Anyone who has spent fifteen minutes reading any portion of the Torah and Prophets from any one of the hundreds of Qumran manuscripts recognizes that the "too sacred to write" notion is in complete discord with Yahowah’s approach to every name and title in Scripture including His own. Moreover, God, in the midst of criticizing and rebuking religious clerics, said: "‘Their plan is for (ha hasab – considering everything, their thinking, calculation, decision, devise, and account reveals that they are determined for) My people (‘am – My family) to overlook, to forget, and to cease to properly value (sakah – to ignore, to be unmindful of, to lose sight of the significance of, and to no longer respond to) My personal and proper name (shem) by way of (ba) the revelations and communications (ha halowm – the claims to inspired insights) which (‘asher) they recount to (saphar – they proclaim, record, and write to) mankind (‘iysh), to their fellow countrymen and associates (la rea’ – to others in their race and company), just as when in a relationship with (ka ‘asher ‘eth ba – similarly as when engaged in the same relationship with) the Lord (ha Ba’al), their fathers (‘ab – their forefathers and ancestors) overlooked, ignored, and forgot (sakah – were not mindful of and ceased to appreciate the significance of) My personal and proper name (shem).’" (Yirmayahuw / Yah Lifts Up / Jeremiah 23:27LEB)
We know that this clerical sleight of hand began much earlier because Yahowah is recorded in His Torah warning that the crime of diminishing the use of His name was punishable by death and separation (in Qara’ / Called Out / Leviticus 24:9-16). The Rabbis, however, took the opposite approach and said that the use of Yahowah’s name was a crime punishable by death. It is why Rabbis replaced Yahowah’s name with "Lord," under the guise that it was "too sacred to say." Affirming this, the publishers in the preface of most every popular English bible translation openly admit that they replaced God’s name with "the LORD" because of religious traditions, as if rabbinical authorization was a license to deceive.
So if this same Rabbinical mindset was shared by the Disciples, we would have absolute proof that their writing style was influenced by religion, and was not inspired by the same God who conveyed the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. And that would mean that nothing in the Christian "New Testament" could be considered inspired, and thus to be Scripture.
It is curious, of course, that not one in a thousand pastors, priests, religious teachers, or scholars even mentions the universal application of the ten placeholders on every page of every manuscript written within three centuries of Yahowsha’s earthly life. And yet, if any portion of the Greek text was inspired by God, then these ten placeholders were designated by God. It is as simple as that. Ignoring them would then be in direct opposition to God’s will.
I am convinced that there are only two rational reasons for Yahowah to write out His name 7,000 times in the Hebrew Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, and reference His titles countless times more, only to never have any of them written in the Greek manuscripts—even when Hebrew verses are being quoted by Yahowsha’.
First, Yahowah’s name, Yahowsha’s name, and all of God’s titles convey essential truths in Hebrew which are lost in translation. Rather than replace those meanings with Greek pseudo-equivalents, Yahowah wants us to turn to the Torah and Prophets for complete explanations and accurate answers. The Torah is the foundation upon which Yahowah’s plan is based, so to understand His plan, we have to view it from this perspective.
The second reason is that the sounds produced by the 22 Hebrew letters differ from the sounds represented by the 24 letters in the Greek alphabet. Of particular interest, there is no Y, W, soft H, or SH in Greek, the letters which comprise Yahowah’s and Yahowsha’s name. And since names don’t change from one language to another, and always sound the same, there was simply no way to transliterate Yahowah or Yahowsha’ using the Greek alphabet. So rather than change His name, or misrepresent it, Yahowsha’ taught His Disciples to use placeholders.
I’m not the first to recognize this predicament, or the first to deal with it. As I mentioned a moment ago, every extant first- and second-century BCE and first- and second-century CE copy of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, inserts Yahowah’s and Yahowsha’s name into the Greek text using paleo- or Babylonian Hebrew letters. It was only after the scribes were no longer conversant in Hebrew that the Greek placeholders were used to convey God’s name.
