00:47:27This is the foundation of the religion of Christianity.

00:47:33It's not based on the birth of a baby God.

00:47:36There was no baby God.

00:47:40That is the good news.

00:47:42When any of Pitho's alternative definitions are considered,

00:47:46Paul becomes the Lord of deceit.

00:47:49Yahweh called him the son of evil.

00:47:53The devil,

00:47:54Pitho,

00:47:54seduces,

00:47:55misleads,

00:47:55coaxes,

00:47:56appeases,

00:47:56and placates.

00:47:57That is why Yahweh called Shaul the father of lies.

00:48:02As you might suspect,

00:48:05Pitho is almost exclusively Pauline.

00:48:09It is used in Paul's letters and attributed to him throughout Acts.

00:48:13One of the few times that is found in association with the gospel Jesus that would emerge,

00:48:20well,

00:48:21two and a half decades after this letter,

00:48:24the book of Matthew,

00:48:26which was written around 100 CE and heavily edited by Eusebius in the fourth century,

00:48:32shows him translated using it to convey the religious mindset of the opposition by writing,

00:48:42the chief priests and the elders,

00:48:46Pitho,

00:48:46the multitude.

00:48:47So they should ask for Barabbas and destroy Iesus.

00:48:58Shortly thereafter,

00:48:59in Matthew 28,

00:49:0114,

00:49:01and now in a political setting,

00:49:04the imposter writing under the pseudonym master,

00:49:07Matthew is translated using Pitho again to say,

00:49:11and if this comes to the governor's ears,

00:49:14he will Pitho him.

00:49:17So it's presented there as a religious term and a political term in opposition to gospel Jesus.

00:49:28Luke,

00:49:29who was Paul's attaché,

00:49:30his propagandist and his spiritual healer,

00:49:33in his hearsay account translates gospel Jesus,

00:49:38using I use gospel Jesus because there is no real Jesus.

00:49:42So if I'm going to reference the one that's now presented in the gospels,

00:49:45what am I going to call him other than gospel Jesus,

00:49:48translates gospel Jesus,

00:49:50the imposter,

00:49:51using Pitho twice,

00:49:53but neither translation is credible in that Luke wasn't an eyewitness.

00:49:57And even in the fables written of him,

00:50:00the mystical misnomer never spoke Greek.

00:50:06So he couldn't have used the word.

00:50:11Now I understand that religious individuals do not see any issue with men persuading other men on behalf of their

00:50:19God.

00:50:19But that is because they have been deceived into believing that it is their God's will that we win souls

00:50:29for them.

00:50:29They see conversion to the religion as a favorable event,

00:50:34as something that bolsters their faith.

00:50:37They not only send out evangelists to persuade people into believing as they do,

00:50:45the church has used the threat of violence or eons to convert the masses,

00:50:52doing so for centuries.

00:50:56But not only is Paul's message opposed to God's message,

00:51:01winning souls is not God's style.

00:51:04He's trying to push them away.

00:51:07He doesn't want most people anywhere near him.

00:51:11Yahweh is only interested in those who are interested with him.

00:51:15And all he wants from us is to understand who he is,

00:51:19what he's offering,

00:51:20and what he expects in return.

00:51:21And yet there isn't one in a million people that can answer any one of those three questions.

00:51:30That way we can choose,

00:51:32once we know the answer to those three questions,

00:51:34of our own volition to get to know him,

00:51:37to ignore him,

00:51:38to reject him.

00:51:39With God,

00:51:40it's all about free will.

00:51:42Now these things known,

00:51:43there is no way to overemphasize the consequence of this question,

00:51:48our pretense of a question.

00:51:49No matter the answer,

00:51:51it proves that Paul did not speak for God.

00:51:54It also demonstrates that his use of we did not include God.

00:52:00In fact,

00:52:01included no one other than an imaginary friend to make it sound like he was part of a large movement.

00:52:08But he wasn't.

00:52:11It does not get better from here.

00:52:16But after posing a non-question,

00:52:19where both options have horrendous ramifications,

00:52:23indeed religious implications,

00:52:25Shaul spends his pretense of a question posing it a different way.

00:52:31And yet this only makes it worse because we ought not try to accommodate or please men.

