Questioning Paul

Chapter 3

Part 1

Yaruwshalaim – Source of Reconciliation

What Really Happened in Yaruwshalaim…

Sha’uwl continued his travelogue and autobiography with an inaccurate statement. With respect to the reason for and timing of the meeting in the heart of the Promised Land, the wannabe apostle lied when he wrote:

"Later (epeita – thereafter in the sequence of events), through (dia – by) fourteen (ekatessares) years (etos) also (palin – furthermore, again, and additionally), I went up (anabaino – I ascended and rose) to (eis) Yaruwshalaim (Hierosoluma – transliteration of the Hebrew name Yaruwshalaim, meaning Source from which Guidance Regarding Reconciliation Flows) along with (meta) Barnabas (Barnabas – of Aramaic origin from bar, son of, naby, a prophet), having taken along (symparalambano – having brought) also (kai) Titus (Titos – of Latin origin meaning honorable)." (Galatians 2:1)

Yaruwshalaim is where the Covenant was conceived and confirmed. It is the place Yahowsha’ honored Yahowah’s promises, and on behalf of the Covenant’s children observed Passover, Unleavened Bread, FirstFruits, and Seven Sabbaths. It is the source from which guidance regarding reconciliation of the relationship flow. So it is incomprehensible that Sha’uwl would spend nearly two decades within walking distance of the place and people who witnessed the most important four days in human history, and not stop by on occasion to soak it all in.

And yet, since Sha’uwl will associate Yaruwshalaim with the enslavement of mankind two chapters hence, his disdain for Yahowah’s favorite place on Earth shouldn’t be all that surprising. Sha’uwl, and the faith he conceived, would ultimately become adverse to Yahowah’s Chosen People, Promised Land, Torah, Covenant, and Invitations.

"I went up (anabaino), but then (de) downward from (kata - down, toward, along with, according to, and through) an uncovering (apokalypsis – a disclosure or vision that makes the unknown known, an unveiling which lays bare; from apokalupto – to uncover and unveil) and set forth (kai anatithemai – set before and laid down) to them (autos) the beneficial messenger (to euangelion – the healing messenger) which (o) I preach (kerysso – I proclaim, announce, and herald) among (en – in) the races (tois ethnos – people from different races, places and cultures) down from (kata) one’s own (idios – uniquely and separately),..." (Galatians 2:2)

As we consider the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear rendition of this statement to further illustrate the deplorable quality of Sha’uwl’s writing, beware that I checked a dozen lexicons and all but one defined kata as "downward from," not "by." Not a single dictionary listed "by" as an option. "I went up but by uncovering and I set up to them the good message that I announce in the nations by own..." If we were evaluating a creative writing assignment prepared by a developmentally disadvantaged child in the sixth grade, we would be inclined to listen to this with a sympathetic ear, but that is hard to do when the scribe is an adult claiming divine inspiration. And keep in mind, the Nestle-Aland is the most universally respected textual resource.

In due time, we will come to understand the reason that this "unveiling" came "kata – downward," why Paul "anatithemai – set forth and laid down" his message as opposed to simply sharing it, and why he did so "idios – on his own, uniquely and separately" from anyone else. But between the attitude on display here and the quality of the writing, something remains seriously amiss.

In actuality, Paul is lying again. He was compelled to go to Yaruwshalaim as a result of a conflict between his message and the Torah’s instructions. This summit would include the most influential men on the planet at that time, Yahowsha’s Disciples, in addition to the leadership of the Called Out in Yaruwshalaim.

This statement includes the Greek noun euangelion, which as a compound of "eu – well done, prosperous, healing, and beneficial" and "aggelos – messenger," literally means "healing and beneficial messenger." While plausible as an extension, it’s a stretch to render it: "good news," as is often the case in Christian bibles. Also, since the Greek verb kerysso, "I preach," means "to announce, herald, or proclaim," by having used euangelion and kerysso together, we can now be certain that if Sha’uwl wanted to say "preach" he would have used kerysso, not euangelizo, here as well as in previous statements. And this realization exposes the ubiquitous and indefensible translation errors manifest throughout the King James and New Living Translation bibles.