A prominent early manuscript scholar offered a different, albeit uninformed, comparison between the Greek placeholders and the presentation of God’s name found in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, of which you should be aware. He claimed that the Hebrew letters YHWH represented a contraction similar to what is found in the early Greek texts. But if that was true, every single word in the Hebrew text would be a contraction. Said another way, Yahowah’s name isn’t written any different from any other Hebrew word or name used in Scripture or throughout Yisra’el. And the reason that this isn’t a problem is that the letters which comprise Yahowah’s name represent three of the five Hebrew vowels—with the Aleph and Ayin representing the other two. Using these vowels, every Hebrew name, title, and word is pronounceable.
Since there are very few things more important than understanding why the ten placeholders were used, and knowing what they represent, there is one more thing you should know. Technically speaking, there are actually eleven placeholders because the verb and noun form of "Upright Pole" and "to affix to an Upright Pillar" are both represented by Godly symbols.
Also worth noting, while the seven placeholders representing Yahowah’s and Yahowsha’s names and titles, in addition to Upright Pillar in both its verb and noun forms, are represented by Divine Placeholders 100% of the time on 100% of the Greek manuscripts dated to within 300 years of Yahowsha’s life here on earth, the remaining symbols, specifically Father, Mother, and Son, when applied to God, are commonly used, but not exclusively. And the reason for this is that the Greek words for father, mother, and son are too closely associated with their Hebrew equivalents to justify the ubiquitous application of a unique distinction.
The entire purpose of these Divine Placeholders was completely undermined, however, when Greek words, titles, and errant transliterations were substituted for them. If you were to read the Textus Receptus or more modern Nestle Aland, you wouldn’t even know that these symbols ever existed. The same is true with every popular English translation. A stunning amount of crucial information pertinent to our salvation was discarded in the process.
Therefore, to the Christian, Yahowah’s name became "Lord," Yahowsha’s name became "Jesus," the Ma’aseyah was changed to "Christ," and the feminine Ruwach, became the gender-neutral pneuma, which was rendered "Spirit." It is also how Upright Pillar migrated over time to "cross." Yet if any of these words, titles, names, or symbols were appropriate, the Disciples would have simply written them in their Greek manuscripts—but they didn’t, ever.
The truth is: "Lord" is Satan’s title. That is because the concept of lord represents the Adversary’s agenda and ambition. At best, "Jesus" is meaningless, and at worst, it is the name of the savior of the Druid religion (Gesus), where the Horned One is God. Recognizing that Constantine’s initial share of the Empire consisted of Britain, Gaul, and Spain, where the Druid religion flourished, the selection of Gesus could well have been politically expedient, as was incorporating most every pagan holiday into the new religion.
Worse still, as I’ve previously mentioned, "christos" means "drugged" in Greek. In fact, it is from the rubbing on of medicinal ointments that the anointed connotation of christos was actually derived. The Rx or Rho Chi symbolism associated with today’s drug stores is a legacy of the first two letters in christos.
And most intriguing of all is that the placeholder for Ma’aseyah, ΧΣ, was actually based upon Chrestus, not Christos—an entirely different word. And that is why all of the earliest manuscripts say that the first followers of “The Way” were called “Crestuaneos,” not “Christians.” They, like the one who had led the way to their salvation, were “useful tools and upright servants.”
All of this known, and it is important, after dedicating more than a year of my life to Sha’uwl’s letters, I don’t think he deployed the placeholders that are now found even in the oldest manuscripts. And if he did use them, it would have been because these same placeholders are used throughout the Septuagint. He would have wanted his epistles to look like Scripture. But the thing he did not want was for Yahowsha’ to be Yahowah Saving Us. Yahowsha’ could not be the Ma’aseyah, the Work of Yahowah, without completely undermining the entirety of Sha’uwl’s thesis. So just as Sha’uwl changed his own name, jettisoning its Hebrew meaning, he most assuredly discarded the message conveyed by the most important Hebrew title and name.