00:52:41Yahweh doesn't.

00:52:42No,

00:52:42didn't.

00:52:43In fact,

00:52:44God's approach is just the opposite.

00:52:45He is resolutely intolerant.

00:52:49He does not accommodate the views of the vast preponderance of people.

00:52:54He is displeased with humanity and says so overtly.

00:52:58While it is Yahweh's desire for us to get to know him,

00:53:03he only accommodates the few who do.

00:53:10Also problematic.

00:53:11With the juxtaposition of the first and second E,

00:53:15which is or,

00:53:17we cannot isolate Paul seeking to please men from the possibility that he is attempting to accommodate God.

00:53:24The first option is disingenuous and pathetic,

00:53:29while the second is ludicrous.

00:53:33Not only were these questions left unanswered,

00:53:37which is typical Pauline style,

00:53:39which leaves one wondering why they were even posed.

00:53:42Why would you do that?

00:53:45You're going to say there was a difference in opinion on one message versus another.

00:53:51You're going to use a bogus term for a message.

00:53:53And then you're going to say that if any message differs or even is similar from mine,

00:53:59but is presented by somebody else,

00:54:00even if they came from heaven,

00:54:02that they're cursed.

00:54:05And you're not going to explain what the differences were.

00:54:07And then you're going to say,

00:54:09ask a potential question.

00:54:12Am I trying to seduce God or men?

00:54:15And you won't even answer that question.

00:54:18Why pose these hypotheticals?

00:54:22They're just left unanswered.

00:54:24Why were they posed?

00:54:26They were followed by eti,

00:54:29nevertheless,

00:54:30and i,

00:54:31if,

00:54:32strongly suggesting that Paul actually wanted us to think that he was capable of sparring with God.

00:54:40further,

00:54:42aresco,

00:54:42the next verb that Paul deploys,

00:54:45is not a cerebral concept,

00:54:48but instead speaks of exciting and enticing emotions.

00:54:53And the object this time is a choristo,

00:54:56indicating that God,

00:54:58rather than being predictable and dependable,

00:55:02can be swayed by an emotional appeal.

00:55:05While Yahweh has an emotional component to his nature,

00:55:09everything that we know about God affirms that he values an informed and rational response

00:55:14over misdirected feelings.

00:55:18Being steadfast to him is exceedingly important.

00:55:23Now,

00:55:24Paul routinely infers that he died to become Christ.

00:55:32Okay.

00:55:33Then how is he writing this?

00:55:36And what good is his death?

00:55:42Why would you have to die to become one with your God,

00:55:47unless your God is death?

00:55:55Certainly.

00:55:56Then he says,

00:55:58which is what of Christu,

00:56:01certainly not was me.

00:56:03Now,

00:56:04who knows what that means,

00:56:06but that's what he wrote.

00:56:08However,

00:56:09if one sees Paul's,

00:56:11I use to Christu,

00:56:12as the new and mythological caricature upon which Pauline religions was contrived,

00:56:18then the author of this letter is the living embodiment of the Christian Jesus Christ.

00:56:24Paul is to Jesus Christ as Mohammed was to Allah.

00:56:29They're one.

00:56:30They're the same.

00:56:31If you know one,

00:56:33unfortunately,

00:56:34you know the other.

00:56:35If you like one,

00:56:37well,

00:56:38then you'll like the other,

00:56:39but that doesn't say much for you.

00:56:41If we were to dispense with the dubious connections and evaluate Paul's rhetoric as if it were presented in the

00:56:50debate,

00:56:50he'd flunk.

00:56:52He couldn't pass that test either.

00:56:56Shaul deployed a non sequitur.

00:56:58The initial question was not answered by his hypothetical,

00:57:03and there was no quid pro quo between accommodating man and serving his Christu.

00:57:11Moreover,

00:57:12how is it that Paul,

00:57:13who fashions himself as one of those who liberated the faithful from the bondage of the Torah,

00:57:20is now positioned himself as a slave,

00:57:23which he did.

00:57:26And not just anybody's slave.

00:57:28He is now in servitude to the same Christu,

00:57:31whose death supposedly freed everyone from slavery.