As we are discovering, the epistle to the Galatians was Sha’uwl’s attempt to reestablish a tattered reputation—one that had been called into question because he alone, among those claiming to speak for God, was willing to contradict God. Therefore, the best way for him to appear credible while doing so would be to tell us that he and his message had been approved and endorsed by Yahowsha’s Disciples, and specifically by Shim’own, Ya’aqob, and Yahowchanan, the most influential.

And if prudent to believe Paul, they may have given it to him. But if true, it would be a favor Paul would not reciprocate.

"…but then (de) to the one’s (tois) opinions (dokei – presumptions and suppositions) not (me) somehow perhaps (pos – in some way possibly) to (eis – into) foolishly and stupidly (kenos – without purpose and falsely, for nothing and vainly) I might run (trecho – I may have run in haste (present tense which portrays an action in process with no assessment of its completion, active voice which signifies that Sha’uwl is doing the running, and subjunctive mood which presents this action as a mere possibility)) or (e) I ran (trecho – I rapidly moved hastily (aorist active indicative which conveys a moment in the past performed by Sha’uwl)." (Galatians 2:2)

This is nearly incomprehensible. So let’s confer with the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear to ascertain whether this is what Sha’uwl actually wrote. "...but to the ones thinking not perhaps in empty I might run or I ran." I suspect the problem is with the quality of the writing rather than the merits of the translations.

Plunging into the words themselves, this is the first of five times we will confront "dokei – opinion" in the context of this letter. Its primary connotation is "to suppose and to presume," as well as "to hold an opinion based upon appearances." Dokei conveys the idea of "wanting to see something a certain way, or of someone being predisposed to a certain viewpoint." It is neither flattering nor reassuring. And because it is not thoughtful, this isn’t a ringing endorsement.

Cutting to the chase, dokei conveys a "subjective opinion," as opposed to an objective conclusion. So, in the context of an endorsement on a topic which is literally life and death, and one so easily verified by way of the undisputed standard, Yahowah’s Towrah, this is a glaring red flag.

It gets worse in context, because in addition to the "presumptuousness" of dokei, we must add the "somehow and perhaps" aspects of pos. Further, the standard Paulos is claiming to have bested was "kenos – stupidly and foolishness." Even I wouldn’t accuse Paul of being "stupid." False and vain, well that’s another story.

As weak as this supposed endorsement appears, there are reasons to suspect that Sha’uwl’s tepid assessment may not even be accurate, or at the very least, it may be purposefully misleading. There is another account, one more credible and detailed than this, expressing what actually occurred during this meeting. And that is why this may be what politicians would call "spin," as opposed to an outright lie. And in that light, this is not actually an endorsement of Paul, his message, or his mission. This is more of an indication that something was seriously wrong: "opinions not somehow perhaps to foolishly and stupidly I might run or I ran." Even if we could figure out the rest, this still doesn’t say what he was running to, for, or from.

In that Protestant Christianity is predicated in large part on the King James Bible’s interpretation of Paul’s theology, it’s incumbent upon us to compare these texts. Recognizing that Paul actually wrote, "I went up, but then downward from uncovering an unveiling which lays bare, laying down to them the beneficial messenger which I preach among the races down from one’s own, uniquely and separately, but then to the opinions and presumptions, not somehow perhaps into foolishness and stupidity, without purpose and falsely, I might run or I ran," there is no basis for "Gospel," "privately," or "which were of reputation." KJV: "And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain." Should this be accurate, why would Sha’uwl consider running from them? He had come to visit with them. And it had been he who had persecuted them, not the other way around. Further, should Paul have actually been inspired by Yahowah, he would have known that God’s message is never in vain – only man’s. So if he is attributed saying these things, then Paul is providing us with a window into the origin of his message.

By adding "privately" to this text without justification, biblical scholars, inadvisably trusting their King James Version, have tended to disassociate Paul’s description of this meeting in Yaruwshalaim from the detailed account of the very public "Apostolic Council" presented in Acts 15. I can only assume that they do so because when the divergent testimonies are compared, Paul’s credibility is shattered—and, with it, their religion.