Therefore, while it is essential that you know that Yahowah, Himself, saved us by working on our behalf, which is what the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’ means, Sha’uwl, now Paulos, did not want anyone to realize this. As proof, he never once explains the meaning behind God’s title or name to his Greek and Roman audiences. So therefore as a result, in every translation of Galatians I’m going to make the most reasonable and informed assumption: that a scribe in Egypt harmonized Paulos’ epistles with copies of the Disciple’s eyewitness accounts and with the Septuagint, thereby adding the placeholders which were never intended by Paulos to accurately convey: the Ma’aseyah Yahowsha’. Moreover, as a former rabbi, he would have been duty bound to avoid all things "Yah."
Speaking of religious malfeasance, since Galatians is the principle text used to undermine Scripture’s foundation, and since it is cited to undermine Yahowsha’s repeated affirmations that He did not come to annul the Torah, but instead to fulfill it, it’s important that we consider the troubadour of the Christian justification: the King James Bible, as well as the Latin Vulgate upon which this revision was ultimately based. Therefore, recognizing that the Greek text reads, "Paulos, an apostle or delegate, not separating men, not even by the means of man, but to the contrary and emphatically on behalf of Iesou Christou and God, Father of the one having roused and awakened Him for public debate, raising Him out of a dead corpse...," here is the KJV rendition of Galatians 1:1: "Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)" It reflects its source, the Latin Vulgate: "Paulus, Apostolus, not from men and not through man, but through Iesum Christum, and Deum the Father, who raised him from the dead."
In that credibility has merit, here is how the most highly respected text, that of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, 27th Edition with McReynolds English Interlinear, reads: "Paul delegate not from men but not through man but through Jesus Christ and God father of the one having raised him from the dead..."
Sadly, the most recent rendition of Paulos’s letter simply reiterated all of the same mistakes. Consider the New Living Translation’s regurgitation of prior prose: "This letter is from Paul, an apostle. I was not appointed by any group of people or any human authority, but by Jesus Christ himself and by God the Father, who raised Jesus from the dead."
What’s particularly regrettable regarding the New Living Translation is that the "New Testament’s" coordinator was none other than Philip Comfort. And yet every book Professor Comfort has published on the extant early Greek manuscripts acknowledges the consistent presence of the Divine Placeholders. He isn’t ignorant of them, and therefore, he is without excuse.
Before we move on, please notice that all three translations transliterated apostolos, rather than translate its meaning. They all ignored the four placeholders found in the Greek manuscripts, and then improperly conveyed Yahowsha’s name, Yahowsha’s title, and Yahowah’s title. Further, egeiromai, meaning "to rouse from sleep," was translated based upon a tertiary definition in all three cases, as was nekros.
It is a natural, albeit annoying, tendency in spoken communication to use dependent clauses. But in the written word there is no excuse for run-on sentences, some of which comprise a paragraph or more.
Paulos’s first sentence of his first letter began, "Paulos, an apostle or delegate, not separating men, not even by the means of man, but to the contrary and emphatically on behalf of Iesou Christou and God, Father of the one having roused and awakened Him for public debate, raising Him out of a dead corpse," and then continued:"and (kai) all (pas) the (oi) brothers (adelphos) with (sym) me (emoi) to the (tais) called out (ekklesia – out called; from ek – out of or from and kaleo – to call) of the (tes) Galatias (Galatias – the Roman province of Galatia in Asia Minor, bounded on the north by Bithynia and Paphlagonia, on the east by Pontus, on the south by Cappadocia and Lycaonia, and on the west by Phrygia)…" (Galatians 1:2LEB)
First, Paul had a posse. Like all religious founders, he sought followers.
Second, there is no basis for anything remotely related to a "church" in the Greek texts. Ekklesia is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Miqra’ey because those who are Called Out are able to separate themselves from human institutions and join Yahowah’s Covenant family by responding to the Torah’s Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with God. Second only to the religious corruption of Yahowah’s and Yahowsha’s names through the avoidance of the Divine Placeholders, the replacement of ekklesia with "church" is the most lethal copyedit found in the so-called "Christian New Testament."