00:57:38So this has become a litany of contradictions.

00:57:45And the fact remains,

00:57:47only an egomaniac would suggest that someone might wonder whether or not a man was persuading God.

00:57:56And that is especially troubling,

00:57:59since the opening stanza of this letter affirms that Paul was not effectively,

00:58:04persuading and convincing men.

00:58:10Beyond this,

00:58:11perhaps we can deduce that Paul's intent was to convince his audience

00:58:16by displaying hostility towards the Galatians,

00:58:19which he did at large.

00:58:20When you have a blanket indictment,

00:58:24and you're condemning all people for rejecting you,

00:58:29maybe the finger ought to come the other way as opposed to out there.

00:58:34He never figured that part out.

00:58:36Because he wrote the same letter to the Thessalonians,

00:58:39and wrote the same letter to the Corinthians all three times.

00:58:43He was there,

00:58:44he preached his little brains out,

00:58:46or whatever it was that he was preaching from,

00:58:48and came back and wrote a scathing letter and said,

00:58:52why did you reject me?

00:58:54You all turned against me,

00:58:55just as he did here to the Galatians.

00:59:00Anyway,

00:59:01he was displaying hostility towards them at large,

00:59:04as well as against all other messengers or messages.

00:59:08That was,

00:59:10he was trying to demonstrate without proving it,

00:59:14but was he there to please God and not men?

00:59:18And if he was there to please men,

00:59:20why did they were all so displeased with him?

00:59:23And if he was trying to please God,

00:59:27why didn't he quote him?

00:59:29Why didn't he name him?

00:59:32But nothing,

00:59:34and why would you take umbrage with it?

00:59:36In other words,

00:59:37if you're speaking for Yahweh,

00:59:39and everybody rejects it,

00:59:41which is natural,

00:59:42why would you take umbrage?

00:59:44Why would you have a tizzy fit and say that any message,

00:59:47even from heaven,

00:59:48that differs from mine is a curse,

00:59:52speak for Yahweh.

00:59:54Yahweh's got big shoulders,

00:59:55you know,

00:59:56they want to reject Yahweh,

00:59:57that's their choice.

00:59:59They're not rejecting you,

01:00:01they're rejecting Yahweh.

01:00:03So let it be.

01:00:05It will be.

01:00:07Nothing displeases God more than denouncing

01:00:09and discarding his testimony,

01:00:11which is what Paul completely did.

01:00:14Now,

01:00:15this is a serious problem for thoughtful and rational individuals.

01:00:18When Paul was not focusing on himself,

01:00:20he was focused on presenting an errant characterization

01:00:23of replacement Jesus.

01:00:26Neither perspective has merit.

01:00:28Even gospel Jesus said that people should focus on the father

01:00:31and not on him.

01:00:32But since Paul is in opposition to Yahweh and his Torah,

01:00:36that simply wasn't possible.

01:00:38Now,

01:00:39I'm keenly aware that there is a limit to the amount of criticism

01:00:43that an audience will endure.

01:00:44And while gospel Jesus differed from Yahweh

01:00:47and called the faithful to love their enemies,

01:00:50we are not encouraged by God to expose and condemn his foes

01:00:55and those of his people,

01:00:58which is why questioning Paul is so essential.

01:01:03So he wants us to do this.

01:01:05This is what God does routinely,

01:01:08points out the foibles of religious and political mantras

01:01:13so that we're not lured by them.

01:01:16And God wants us to do that.

01:01:19I mean,

01:01:20the first thing that God asked me to do when we first met 25 years ago

01:01:23is to expose and condemn Allah,

01:01:25Muhammad,

01:01:26and Islam,

01:01:26which I did.

01:01:27And then his next request is to do the same for Paul and Jesus,

01:01:32which I did.

01:01:33There's 10 books now available on those subjects.

01:01:37All free at yadiyah.com.

01:01:39So to be appropriate,

01:01:41our criticisms need to be bolstered by evidence and reason.

01:01:45They need to be consistent with God's testimony

01:01:48and they should be focused on an individual,

01:01:50an institution or a very specific message.

01:01:54We can't play the antidotal game.

01:01:56Well,

01:01:56I know a Christian who was a good guy,

01:01:58or I know a Muslim that was a bad guy.