It is easy to see where the KJV went wrong. Rather than accommodate the Greek text, they twisted the Latin Vulgate, the translation which gave rise to Roman Catholicism. Jerome’s amalgamated rendition reads: "And I went up according to revelation, and I debated with them about the evangelium that I am preaching among the Gentibus/Gentiles, but away from those who were pretending to be something, lest perhaps I might run, or have run, in vain." Since it does not appear in the Vulgate or in the Greek, "privately" may have been deployed by Francis Bacon, the suspected coordinator of the KJV, to steer clear of the Latin translation "but away from those who were pretending to be something." Such thoughts regarding those supposedly appointed by God are debilitating for kings and deadly for their subjects. However, by translating dokei "pretending to be something," Jerome and the Roman Church were acknowledging that Paul was deliberately demeaning Yahowsha’s Disciples. And indeed he was.

The Latin Vulgate’s presentation also suggests that Paul was in competition with others, debating with them – racing against them. In this context, and based upon what is revealed elsewhere, this could only mean that Sha’uwl is trying to dismiss Yahowsha’s Disciples, discrediting them by suggesting that they were pretending to be Apostles, while he was presenting himself as being "idios – uniquely qualified" to run his own race.

However, as we have acknowledged, this is actually a lame proposition. If we are to believe that Paul was actually working with Yahowah, and doing what God wanted done, nothing would have caused him to run away from the very men with whom Yahowsha’ had entrusted with His witness. And this is especially disturbing considering what follows, where Sha’uwl condemns Shim’own for running in fear.

It is becoming increasingly easy to see why so many Christians remain befuddled and in the dark. The popular New Living Translation perpetuates the mistakes inherent in the King James Version, and then adds some myths of their own. "I went there because God revealed to me that I should go. While I was there I met privately with those considered to be leaders of the church and shared with them the message I had been preaching to the Gentiles. I wanted to make sure that we were in agreement, for fear that all my efforts had been wasted and I was running the race for nothing." While his intent may have been to skirt the truth by inferring that God rather than the Disciples had ordered him to appear in Jerusalem, Paul did not actually say that his "unveiling" came from "God," or that it was the reason for his ascent. The contemporary audience would have immediately recognized such suggestions as disingenuous. There is no reference in Paul’s testimony to a "private meeting," but instead, Paul speaks of "setting forth and laying down" the message through "preaching," which is public discourse. There was no reference to a "church," nor "leaders," nor to "sharing" in Paul’s prose. And the terms Paul selected to frame his statement were all equivocal, and are thus the antithesis of "making sure" he wasn’t a "foolish, stupid, deceiver, running in vain." As a result, if you have been led to believe that this novel is a translation of the inerrant word of God, it’s time to abandon both myths.

In addition to rebuking the New Living Translation for their contrived interpretation of Sha’uwl’s letter, it is important to reinforce the fact that those who know that they are presenting the Word of God do not seek the endorsement of others – ever. They rely exclusively on Yahowah. His testimony is memorialized in writing, it is unambiguously and consistently stated, it is available to everyone, and it does not change – making it reliable and those who share it dependable. Further, no matter the response, the time we spend conveying our Heavenly Father’s teaching is never "wasted." While most human endeavors are "run in vain," those who work alongside Yahowah, never "run [His] race for nothing."

However, those lost in a world of "faith" don’t know, so they are compelled to seek human approval. That is why believers congregate together. Perhaps the inadequate faith of these religious publishers, thereby, seeped into their prose.

This is no small matter. It reveals why so many Christians get upset when others don’t agree with them. The insecure nature of their faith can’t handle the strain of knowing that informed and rational individuals don’t support what they have been led to believe. It is as if they worry that the slightest chip on the veneer of their faith will cause everything to crumble. Questioning scares them, so they react by reinforcing one another and collectively pushing the perceived threat away.

Perhaps this is why history is rife with many extraordinary delusions and with the madness of crowds, demonstrating that popular acceptance has never been a measure of truth. Said another way, individual deceptions are rare, but collective misconceptions are common.

Before we press on to Sha’uwl’s next sentence, let’s linger here a moment longer – especially since the mother’s milk of faith, the specter of supposition, has now been raised. Opinions are to conclusions as faith is to trust. Since Yahowsha’s Disciples had at their disposal a pair of unassailable tests to ascertain for absolute certain whether Sha’uwl was speaking for Yahowah, for himself, or on behalf of the Adversary, there was no reason for them to presume anything. God’s criterion is straight forward, and it is easily accessible because it is found at the conclusion of His Towrah Guidance. The best known of these tests contains six elements (with six being the number of man):

Is the person a naby’: someone who claims to speak on behalf of God? (This is a screening codicil, because if a person admits that they are speaking only for themselves, then there would be no reason for anyone to associate his or her message with God. As for Sha’uwl, he unequivocally claimed to "naby’.")