Third, the "book" of Galatians is actually an open letter, or epistle. Paulos was responding to a myriad of opponents who had criticized his preaching in Galatia. We are witnesses, however, to only one side of this debate – in similar fashion to the never-ending argument which permeates Muhammad’s Qur’an. And in our quest for accuracy, the proper pronunciation of the name ascribed to this audience is Gal·at·ee·ah.
Unlike what we find in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms, where God is seen dictating His message to a prophet or scribe who then writes down what he has heard in his native Hebrew tongue, Sha’uwl’s letters are the result of dictating a stream of consciousness to one of his devotees, to someone who was not a professional scribe, in Greek, a language foreign to him, rather than his native Hebrew, Aramaic, or Latin. Further, Paulos’s continued focus upon himself and his repetitive use of "but I say," where "I" represents Paul, not Yahowah, differentiates this self-proclaimed Apostle’s epistles from God’s Word. It also positions Paulos as the lead candidate for the wolf in sheep’s clothing who would come in his own name and still be popularly received.
As a result of this stylistic choice, Sha’uwl’s letters contain some of the most difficult passages to translate. There are many missing words, and Paul’s epistles are famous for their run-on sentences. Moreover, in Galatians, Sha’uwl is being attacked, and he is clearly on the defensive, trying to justify his persona, authority, and teachings, especially those in conflict with the Torah of the God he is supposedly representing. His claim of being an "Apostle" was being questioned, because he was not a witness to Yahowsha’s words or deeds.
Galatia, itself, was a Roman province in Asia Minor which extended to the Black Sea. The Galatians were originally Gauls who moved down the Rhine to mingle with Greeks and Jews. They were known for their quick temper, prompt action, inconsistency, and malleability. Sha’uwl knew them well, as he had traveled throughout their land in the pursuit of his mission.
Now as we will do throughout this review of Galatians, here are the Nestle-Aland, the Latin Vulgate, and the King James renditions of the second verse. The NA reveals: "and the with me all brothers to the assemblies of the Galatia." Next, the LV conveys: "and all the brothers who are with me: to the ecclesiis Galatiæ." Of which, the KJV published: "And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia:" In this case, its most egregious error cannot be blamed on the Latin Vulgate.
It is worth restating that few things in Christendom have been as harmful as changing the ekklesia, which means "called out," to "church." It created the impression that "Jesus Christ" had conceived a new, Christian institution to replace the Chosen People, and that this religious construct was somehow unrelated to Yahowah’s seven Invitations to be Called Out and Meet with Him, or even the Sabbath. And that led to the notion that the Feasts were nothing more than quaint "Jewish holidays." But now, at least you know who to blame for this devastating corruption of the text. The Rosicrucian Francis Bacon, serving the political interests of King Iames, was the first to perpetrate this grievous and damning corruption. His predecessors, such as John Wycliffe, either transliterated ekklesia or wrote "assembly."
In their desire to be politically correct, the revisionary paraphrase known as the NLT suggested: "All the brothers and sisters here join me in sending this letter to the churches of Galatia." There is no Greek textual basis for "and sisters," "here," "join me," "in sending," or "this letter." And ekklesia means "called out," not "churches." Equally misleading, the NLT created a new sentence, replete with a verb, to make it appear as if Paulos wasn’t actually engaged in a long-winded diatribe.
Also worth noting, only Galatians among Sha’uwl’s first five letters went out under his name alone. First and Second Thessalonians were sent from "Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy." First Corinthians was from Paul and Sosthenes, while the immensely troublesome, indeed demonic, epistle of Second Corinthians bears Timothy’s name in addition to Paul’s. In today’s vernacular, Sha’uwl wrote Galatians before his posse was popular.
The evidence suggests that this letter was dictated in haste immediately after the Yaruwshalaim Summit, immediately before Paul fell in love with Timothy. Equally telling is that while Sha’uwl will acknowledge Barnabas in this epistle, since the two severed their relationship in the immediate aftermath of the Yaruwshalaym Summit, he was excluded from the greeting and demeaned in the midst of a rather mean-spirited rant.