01:02:00So the religion is good or bad based upon an anecdotal evidence.

01:02:03You want to play anecdotal evidence,

01:02:05go away because you are a waste of breath.

01:02:09It's got to be focused on the,

01:02:13on an individual responsible for disseminating a message

01:02:18or the institution and which embodies it

01:02:20or the specific message itself,

01:02:23like that of the Quran,

01:02:24the New Testament,

01:02:25the Zohar,

01:02:26the Talmud.

01:02:27That's fair game.

01:02:29So is Akiba,

01:02:30Paul,

01:02:30Peter,

01:02:31Muhammad.

01:02:34In Paul's case,

01:02:36his blanket dismissal of an entire province and nation is not appropriate,

01:02:40nor is his criticism without justification.

01:02:43And Paul seldom provides any under any circumstances.

01:02:46He condemns Peter without even giving a reason.

01:02:50He condemns John of nothing more than having a different euangelion than his.

01:02:59So this letter opens similarly to what we read earlier from Romans 7,

01:03:08and that diatribe with universal condemnation.

01:03:14Generic statements like that seldom have any value.

01:03:17When you say,

01:03:18you know,

01:03:19all Greeks are overweight.

01:03:23No,

01:03:25some are,

01:03:25some aren't.

01:03:26Some people who are Greek are not Greek are.

01:03:29Some are not.

01:03:31Generalities like that never are even worth stating.

01:03:38So while it's appropriate to constructively criticize religious documents and institutions,

01:03:44it is not appropriate to rail against their victims and mass unless they become promoters

01:03:51and perpetrators of a lie that is damning to God's people or God's message.

01:03:59And yet Paul is lashing out at everyone while undermining the entire community

01:04:04because he suspects everyone is his foe.

01:04:07He's paranoid.

01:04:08Including from heaven and down to earth.

01:04:11He feels compelled to cut them all down.

01:04:15So in this regard,

01:04:17his tone will evolve from condescending to vicious

01:04:20and will become stunningly uncivilized and uncultured.

01:04:26And while I never find it appropriate since Paul poses the question,

01:04:35his wholly antagonistic attitude towards men reveals the answer to the questions that he posed.

01:04:43In his mind,

01:04:44he was debating God.

01:04:47Moreover,

01:04:49the evidence will demonstrate Paul's rage was universally misplaced.

01:04:55Shaul's adversaries were leading the Galatians to Yahweh and to the Torah,

01:05:02while Shaul's were taking them for a ride in the opposite direction.

01:05:08Now,

01:05:09apart from the errant title,

01:05:10Christ,

01:05:11my concern with the most influential translations is that they were neither consistent with the actual text,

01:05:23text,

01:05:24and they added and removed words.

01:05:29They added a plethora of terms to artificially elevate the writing quality and removed ones that they did not understand

01:05:37or didn't fit their religion.

01:05:40Well,

01:05:41Paul wrote,

01:05:42For because currently or simultaneously men I presently persuade to win the favor of seducing, misleading, and coaxing, even conniving

01:05:52and appeasing,

01:05:53placating, and alternatively the theos, God.

01:05:57Or,

01:05:58alternatively,

01:05:59by comparison and contrast,

01:06:01I desire to please and accommodate humans.

01:06:05Yet,

01:06:06nevertheless,

01:06:07even regardless,

01:06:08if men,

01:06:09I was obliging and accommodating,

01:06:12exciting them emotionally,

01:06:15a slave of Christu,

01:06:16certainly not was me.

01:06:22With that being what he wrote,

01:06:25the King James Version published,

01:06:28For do I now persuade men or God?

01:06:34Or,

01:06:35Do I seek to please men?

01:06:38For if I yet pleased men,

01:06:41I should not be the servant of Christ.

01:06:46While Christians no doubt see this as a rhetorical question,

01:06:50the deeper we dig into Paul's mantra and mindset,

01:06:53the more likely it becomes that Paul thought himself qualified to persuade God to change his plan of salvation.

01:07:02The living of the Latin Vulgate,

01:07:06right?

01:07:07And this would be the Latin Vulgate rendered in English.

01:07:10For am I now persuading men or God?