Is the person zyd: someone who oversteps their bounds, speaking presumptuously and contemptuously, with an inflated sense of self-worth, demonstrating self-reliance while taking liberties to defy God, someone who arrogantly pretends to know, who insults others and is disrespectful, displaying pride in the pursuit of personal recognition and acclaim while despising and demeaning perceived competitors, someone who rebels against that which is established and is prone to rage, who seethes with anger and is often furious, overbearing, rude, and conceited in their plans (As we shall discover during our review of Sha’uwl’s initial epistle, this could be written to say: does the person act like Sha’uwl.)

Does the person dabar ba shem: openly and publicly preach to others, communicating his or her message in the name of God? (As was the case with the first codicil, this is also a screening test. If the person has an insignificantly small audience, if his or her statements are exclusively conveyed in private, if his or her influence is limited to a specific time and place without an ongoing legacy or lingering consequence, then there would be no reason to apply this test. But such is not the case with Sha’uwl whose public preaching and copious letters have influenced billions.)

Is the person’s message lo’ tsawah: inconsistent with what Yahowah has instructed and directed, does his or her message conflict with what God appointed, constituted, and taught, does it vary from His Instructions? (This is where Sha’uwl is the most vulnerable because his theology is ususally the antithesis of Yahowah’s teaching.)

Does the person dabar ba shem ‘aher ‘elohym: speak in the name of gods other than Yahowah? (When Sha’uwl based his doctrine upon a nullification of Yahowah’s Towrah, where God’s name and this specific instruction are introduced, and upon a misrepresentation and misnomer of Yahowsha’, while at the same time promoting the Graces, he failed this test miserably.)

Are the individual’s written and spoken statements consistent with that which is hayah: existing and established, instituted by God, and with the test of time, does what this person says bow’: come to accurately reflect what has happened in the past, and what will transpire in the future? (Sha’uwl not only inaccurately conveyed the history of the Covenant, the Exodus, and Yahowsha’s life, he will misrepresent current events, while also failing in his lone attempt at prophecy.)

We are still early in our review of this epistle, so not all of the evidence necessary to prove that Sha’uwl failed every aspect of this test has been revealed thus far. But it has been presented here in connection with the reference to "dokei – subjective opinion" which Sha’uwl interjected into the previous statement so that you know that there is an objective test. Recognizing this, you are now properly equipped to quarrel with Sha’uwl if he violates clause two (of which we already have serious concerns), four (which will serve as the focus of our evaluation), five (of which Charis/Gratia/Grace is a problem), and six (when he misrepresents the timing of his "harpazo – rapture").

We’ll also be looking for historic chronologies (such as his testimony regarding the Yaruwshalaim Summit) as well as other prophetic predictions, because without them, Yahowah’s signature and endorsement will be missing. Yahowah’s prophetic trademark is required if this, or any of Sha’uwl’s letters, is to be considered inspired. So once we have completed our review of Galatians, we will deploy this same test to objectively determine with absolute certainty whether or not Sha’uwl spoke for God.

Here is the actual text from which this test emerges: "Surely (‘ak – indeed, emphasizing the point) the person who proclaims a message on behalf of a deity (naby’ – a prophet) who (‘asher – relationally) oversteps their bounds and speaks presumptuously and contemptuously (zyd – has an inflated sense of self-worth, demonstrating self-reliance while taking liberties to defy, who arrogantly pretends to know, who insults others and is disrespectful, displaying pride in the pursuit of personal recognition and acclaim while despising rivals, who rebels against that which is established and is prone to rage, who seethes with anger and is often furious, overbearing, rude, and conceited in their plans (here the hiphil stem reveals that the prophet and his statements are one, having a similar effect and purpose while the imperfect conjugation speaks of their continual and ongoing influence)) for the express purpose of conveying (la dabar – for the intent of communicating a verbal or written (piel infinitive construct – by design and intent)) a statement (dabar) in (ba) My (‘any) name (shem – proper name, renown, and reputation) which accordingly (‘asher ‘eth – inferring access, relationship, and benefit which) I have not expressly appointed, taught, guided, nor entirely directed him (lo’ tsawah – I have not provided the totality of his instruction, nor assigned, constituted, decreed, prescribed, or ordained for him, deliberately and demonstrably making him My understudy (piel stem and perfect conjugation)) to (la) speak (dabar), and (wa) who (‘asher – relationally) speaks (dabar) in (ba) the name (shem) of other (‘aher – different and additional, even subsequent) gods (‘elohym), indeed, then (wa) that prophet (ha naby’ – that individual who proclaims a message on behalf of that false deity), he (huw’) is deadly (muwth – devoid of life and destructive)." (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 18:20)