This next dependent clause is a great example of why it is so difficult to determine what Paulos was trying to say, and for us to ascertain why he chose to be so provocative. At issue here: there is no verb, and Charis (Greek) and Gratia (Latin) is the collective name of a very popular pagan trio of goddesses. "…Grace (charis – the name of the lovely and lascivious Greek goddesses of merriment, known to the Romans as the Gratia, from which "Grace" is derived) to you (humeis) and (kai) peace (eirene – harmony and tranquility, freedom from worry) from (apo) God (ΘΥ – a placeholder used by Yahowsha’s Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey ‘elohym, the Almighty), Father (pater) of us (emon) and (kai) Lord (ΚΥ – a placeholder used by Yahowsha’s Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey ‘edon, the Upright One, or Yahowah’s name), Iesou (ΙΗΥ – a placeholder used by Yahowsha’s Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey Yahowsha’, meaning Yahowah Saves) Christou (ΧΡΥ – a placeholder used by Yahowsha’s Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey Ma’aseyah)…” (Galatians 1:3)
Thankfully, charis is not found in the earliest and foundational books: Disciple Matthew or Mark (which was penned under the influence of the Disciple Shim’own Kephas / Peter). The Christian fixation on Charis, and its Roman manifestation, Gratia, is therefore a direct result of Paulos. Charis appears 107 times in the self-proclaimed Apostle’s letters, and another 14 times in Acts, a book written mostly about Paul and for Paul.
The only other mentions of charis in the Greek texts appear after the publication of Paul’s epistles. We find charis used in just one conversation in Yahowchanan / John (1:14-17). It is found four times in Luke, a book written from Paul’s perspective (of which there is no first-, second-, or third-century manuscript to verify these inclusions). Of the remaining 16 occurrences, we find all but two sprinkled in the poorest attested books: ten in Shim’own’s (Peter’s) letters (of which there are no reliable first-, second-, or third-century manuscripts (the late 3rd-century Papyrus 72 is extremely free (meaning imprecise and subject to substantial alterations), which suggests that it was heavily influenced by Marcion)), twice in Ya’aqob / James (of which there is no pre-Constantine manuscript of the 4:6 passage in which it appears), once in Second Yahowchanan / John (of which there is no pre-Constantine manuscript), and once in Jude (but P78 doesn’t include charis in the 4th verse indicating that it was later added by a scribe whose agenda was other than accuracy).
The first use of charis in Revelation (1:4LEB) is attested only by a fragment too small to validate which appears to be written by an untrained and unprofessional scribe (as determined by his penmanship) and in the early fourth-century on Papyrus 18, and is thus unreliable. The second purported inclusion of charis is found in Revelation 22:21LEB, but no pre-Constantine manuscript covers anything past the beginning of the 17th chapter, so it cannot be validated. Therefore, apart from the one poorly attested inclusion, there is no verification that charis was used by anyone other than Paul prior to the early fourth-century.
The reason that this is an issue is because Charis is the name of the three Greek Graces, known as the Charities (Charites). The English word "charity" is a transliteration of their name. These pagan goddesses of charm, splendor, and beauty, were often depicted in mythology celebrating nature and rejoicing over fertility. They were overtly erotic. Collectively they make four appearances in Homer’s Iliad and three in The Odyssey. In the order of their appearances, they are depicted offering bedroom attire to Aphrodite, participating in a ruse to trick Zeus, serving to lure Hypnos via promises of sex to mislead the father of the gods, as objects of beauty when splattered with blood, as the source of feminine attractiveness for handmaidens, as those who pampered Aphrodite after she was caught being unfaithful to her husband, and finally as a means to enchant through erotic dancing. And in the case of Aphrodite, the Graces "bathed her, anointed her with ambrosial oil, and dressed her in delightful apparel so that she might resume her loving duties" after having been caught in "the embrace of love with Ares," the God of War. Homer used the enchanting lure of the Graces to depict the beauty of war.