01:07:13Or am I seeking to please men?

01:07:16If I still were pleasing men,

01:07:19then I would not be a servant of Christi.

01:07:24Now,

01:07:25unlike the King James and the Vulgate,

01:07:28the New Living Translation reads beautifully.

01:07:32It's a shame Paul didn't write this eloquently.

01:07:36Obviously,

01:07:37I'm not trying to win the approval of people,

01:07:41but of God.

01:07:42If pleasing men were my goal,

01:07:45I would not be Christ's servant.

01:07:50Well, there is an extremely remote possibility that this may have been what he meant to say.

01:07:57It is absolutely not what he wrote.

01:08:02And should they have magically captured Paul's intent,

01:08:06we are incapable of winning the approval of God.

01:08:13That is the reason God conceived a plan whereby he did all that was required to make us acceptable.

01:08:20Next.

01:08:23We find Shaul professing that the message he was revealing was his own.

01:08:29And indeed it was.

01:08:31And Paulus wanted everyone the world over to recognize that the mantra which would become known as the Gospel.

01:08:40The fact that there's four Gospels preceding Paul's letters doesn't mean that's how they were conceived.

01:08:48It's Paul that conceived the concept of a Gospel.

01:08:52And the first of them would not be written until two and a half,

01:08:56three decades after this letter that introduced the concept of Gospel.

01:09:01And they were written by two of Paul's cronies.

01:09:07It was hypo-ego is the basis of it.

01:09:14By, under, and through me.

01:09:16Hyper-ego.

01:09:17By reason and force of me.

01:09:20Because of and controlled by me and my ego.

01:09:26But, therefore, however, I profess.

01:09:31Not God.

01:09:33Not Yahweh.

01:09:34Not even Jesus.

01:09:37But, therefore, I profess and I reveal.

01:09:42I perceive and I tell.

01:09:45I provide the knowledge I have gained to make known.

01:09:48I recognize and declare to you, brothers.

01:09:51He doesn't have any brothers.

01:09:53They all hated him.

01:09:55Remember?

01:09:57Of the beneficial messenger and the healing message.

01:10:01Huh?

01:10:02Brothers of the beneficial messenger?

01:10:04Or of the healing message?

01:10:05Is he out of his mind?

01:10:07Which they all rejected.

01:10:09And he just affirmed they rejected it.

01:10:11So there are no brothers of that message.

01:10:13Which, having been communicated advantageously by myself.

01:10:19Ego.

01:10:22Because it was not in accord with man.

01:10:27Huh?

01:10:28Galatians 1.11.

01:10:31This, of course, means that Paul was solely responsible for his gospel.

01:10:35He conceived it all by himself.

01:10:39And he alone was authorized to declare it.

01:10:42It's his gospel, after all.

01:10:44As such, Paul was solely responsible for the mythology which became Christianity.

01:10:52There is no one else to credit or to blame.

01:10:57If his proposal and individual revelations are not true, and they aren't,

01:11:02the religion he conceived is wholly unreliable.

01:11:07Christian clerics universally recognize and readily admit that Paul opposed the alleged disciples.

01:11:15The statement merely explains why.

01:11:18His message was his own.

01:11:20And he did not play well with others.

01:11:24Set into the context of debating God, this is an incriminating confession.

01:11:33But even if you were unaware of Paul's underhanded slap at his adversaries, both human and divine,

01:11:39it was either egregiously presumptuous for an outrageous confession, one of the two.

01:11:52We're dealing with presumptiveness or confessions.

01:11:56To write, gnozo, I reveal, I provide.

01:12:00The euangelion, the beneficial messenger and the healing messenger.

01:12:04And I, euangelio, communicate it advantageously.

01:12:09Hypo, ego, by myself.

01:12:16It's a confession.

01:12:19If Paul were somehow speaking for God, shouldn't he be touting Yahweh's words and not his own?

01:12:26Is that another way?

01:12:27Someone who is speaking for Yahweh knows that it's his message, Yahweh's message, that matters,

01:12:35not the one who delivers it.

01:12:38Had this been anything more than Paul claiming the world as his own, he would have done what he was

01:12:50doing.