Muwth makes the statements of a false prophet "deadly and destructive," revealing that those who believe him or her "will die." And because this is nothing to trifle with, we should do everything we can to "destroy" their message before it infects and kills unwitting souls.

"And if (wa ky) you actually say (‘amar – you genuinely ask over the course of time (scribed in the qal imperfect)) in (ba) your heart (lebab – your inner nature and attitude), ‘How (‘eykah) shall we actually and consistently know (yada’ – shall we continually possess the information required to genuinely distinguish, discriminate, understand and acknowledge (here the qal stem was used to convey actually, genuinely, and literally while the imperfect conjugation reveals that the ability to know is ongoing, consistent, and continual irrespective of time)) accordingly if the (‘eth ha – whether the) statement (dabar – written or spoken communication) which (‘asher – under the expectation of a beneficial relationship) he speaks or writes (dabar – his complete testimony (here the prefect conjugation requires us to examine the totality of the person’s written and spoken communication while the piel stem reveals that our perceptions of the object’s writings, Yahowah’s Towrah in this case, suffer the effect of the false prophet’s testimony)) is not (lo’) Yahowah’s (efei)?’

If that which (‘asher) is deliberately spoken over time (dabar – has continually orchestrated through written or spoken communication (with the piel stem the subject influences the object and with the imperfect conjugation the consequence is ongoing)) by the one who proclaims the message (ha naby’ – prophet who claims divine inspiration) in (ba) Yahowah’s (efei) name (shem – reputation and renown) is not literally and consistently present and established (lo’ hayah – is not actually instituted and existing (qal imperfect)), or it does not actually come to be (wa lo’ bow’ – does not consistently arrive (such as a predicted harvest) or literally happen (such as an errant prediction) (qal imperfect)), the message (ha dabar – the written statement and spoken communication) which (‘asher – from the perspective of a beneficial relationship) he (huw’), himself, has deliberately spoken to influence (dabar – the totality of what he has communicated orally and in writing to effect one’s perceptions regarding the object, which is God (piel perfect)) is not (lo’) Yahowah’s (efei).

In (ba – with) arrogance and presumptuousness (zadown – with an inflated view of himself, self-willed and self-motivated, this morally flawed, disrespectful, imprudent, insulting, and shameless individual has taken great liberty while overstepping all due bounds in contempt of the established authority), the prophet (ha naby’ – the one claiming to be issuing inspired statements from God) has spoken and written (dabar – he has conceived and presented his message (piel perfect – he has completely and deliberately sought to influence)).

You should not respect or revere him nor conspire to rebel with him (lo’ guwr min – you should not fear him, join him, congregate or live with him either)." (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 18:21-22)

It should be noted that while "hayah – exists, is instituted, and is established" and "bow’ – come to be" convey somewhat similar thoughts in English; they don’t in Hebrew. By using them in conjunction with each other, Yahowah is telling us that if anything a prophet says is divergent from what He has already instituted and established in His Word or inconsistent with history, both past and future, this prophet was not inspired by God. Those who speak for Yahowah, must, therefore, accurately describe what has occurred in addition to accurately predicting what will occur, while never contradicting anything God has said.

So while it will soon become obvious that Paul flunked the prophecy and consistency aspects of this test, don’t discount the difficulty of flawlessly reporting prior events. Neither Paul nor Muhammad could do it, and they, thereby, failed the test of history past.