Some accounts attest that the Graces were the daughters of Zeus. Others claim that Charis were the daughters of Dionysus and Aphrodite. And that is particularly troubling because Paul claims to hear one of Dionysus’ most famous quotes during his conversion experience on the road to Damascus. And as it would transpire, Paul’s faith came to mirror the Dionysus cult (Bacchus in Roman mythology), which is one of the reasons why so many aspects of Pauline Christianity are pagan. (These troubling associations are detailed for your consideration in the "Kataginosko – Convicted" chapter.)
The Graces were associated with the underworld and with the Eleusinian Mysteries. Their naked form stands at the entrance of the Acropolis in Athens. Naked frescoes of the Charites adorn homes in Pompeii, Italy which means that they transcended the Greek religion and influenced Rome where they became known as the Gratia. Their appeal, beyond their beauty, gaiety, and sensual form, is that they held mysteries known only to religious initiates. Francis Bacon, as the founder of the Rosicrucians, would have loved them.
At issue here, and the reason that I bring this to your attention, is that Yahowah tells us in the Torah that the names of pagan gods and goddesses should not be memorialized in this way. "Do not bring to mind (zakar – remember or recall, mention or memorialize) the name of other (‘acher – or different) gods (‘elohym); neither let them be heard coming out of your mouth." (Shemowth / Names / Exodus 23:13LEB)
And: "I will remove and reject the names of the Lords and false gods (ba’alim) out of your mouth, and they shall be brought to mind and memorialized (zakar – remembered, recalled, and mentioned) by their name no more." (Howsha’ / Salvation / Hosea 2:16-17LEB)
And yet the name of the Greek goddesses, Charis, is the operative term of Galatians—one which puts Paulos in opposition to the very Towrah – Teaching and God which condemns the use of their names. Simply stated: the "Gospel of Grace" is pagan. It is literally "Gott’s spell of Gratia."
In ancient languages, it’s often difficult to determine if the name of a god or goddess became a word, or if an existing descriptive term later became a name. But we know that Greek goddesses, like those in Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, and Rome, bore names which described their mythological natures and ambitions. Such is the case with the Charites. They came to embody many of the things the word, charis, has come to represent: "joy, favor, mercy, acceptance, loving kindness, and the gift of goodwill," in addition to "licentiousness, sensuality, hedonism, merriment, and eroticism." So while we can’t be certain if the name Charis was based on the verb, chairo, or whether the verb was based upon the name, we know that it conveys all of these things, both good and bad.
There is a Hebrew equivalent to positive aspects of this term—one used in its collective forms 193 times in the Torah, Prophets, and Psalms. It is chen, from the verb, chanan. As a noun, it means "favor and acceptance by way of an unearned gift," which is why it is often mistranslated "grace" in English Bibles. To be chanan is "to be merciful, demonstrating unmerited favor," and as such chanan is errantly rendered "to be gracious." The author of the eyewitness account of Yahowsha’s life, whom we know as "John," was actually Yahowchanan, meaning "Yahowah is Merciful."
Before we move on, I want to bring your attention to another problem with our English translations. In this passage, the purpose of the placeholders for Yahowsha’s name and title, ΙΗΥ for “Yahowsha’” and ΧΡΥ for “Ma’aseyah,” and were ignored as usual. And in both cases, the placeholders were replaced by the Greek name and title which does not actually appear in the oldest manuscripts. In this way, the placeholders became Iesou Christou and then Jesus Christ.
For the second time in a row, Paulos has reversed the proper order of title and name, and I suspect to infer that "Iesou’s last name was "Christou," a ruse Christians have swallowed as if the poison was laced with Kool-Aid. But this is like writing "Francis Pope" rather than "Pope Francis." It is akin to writing "George King" instead of "King George." So even if the title "Christou" was accurate, and it is not, even if the Ma’aseyah was Greek, and He was not, writing Iesou Christou is wrong on every account.
Worse, now that Satan’s title, "Lord," has been associated with Iesou Christou, those who are cognizant of the Adversary’s agenda see his demonic influence on this letter. Satan could not corrupt Yahowsha’ while He was here, so now that He’s gone, he has inspired Sha’uwl to corrupt His nature.