01:12:51And he would do as what we are doing, which is to dissect every errant message,

01:12:59showing through evidence and reason where it's wrong.

01:13:03He claimed that he, that this, the gospel was his own.

01:13:08So they don't have a gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

01:13:11No, the gospel is Paul's.

01:13:13He invented the concept.

01:13:14He doesn't take, won't take any rivals.

01:13:17And he argued with God to create his version.

01:13:22And he then claimed that his message alone would stand and anyone who had a different gospel than his was

01:13:29cursed.

01:13:31Paul should have delineated pertinent examples of his euangelion,

01:13:36which may be different from his own, but he didn't.

01:13:41But the only message Paul has condemned is God's.

01:13:45He was ruthless towards the Torah, discrediting and discarding God's Torah.

01:13:51His enemy is God.

01:13:54His victims are known as Christians.

01:13:59The McReynolds interlinear reveals that the Nestle Allen text reads,

01:14:03I make known for, to you brothers, the good message.

01:14:09Having been told good message by me, that not it is by man.

01:14:17So that's saying I'm not a man.

01:14:20I was the one who told you the message.

01:14:23But it's not by man.

01:14:27I told you the message, but it's not by man.

01:14:31What does that make Paul?

01:14:33I want to be God.

01:14:35In order to make those words appear credible, euangelion and euangelizo had to be rendered differently,

01:14:42even though their etymological basis is identical.

01:14:45But yet in the King James, they said, but I clarify, I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was

01:14:53preached of me, gospel of me, is not after man.

01:14:59Then why doesn't God have a gospel?

01:15:04Well, that's incriminating.

01:15:06The King James version accurately asserted that Paul certified that the gospel which was preached was of me.

01:15:15In a rational world, this would have been sufficient to bury him.

01:15:21Jerome's blend of old Latin text was both less accurate and less convincing.

01:15:26The Latin Vulgate reads, for I would have you understand, brothers, that the euangelium, which has been euangelizatum by me,

01:15:40was not according to man.

01:15:44Then where is God's proof text on it?

01:15:48I've translated most of the Torah prophets and Psalms.

01:15:53I've analyzed God's words, his message.

01:15:56I don't find a gospel anywhere in it, nor do I find the cute little gratia or the cheris, the

01:16:05charities.

01:16:07I find a Paul mentioned, and God says that he's the plague of death.

01:16:14But that's not helpful to Christians, is it?

01:16:20But never had ever informed.

01:16:24The New Living Translation ignored six of the twelve Greek words.

01:16:31And then they added ten English words of their own choosing.

01:16:37You know, if you can't convey the meaning of the words in the text, then don't pretend that it is

01:16:44a translation.

01:16:45OK, just said we're writing a novel.

01:16:50Still inadequate to support their theology, they grossly misinterpreted and misrepresented in an inconsistently translated euangelium.

01:17:03Dear brothers and sisters, I want you to understand the gospel message I preach is not based upon mere human

01:17:11reasoning.

01:17:15The use of mere implies that human reasoning was a contributing factor.

01:17:20And that suggests that Yahweh's message was incomplete or inadequate and that he required the contribution of Shaul's considerable intellect.

01:17:30When you combine Paul's arrogant and incriminating statements with the Christian interpretation of them, you have the crime and the

01:17:40confession laid right at your feet.

01:17:43So why have so few people held Paul accountable and condemned his New Testament in the process?

01:17:54Now, what follows is the other half of Shaul's defense.

01:17:57He is saying that he was not influenced by any human agenda or institution while implying that those who oppose

01:18:06him are in opposition to his God.

01:18:10Paul's approach and style are rabbinic, and it would be hard to find someone more opposed to God than they.

01:18:16Well, unless it is Mohammed, but you know, that's a story for another series of books.

01:18:25So we are about to jump into another sentence and we're over our hour time frame in this program.

01:18:33So I'm going to bid you adieu for today.

01:18:37We will return to this message hopefully tomorrow or the following day.

01:18:41We have some very blustery weather outside.

01:18:45So that's why we came down into the Rainbow Studio this morning as opposed to continuing the Mismore of Dode

01:18:53upstairs in the Ocean Studio.