In addition, hayah is not only the basis of Yahowah’s name, it is related to the Hebrew word for "life," chay. And the primary meaning of bow’ is "to go from one place to another, and to arrive, coming upon the scene." As such, by using hayah and bow’, Yahowah, who is the source of life, is predicting the arrival of Yahowsha’, tangibly demonstrating the power of prophecy. After all, predicting the arrival of the Ma’aseyah, while teaching us how to recognize Him, was the primary purpose of this test in Dabarym / Words 18.

Also, depending where the negation provided by lo’ is placed in the concluding thought, Yahowah could be saying that a false prophet should "not be revered or respected, neither dreaded nor feared." He may be conveying this so that we become more comfortable aggressively exposing and condemning those who deliberately contradict His message.

So now that you are aware of this assessment, let’s consider another. Yahowah’s teaching regarding false prophets was initially broached in Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 13. Its evaluation is especially troubling for those who embrace Sha’uwl because it reveals that we should not listen to anyone who dismisses any aspect of the Towrah, who adds to the Towrah, or who claims to have received divine revelations, especially if they claim to perform signs and wonders, or if they promote service to or worship of a different god. It reads:

"With regard to (‘eth) every (kol) word (dabar – statement) which beneficially (‘asher) I am (‘any) instructing (tsawah – providing guidance and direction to) you with accordingly (‘eth ‘eth), observe it (shamar – closely examine and carefully consider it, focusing your attention on it) for the purpose of (la) engaging in and acting upon it (‘asah – responding by profiting from and celebrating it), not adding to it (lo’ yacaph ‘al – never increasing it (through a New Testament, for example)) and not subtracting from it (wa lo’ gara’ min – reducing the number nor diminishing the intent (through Pauline Doctrine, for example)).

Indeed, if (ky) a prophet (naby’ – a person who claims to proclaim the message of a deity and / or foretell the future) stands up trying to establish himself (quwm – rises up and exalts himself) in your midst (ba qereb) or an interpreter of revelations (chalowm chalam), and provides (wa natan) a sign (‘owth – an omen via a consent decree (thereby claiming to be authorized to speak for God as Sha’uwl did)) or (‘o) miracle (mowpheth – something which appears marvelous or wonderful, inspiring awe (as Sha’uwl claimed as well)) to you (‘el), and the omen or miracle worker (ha ‘owth ‘o ha mowpheth) appears before you (wa bow’) who has spoken thusly (‘asher dabar – who has communicated and promised this) to you (‘el) to say (la ‘amar), ‘Let us go after (halak ‘achar – later let us again walk toward and follow) other (‘acher – different or additional) gods (‘elohym) which (‘asher) you have not known (lo’ yada’ – you do not recognize and are not familiar with) and let us serve and worship them (wa ‘abad – ministering on their behalf), do not listen to (lo’ shama’ ‘el) the words (dabar – statements) of that prophet (ha huw’ naby’) or (‘o) interpreter of revelations (ha huw’ chalowm chalam), because (ky) the test (nacah – the means to learn if something is true) of Yahowah (efei), your God (‘elohym), accordingly (‘eth) for you (la) to know (yada’ – to recognize, acknowledge, and understand) is whether this affirms your (ha yesh) love (‘ahab – relationship with and affection) for Yahowah (efei), your God (‘elohym), with all (ba kol) your heart (leb) and with all (wa ba kol) your soul (nepesh).

After (‘achar – following) Yahowah (efei), your God (‘elohym), you should walk (halak – you should be guided and directed (which means following His Towrah guidance)). And with Him (wa ‘eth), you should always and genuinely be respectful (yare’ – you should actually show admiration, reverence, continually and esteem (qal stem denotes a literal interpretation and genuine response while the imperfect conjugation conveys that this respect should be ongoing throughout time)). And (wa – in addition) in concert with (‘eth – in association with and concerning) His terms and conditions (mitswah – His directions and prescriptions, the codicils of His binding covenant contract and His instructions regarding the relationship), you should continually and actually be observant (shamar – you should consistently focus upon them, closely examining and carefully considering them (qal imperfect)).

Concerning His voice (wa ba qowl – then regarding His proclamations and pronouncements), you should always and literally listen (shama’ – you should make a habit of continually hearing (qal imperfect)) so that (wa), with Him (‘eth), you can consistently serve (‘abad – always engage as a productive associate (qal imperfect)). And (wa) to Him (ba – with Him), you should always choose to cling (dabaq – you should literally and genuinely stay close, actually choosing to join together and be united, tightly holding on (scribed in the literal qal stem, the continuous imperfect conjugation and the paragogic nun ending which serves as an expression of freewill)).