Beyond this, absolutely no attempt was made in any English bible to translate or transliterate the Hebrew basis of Yahowsha’s title or name. And yet, the Greek charis, which is used as if it were a title in the phrase "Gospel of Grace" throughout Paul’s letters, was neither translated nor transliterated from the Greek, but instead was conveyed by replicating the name of the Roman version of the Greek goddesses, and therefore as "Grace." Inconsistencies like this are troubling, because they prove that the translators cannot be trusted.
While it is a smaller distinction, Yahowah and Yahowsha’ convey "shalowm," which speaks of "reconciliation." It is focused upon "restoring a relationship." Paulos, on the other hand, speaks of "eirene – peace," which is the absence of war. They aren’t the same.
Continuing our review of the sources of Christian corruption, the NA reads: "favor to you and peace from God father of us and Master Jesus Christ." Next, the KJV begins verse 1:3 by offering the pagan Goddesses to the Galatians: "Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ," This time, their inspiration was the Latin Vulgate, which reads: "Gratia and peace to you from the Father, our Domino, Iesu Christo."
I am always interested in knowing how pagan terms enter into the religious vernacular. In this case, we just learned that "Grace" comes to us by way of the Roman Catholic Vulgate. Gratia was the Latin name for the Greek Charis. And that is why they are known as the "Graces" in English.
In Pagan Rome, the three Gratia, or Graces, served as clever counterfeits for euangelion—Yahowsha’s healing and beneficial message. So all Christendom has done is transliterate the Roman name into English, and then base a religious mantra, "the Gospel of Grace," upon the name of these pagan deities.
This is deeply troubling. It is a scar upon the credibility of the texts. It is a mortal wound to Paul’s epistles, and it is an irresolvable death blow to Christendom.
In the NLT, rather than Paulos offering the Galatians "Grace," the Father and Son are depicted doing so. "May God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ give you grace and peace."
All three translations got one name right, that of the pagan goddesses, "Grace." The other name and titles, they got wrong—and those belonged to God. In fact, throughout this review, you will find that all of the most important names and titles – Yahowah, Ma’aseyah, Yahowsha’, Upright One, Ekklesia, and Healing Message – are always rendered errantly while all of the made up or less meaningful names and titles are transliterated accurately in most every English bible translation. And that is incriminating.
Sha’uwl’s rambling introductory sentence continues with: "…the one (tou) having given (didomi – having produced and allowed) Himself (heautou) on account of (peri – concerning and regarding) the (ton) sins (hamartia – wrong doings, wanderings away, and errors) of us (emon), so that (hopos – somehow, as a marker of indefinite means) He might possibly gouge or tear out (exaireo – He might choose to pick, pluck, root, or take out (in the aorist tense this depicts a moment in time, in the middle voice, He, not we, is affected by his actions, and in the subjunctive mood, this is a mere possibility)) us (emas) from (ek) the (tou) past inflexible and unrelenting circumstances of the old system (aionos – the previous era, the long period of time in history operating as a universal or worldly system, something that was existence in the earliest or prior times that continued over a long period of time; from aei – circumstances which are incessant, unremitting, relentless, invariable, and inflexible) which (tou) had been in place (enistamai – had occurred in the past but was influencing the present circumstances in which we had been placed, depicting were we had come from, and now found ourselves, presently threatened by a previous edit (in the perfect tense this is being used to describe a completed action in the past which still influences the present state of affairs, in the active voice the subject is performing the action, and as a participle in the genitive, the circumstance into which we have been placed is being presented as a verbal adjective which is being described by the following)) which is disadvantageous and harmful (poneros – which is wicked and worthless, evil and faulty, immoral and corrupt, annoying and mischievous, laborious and criminal, unprofitable and useless, unserviceable and malicious, malevolent and malignant (in the genitive, this adjective is modifying the previous genitive participle)) down from and in opposition to (kata – extending downward from, with regard to, and against) the desire and will (to thelema – the wish, inclination, intent, choice, pleasure, and decision) of the (tou) God (ΘΥ – a placeholder used by Yahowsha’s Disciples and in the Septuagint to convey ‘elohym, the Almighty, or Yahowah’s name) and (kai) Father (ΠΡΣ) of us (ego)…” (Galatians 1:4)
While it’s a fairly small copyedit, modern Greek texts use hyper between "giving Himself," and "us missing the mark," but on Papyrus 46, we find peri, instead. While these words convey similar thoughts, hyper, meaning "for the sake of and in place of," makes a stronger case, which is why scribes may have replaced peri with it.