01:18:55Maybe it'll taper down a little bit more as we go through the day.

01:18:58But when he gets that blustery in five minutes time, we can come up with a rain squall.

01:19:04And that's pretty hard on our equipment.

01:19:06So we try to avoid that.

01:19:08Rich doesn't mind if I get wet, but the equipment has value.

01:19:13So we you're not going to melt.

01:19:15I'm not going to melt.

01:19:16I'm not going to blow away.

01:19:17But the equipment, that's a different story.

01:19:18And so we we're going to preserve the studio from the the elements when we have the chance.

01:19:24So we came down here to this beautiful room and our rainbow studio.

01:19:29And that's why we're delivering this message today.

01:19:31I think we'll probably do a program in our library studio, which means we'll continue our exploration of the 89th

01:19:40Mismore.

01:19:41I'm pretty comfortably 100 pages ahead of where we're reporting it as I'm trying to.

01:19:46You know, it's a very different process for me.

01:19:48I used to translate and contemplate to write books.

01:19:52And now I'm translating and contemplating to share these insights with you, contemporaneous with the learning process.

01:20:01And I happen to like it a lot better.

01:20:04Books are resulting from it.

01:20:05But I like it a lot better because, as I discussed with Perry, who is visiting us here today and

01:20:12may stay for a good long time,

01:20:14is that, as he pointed out, teaching and learning are intertwined.

01:20:21And so when he said that, I said, you know, the Hebrew word for to teach and it's lament.

01:20:28I said, you know what the Hebrew word is for to learn?

01:20:34It's lament.

01:20:37So we had this figured out a long time ago.

01:20:41To teach, we learn.

01:20:42To learn, we can teach.

01:20:45And so these are related concepts.

01:20:47And the more we teach, the more we learn and come to really own the message that we're saying, but

01:20:53develop it and refine it.

01:20:54And so all of these things are interrelated.

01:20:56And I like this process of learning literally as we're reading and sharing something with you and extrapolating upon it

01:21:04and going beyond it.

01:21:05It is constantly refining what we know and learning and improving even when we find that we've made a mistake

01:21:13in interpretation.

01:21:14And there's a much more profound explanation.

01:21:18That whole process is so invigorating.

01:21:20It's so empowering.

01:21:21So enriching.

01:21:23And it pleases Iyawa Noem that we can learn from our mistakes and grow from them.

01:21:28It proves that we're reliable and trustworthy.

01:21:30And so I'm very much enjoying that process and will return to it upstairs.

01:21:36So I thank you for listening.

01:21:37I would, you know, one of these days I would love to get back to, well, I wouldn't love to,

01:21:41but I'm willing to return to our assessment of Islam.

01:21:46I have written 4,200 pages of irrefutable evidence that Allah was not a god and Muhammad was not a

01:21:52prophet.

01:21:52And that Islam is a terrorist dogma and that the religion exists for the purpose of human genocide.

01:22:02The problem with spending much time on or devoting entire programs to it is the thought police on Facebook and

01:22:11on YouTube won't allow you to convey the truth.

01:22:15That the truth is never an alibi.

01:22:17So we have to be very careful in that regard.

01:22:22But we may do more programs as we go forward.

01:22:24And we also have to figure out, do we have three months left on this stage or a year and

01:22:33three months left on it for the timing of the Shibua harvest?

01:22:36We know that this Shibua ushers in the time of Israel's troubles, so something terrible is going to happen with

01:22:41the U.S. and Israel poised to attack Iran, which is now buttressed by China and Russia.

01:22:48So we know that it is the beginning of the time of Israel's troubles, 22 May of this year, 2026,

01:22:54on Shibua.

01:22:56We just don't know if this is the Shibua of the harvest.

01:22:59It could be next Shibua.

01:23:00Those are the only two options.

01:23:02But I look forward to exploring that with you and continuing to take advantage of whatever time we have remaining.

01:23:10I thank you for listening.

01:23:11We look forward to being with you later today.

01:23:13Good day.

01:23:15Hey there.

01:23:16Thanks for tuning in.

01:23:17That was Fetch.

01:23:18Gotta run now.

01:23:19Catch ya on our next podcast.

Category

Transcript

Comments

Recommended