So therefore (wa), that prophet (ha huw’ naby’) or (‘o) interpreter of revelations (ha huw’ chalowm chalam) is deadly (muwth – he is the absence of life, is destructive and damning (with the hophal stem, the subject of the verb, in this case, the false prophet, causes the object of the verb, which is those listening to him, to participate in the action which is to die)).

For indeed (ky – because this is reliable and true) he has spoken (dabar – the entirety of what he has communicated is totally (scribed in piel stem whereby the object suffers the effect of the action and the perfect conjugation, collectively communicating that everything the false prophet said should be considered revolting because it totally separates us from God because it is)) rebellious renunciations (carah – of revolt and disassociation, of turning aside and departure, of defection and withdrawal, of being removed) concerning and against (‘al) Yahowah (efei), your God (‘elohym), the One who led you out (ha yatsa’ ‘eth – the One who descended to serve you by extending Himself to lead you out) from (min) the realm (‘erets) of the crucibles of Egypt (mitsraym – human oppression and divine judgment) and the One who redeemed you (wa ha padah – the One who ransomed you) from the house (min beyth) of bondage (‘ebed – of slavery, servitude, and worship).

His desire is to seduce and scatter you (la nadach – his purpose is to entice and compel you to be drawn away and thrust aside) from (min) the way (ha derek – the path) which beneficially (‘asher – which fortuitously as a result of the relationship), Yahowah (efei), your God (‘elohym), described, providing you with a complete set of directions (tsawah – He taught, told, and instructed you, totally appointing these prescriptions for you (scribed in the piel stem, these directions guide those who follow them, teaching and instructing them, and in the perfect conjugation, it means that these existing directions are totally complete)) for you to walk in (la halak ba).

And so (wa) you can choose to completely remove (ba’ar – as an expression of freewill, you can totally purge, completely ridding so that it no longer exists (scribed in the piel stem, perfect conjugation, and consecutive mood telling us that all things displeasing to Yahowah are completely removed from us when we choose to follow His Towrah directions, including)) that which is disagreeable, displeasing, and evil (ha ra’ – that which is wicked, no good, counterproductive, immoral, malignant, mischievous, troubling, undesirable, unpleasant, distressing, injurious, and harmful) from your midst (min qereb – from your inner nature and thus from your soul)." (Dabarym / Words / Deuteronomy 13:1-6)

I dare say that Paul’s revolting review of Yahowah’s Covenant and his animosity towards His Towrah Teaching wouldn’t engender love or respect for the God who authored and offered them. Therefore, the only way to cling to Paul would be to let go of God.

What Yahowah has reinforced with this test is consistent with my personal experience. It wasn’t until I took the Towrah seriously, closely examining and carefully considering its guidance and teaching, that I came to realize that Paul was a false prophet. The god Paul was describing and the means to salvation he was presenting in his letters were completely different than the God and path I came to know in the Towrah.

Summarizing this, Yahowah has said that the best way to know who isn’t speaking for Him is to closely examine and carefully consider every word written. He says that knowing and understanding that His Towrah is His source of instruction comes first. Acting upon His guidance and engaging in the Covenant Relationship is next. Then God says that no one has been or will be authorized to add to or subtract from His Towrah. Therefore, if we witness the Towrah’s role in our lives being diminished, or if we find a writer adding something new, like a new covenant, be careful because such a person isn’t speaking for God.

Yahowah reveals that if the prophet stands up claiming to have received a revelation from God, and establishes himself, personally speaking his own words in his own name, he is a false prophet. If he claims to have performed miracles, he is a false prophet. If he encourages his audience to go after other gods by other names, like the Roman Gratia or Greek Charis, he is a false prophet. If he promotes religious worship, he is a false prophet. If his writings don’t affirm our love for Yahowah, he is a false prophet. If he directs his audience to disregard the terms and conditions of the Covenant or the Path God has provided for our salvation, he is a false prophet. And of such revelations, God says that they are in opposition to Him, both ruinous and deadly, so we should completely remove that prophet’s disagreeable, displeasing, and evil stain from our midst.