This known, there are some insights to be gleaned from this passage – all of which are horrendous. First, once we come to understand that Ma’aseyah and Yahowsha’ mean the "Work of Yahowah" and "Yahowah Saves," we realize that Yahowah is the one who personally gave of Himself to save us. However, when these clauses are joined, we find Paulos claiming that the "Lord Iesou Christou," was "the one having given Himself." This is not a small distinction. It defies the very purpose and nature of God. This error in perception is akin to calling our Father "Lord."
While Paul expressly denounces this connection with hopos, which is a "marker of indefinite means." By including it, this introductory statement infers that the methods deployed by God to save us were "not planned," they "did not unfold on a fixed or appointed schedule," and that His "means were unclear, vague, and imprecise." Since this is all untrue, it’s instructive for you to know that Yahowah set apart from Himself a diminished corporeal manifestation to cure us of our sins. In this way, Yahowsha’s body served as the Passover Lamb and His soul, once associated with our mistakes, was placed in She’owl on the Sabbath to honor the promise to perfect us on Unleavened Bread.
But none of this occurred according to Paul. His Lord slept through it all. And he must have awakened in a horrible mood, at least based upon the angry and violent verb his apostle ascribed to him – exaireo: He might gouge, tear, and pluck out.
Or perhaps, the transformation from Sha’uwl, the murderous rabbi, to Paulos, the Lord’s Apostle, was a bit overstated. By any standard, and most especially in this context, exaireo was a poor choice of words. It literally speaks of "gouging and tearing out," in addition to "plucking and rooting out." Yes, exaireo can also convey "to rescue, to remove, and to take out," but when these softer approaches are connected with what the "Lord Iesou Christou" is allegedly delivering us from, it only gets worse.
In the Complete Word Study Dictionary, the primary definition of exaireo is "to take or pluck out an eye." They provided this example because both times Yahowsha’ is translated using the verb it is to depict the "plucking out of an eye." The only other time exaireo is used by other than Paul, Stephen is translated in Acts telling the High Priest that Yowseph was "exaireo – delivered from" all of his afflictions. Reflecting this usage, the secondary definition in the Complete Word Study Dictionary is "to take out of affliction." So in a moment we’ll consider the source of affliction from which this Lord is supposedly "rescuing" us.
The Dictionary of Biblical Languages concurs with its peers, reporting that exaireo principally means: "take out, gouge out, and tear out." Secondarily, they attest that it can convey "to rescue and set free." Then they point us to its root, haireomai, and reveal that exaireo also means "to choose." But this too is a problem. While Yahowah has every right to choose whomever He wants, for the most part, the option is ours. We were given freewill so that we might choose to engage in a relationship with God.
Moving on, the Exegetical Dictionary lists "pluck it out" as its favored definition. This is supported by Strong’s Lexicon which presents "to pluck out" as the most accurate depiction of exaireo. This is not a loving embrace.
Nonetheless, Paulos deployed exaireo in the aorist tense, which depicts an isolated moment in time without any respect to a process. As such, the sacrifices made by Paul’s Lord were random events, neither promised nor part of a plan. They didn’t even occur on a prescribed schedule – all of which is untrue. In the middle voice, his Lord is being affected by his own actions, which could only be valid if the Lord is Satan, not Yahowsha’. With regard to Yahowsha’s sacrifices, it is Yahowah’s Covenant children who benefited from them. But if Paul’s Lord is Satan, then it is the Adversary who is most favorably affected by this inversion of the truth. And last but not least, by using the subjunctive mood, faith becomes operative, because it presents a mere possibility.